In the Flesh vs. In the Spirit

[Skandelon]

Calvinists often quote Romans 8:7-8 as proof that mankind in unable to trust in Christ, even after being confronted by the gracious Holy Spirit wrought gospel truth.

But, by allowing scripture to interpret scripture we can see this is NOT the case. First, this text doesn't even mention the gospel, so there is no ground on which to claim that the gospel is insufficient to enable a lost man to respond.

Second, observe:

“You are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwell-s in you,” Paul declares (Rom. 8:9a).

So, to be 'in the Spirit,' the Spirit of God must dwell in us. How does that come to pass?

13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory. Eph. 1​

Clearly, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit comes 'when you hear the gospel...having believed.' So, one moves from being 'in the flesh' to being 'in the Spirit,' by hearing the gospel and believing it.

 

[kyredneck]

...and sealed with the Spirit is the same as born of the Spirit how?

Jn 3:21 makes it clear that God has already wrought within those BEFORE coming to Christ.

(brace yourself, it's about 'doing' and 'works' again (can't get away from it can you?))

 

[Winman]

Skan, I've been telling them you receive the Holy Spirit by faith for several years. They simply ignore it.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Paul's question demands the answer that he believed a person receives the Holy Spirit by first believing the gospel.

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Again, Paul's question shows he believed a person received the Holy Spirit as a result of believing the gospel.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Here Peter told the Jews at Pentacost to repent and believe the gospel (as only believers are baptized) and as a result they would receive the Holy Spirit.

All these scriptures show that men without the Spirit have the ability to believe the gospel.

Now watch them ignore scripture.

 

[kyredneck]

...and we've been telling you for years this is not the same as 'born of the Spirit'.

Make that chop suey Winman.

 

[Winman]

...and we've been telling you for years this is not the same as 'born of the Spirit'.

Make that chop suey Winman.

Well, then please show me where the scriptures say we are born of the Spirit before faith.

I don't think you can do that.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Skan, I've been telling them you receive the Holy Spirit by faith for several years. They simply ignore it.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Paul's question demands the answer that he believed a person receives the Holy Spirit by first believing the gospel.

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Again, Paul's question shows he believed a person received the Holy Spirit as a result of believing the gospel.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Here Peter told the Jews at Pentacost to repent and believe the gospel (as only believers are baptized) and as a result they would receive the Holy Spirit.

All these scriptures show that men without the Spirit have the ability to believe the gospel.

Now watch them ignore scripture.

:thumbs:....Nice Post! Thank you! :thumbs:

 

[kyredneck]

My first post Winman, Jn 3:21, include v 20 also. Make chop suey of it.

 

[Winman]

My first post Winman, Jn 3:21, include v 20 also. Make chop suey of it.

Jhn 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Well, one thing I can't make of this scripture is proof that a person is born of the Spirit before faith. Maybe you could try again?

Show any scripture that says you must be born of the Spirit before you can believe the gospel.

I mean, this is what you believe, there must be scripture to support it, no??

 

[Van]

Is it true, one must be indwelt with the Spirit, in order to be "in the Spirit?" How does one consider himself or herself a wretched sinner if their mind is set on fleshly passion? Explain Romans 7, and Paul thinking about godliness, but being at war with his fleshly desires.

Your view of Romans 7:9 needs to be corrected. Study the passage.

 

[kyredneck]

Jhn 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Well, one thing I can't make of this scripture is proof that a person is born of the Spirit before faith. Maybe you could try again?

No, not going to try again with another passage; want to stick with this one.

Two types of folks here; one doing evil and hates Christ and doesn't come to Him, the other doing the truth comes to Christ, his doing the truth, his deeds (works) were wrought in God BEFORE coming to Christ. Simple really. Powerful too. Lots of 'God involvement' there. I love it. It's good news. It makes my heart happy.

 

[Winman]

No, not going to try again with another passage; want to stick with this one.

Two types of folks here; one doing evil and hates Christ and doesn't come to Him, the other doing the truth comes to Christ, his doing the truth, his deeds (works) were wrought in God BEFORE coming to Christ. Simple really. Powerful too. Lots of 'God involvement' there. I love it. It's good news. It makes my heart happy.

Except it doesn't teach which comes first, being born of the Spirit, or faith.

All of the scriptures I showed showed that a person first believes and then receives the Spirit afterward. Surely this is when a person is born of the Spirit. How could you be born of the Spirit and not have the Spirit??

 

[kyredneck]

Except it doesn't teach which comes first, being born of the Spirit, or faith.

It teaches God has already wrought within those that come to Christ.

 

[Winman]

It teaches God has already wrought within those that come to Christ.

Well, it does not say they were born of the Spirit. I am going to hold you to the same standard you hold me. You have in no way proved your position.

Everyone agrees that the Holy Spirit works upon a person who comes to Christ. In fact, you could not come to Christ unless you had first heard of him (Rom 10:14). Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, and Jesus said his words were spirit and life.

But that is not the same as receiving the Spirit and being born of Him. The Spirit must enter you and be joined to your spirit to be born of him (1 Cor 6:17) just as a man and woman are joined together and become one flesh.

 

[BobRyan]

Calvinists often quote Romans 8:7-8 as proof that mankind in unable to trust in Christ, even after being confronted by the gracious Holy Spirit wrought gospel truth.

But, by allowing scripture to interpret scripture we can see this is NOT the case. First, this text doesn't even mention the gospel, so there is no ground on which to claim that the gospel is insufficient to enable a lost man to respond.

