Apparent contradiction?

[webdog]

Let's do a refresher of what you said.



What you said above wasn't based on the Bible but your opinion. (ok, the story of Lazarus was on the Bible...) The Holy Spirit convicts the heart. Just giving the gospel alone doesn't save. I've given the gospel to people and they were not saved.

Actually, what's written above is manmade theology and not found in Scripture. Define "convicting the heart". Besides giving us the Bible, Scripture is clear all men have God's law written on their heart. It also states each and every one of us have been specially placed to seek Him (literally grope around for Him as in a blind state) although He is not far from any of us. It also is clear each uf us instinctively know God and His power through creation.

Are these all not works of the Spirit? If so please tell me what work He performs so that we can identify what is already His work?

 

[jbh28]

Actually, what's written above is manmade theology and not found in Scripture. Define "convicting the heart". Besides giving us the Bible, Scripture is clear all men have God's law written on their heart. It also states each and every one of us have been specially placed to seek Him (literally grope around for Him as in a blind state) although He is not far from any of us. It also is clear each uf us instinctively know God and His power through creation.

Are these all not works of the Spirit? If so please tell me what work He performs so that we can identify what is already His work?

I just quoted you. So were you wrong when you said "The gospel isn't a divine tazer that everyone who hears WILL believe, but it is the work of the Spirit to convict sinners. "

 

[jbh28]

EXACTLY!!! :applause:

The gospel is not the Holy Spirit. The gospel is the truth that Jesus did on the cross and was raised up again. The Holy Spirit is the 3rd person of the trinity.

 

[jbh28]

Let's reword this statement replacing the word "gospel" with Paul's definition of gospel, shall we?

"Just the power of God for salvation alone, doesn't save."

are all people that hear the gospel saved? And that's not the definition of the gospel that Paul gave. That's describing the gospel. The gospel is that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and was raised again in 3 days. i cor 15

So, why did he call the gospel the power of God for salvation if it doesn't have the power to save?

Because Jesus does have the power to save. Jesus dying on the cross paid for our sin.

How does the Holy Spirit convict the heart? What means, if any, does the Holy Spirit use to convict men's hearts?

I'll give you a clue. It starts with the letter "G" and sound's like "ospel."

Thus the proof that God's gracious Holy Spirit wrought calling is not irresistible. Thanks!

Of course it's not "irresistible" and no one says it is. No one would say that everyone that hears the gospel is saved nor that no one rejects or resists the gospel when they hear it.

 

[webdog]

I just quoted you. So were you wrong when you said "The gospel isn't a divine tazer that everyone who hears WILL believe, but it is the work of the Spirit to convict sinners.

wrong about what? Why the games? What does this have to do with the recent exchange?

 

[Skandelon]

The gospel is not the Holy Spirit.

I didn't say it was. But Jesus comes close to saying that when he said, "The words I speak to you (gospel) are spirit and life."

I've said the Gospel is a work of the Holy Spirit. He produces, preserves and carries it by Holy Spirit indwelled messengers throughout the entire world. Don't you affirm this at least?

 

[jbh28]

I didn't say it was. But Jesus comes close to saying that when he said, "The words I speak to you (gospel) are spirit and life."

I've said the Gospel is a work of the Holy Spirit. He produces, preserves and carries it by Holy Spirit indwelled messengers throughout the entire world. Don't you affirm this at least?

I'm sorry, I misunderstood when webdog said "can the Holy Spirit without the Holy Spirit convict sinners" When he changed the word "gospel" to "Holy Spirit I thought he meant that the gospel is the holy spirit. Otherwise it makes no sense to make the change.

so the holy Spirit uses the gospel. How does he change a person to go from not believing to believing?

 

[jbh28]

wrong about what? Why the games? What does this have to do with the recent exchange?

First, I don't play games. Never had, so the charge is not warranted.

You said "Actually, what's written above is manmade theology and not found in Scripture." What was above is what you said. I made additional comments
The Holy Spirit convicts the heart. - you said this
Just giving the gospel alone doesn't save. - obviously people have heard the gospel and are not saved
I've given the gospel to people and they were not saved. - people are not saved by just giving them the gospel. So what was "manmade theology and not found in Scripture"

 

[webdog]

First, I don't play games. Never had, so the charge is not warranted.

You said "Actually, what's written above is manmade theology and not found in Scripture." What was above is what you said. I made additional comments
The Holy Spirit convicts the heart. - you said this
Just giving the gospel alone doesn't save. - obviously people have heard the gospel and are not saved
I've given the gospel to people and they were not saved. - people are not saved by just giving them the gospel. So what was "manmade theology and not found in Scripture"

I asked you to define what you mean by the work of the Spirit, to which you replied "I was just quoting you". I defined how th Spirit works...now we cannot go any further until you do so.

 

[Skandelon]

so the holy Spirit uses the gospel. How does he change a person to go from not believing to believing?

Faith comes by hearing, but if the man, who is without excuse, chooses to trade the truth in for a lie that is his own fault, not God's failing (i.e. not loving, choosing, or graciously providing everything needed)

 

[canadyjd]

As I told you then, I'll tell you now: Pharaoh is an example of one who was blinded in his rebellion from the obvious truth for a time so as for God to accomplish a greater purpose of redemption.

Please show me from Romans 9 where scripture says Pharaoh was "blinded in his rebellion from the obvious truth for a time..."? You are adding that in an attempt to support for your doctrine of judicial hardening which just isn't there. The context doesn't support it.

Romans 9:22-24 is the very heart of Paul's argument and it has nothing to do with judicial hardening of Jews.

Romans 9:22 "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? (23) And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, (24) even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles."

The passage proclaims God's sovereignty in the affairs of mankind, even to the point of preparing some for destruction, with the specific purpose of bringing those He has chosen (children of the promise: both Jew and Gentile:, predestined...called...justified...) to glory.

The passage is clear, and judicial hardening is not part of it.

peace to youraying:

 

[mandym]

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

There is no contradiction.

The issue is in how we understand the word "know". There is a distinct difference being having a knowledge of and actually knowing someone. Reading through the gospel of John we see Jesus explaining in various terms how this works. He talked in the language people could understand on the physical level but unless drawn by God they would never really understand the true message of His words. To put it simply, they did not have ears to hear.

Knowing, like hearing and believing, are active words the imply something deeper in their meaning than most people grasp.

However you want to spin the word "know" scripture clearly says that men who reject God is condemned because they had the "know" sufficient to accept Him.

 

[jbh28]

I asked you to define what you mean by the work of the Spirit, to which you replied "I was just quoting you". I defined how th Spirit works...now we cannot go any further until you do so.

No, you will answer my question to you.

Actually, what's written above is manmade theology and not found in Scripture."

The Holy Spirit convicts the heart. - you said this
Just giving the gospel alone doesn't save. - obviously people have heard the gospel and are not saved
I've given the gospel