That is certainly true.

Nothing in Romans 8 says that "despite the willingness of man to respond and the efforts of the Holy Spirit to draw man to the Gospel - some people are still unable to come to Christ and that is because God has not "effectively willed" that they should come to him and repent".

Nor anything of the sort.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It teaches God has already wrought within those that come to Christ.

Let's not dance around the point - getting straight to the Calvinist distinctive here -

It does not teach "man must be born again or else he will not and cannot come to Christ".

It does not each "before coming to Christ in repentance you must first be born again"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

Clearly, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit comes 'when you hear the gospel...having believed.' So, one moves from being 'in the flesh' to being 'in the Spirit,' by hearing the gospel and believing it.

That is not the issue. Just as it is not the issue whether the gospel is the power of God to salvation. The issue is what is it that hears and what does it mean to "hear"? Deuteronomy 5:29 and 29:4 clearly teach that this ability comes WITH the new heart rather than any ability prior to that new heart. We believe to "hear" includes obedience to the gospel rather than merely audible sounds. Neither is this an issue of CHRONOLOGICAL order as I believe new birth and gospel faith are simeltaneous with only a logical order. The grammar in 1 John 5:1 supports this view with the state of being present tense "is" with the perfect tense verb "born" and present tense participle "believeth."

So it is not a Chronological order (1) hearing; (2) gospel conversion; (3) indwelling Spirit but rather WHEN the Spirit of God gives the new heart that IS the Holy Spirit giving a "hearing" ear or heart obedience to the gospel which accompanies the presence of the Holy Spirit. Hence, there is no such thing as an unregenerated believer OR a regenerated unbeliever. This is also supported by the Greek grammar in Ephesians 1:13 as the words "after" are not found in the Greek text but rather this may be translated "when".

 

[Winman]

That is not the issue. Just as it is not the issue whether the gospel is the power of God to salvation. The issue is what is it that hears and what does it mean to "hear"? Deuteronomy 5:29 and 29:4 clearly teach that this ability comes WITH the new heart rather than any ability prior to that new heart. We believe to "hear" includes obedience to the gospel rather than merely audible sounds. Neither is this an issue of CHRONOLOGICAL order as I believe new birth and gospel faith are simeltaneous with only a logical order. The grammar in 1 John 5:1 supports this view with the state of being present tense "is" with the perfect tense verb "born" and present tense participle "believeth."

So it is not a Chronological order (1) hearing; (2) gospel conversion; (3) indwelling Spirit but rather WHEN the Spirit of God gives the new heart that IS the Holy Spirit giving a "hearing" ear or heart obedience to the gospel which accompanies the presence of the Holy Spirit. Hence, there is no such thing as an unregenerated believer OR a regenerated unbeliever. This is also supported by the Greek grammar in Ephesians 1:13 as the words "after" are not found in the Greek text but rather this may be translated "when".

Absolute baloney, all scripture supports that a person first believes, and then afterward receives the Holy Spirit as a result of believing. Even 1 John 5:1 places believing before being born of God.

1 Jhn 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

This is the ONLY verse in all of scripture that Calvinists can hope to wrest to support their unscriptural view, and even this verse says the person that believes is born of God. It does not say the person born of God believes. So even this one verse places believing BEFORE being born of God.

Calvinists simply ignore the many scriptures already shown that ALL show a person first believes, and then as a result of believing receives the Spirit.

 

[The Biblicist]

Absolute baloney, all scripture supports that a person first believes, and then afterward receives the Holy Spirit as a result of believing. Even 1 John 5:1 places believing before being born of God.

1 Jhn 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

This is the ONLY verse in all of scripture that Calvinists can hope to wrest to support their unscriptural view, and even this verse says the person that believes is born of God. It does not say the person born of God believes. So even this one verse places believing BEFORE being born of God.

Calvinists simply ignore the many scriptures already shown that ALL show a person first believes, and then as a result of believing receives the Spirit.

The only hope you guys have is to pervert scriptures, jerk them out of context and ignore Greek grammar. Congratulations you have done all three.

Even the English text uses the present tense "is" to show simeltaneous action between believing and born. However, the Greek text uses the perfect tense for "born" and the present tense participle for "believeth." Go figure!

 

[Winman]

The only hope you guys have is to pervert scriptures, jerk them out of context and ignore Greek grammar. Congratulations you have done all three.

Even the English text uses the present tense "is" to show simeltaneous action between believing and born. However, the Greek text uses the perfect tense for "born" and the present tense participle for "believeth." Go figure!

Again, pure baloney, nobody is fooled.

 

[Sapper Woody]

The only hope you guys have is to pervert scriptures, jerk them out of context and ignore Greek grammar. Congratulations you have done all three.

Even the English text uses the present tense "is" to show simeltaneous action between believing and born. However, the Greek text uses the perfect tense for "born" and the present tense participle for "believeth." Go figure!

Which perfect tense for "born" is it using? This is the second time in as many days I've seen someone say "Perfect Tense" without giving which perfect tense. There are 6 perfect tenses:
1. Present Perfect
2. Past Perfect
3. Future Perfect
4. Present Perfect Progressive
5. Past Perfect Progressive
6. Future Perfect Progressive

Which tense is being used makes a HUGE difference. I'm interested in this debate, and trying to learn. But near as I can tell, a lot of people (on both sides) don't have a clue what they are talking about, aren't really interested in discussion, and just want to parrot something they've been told their whole lives.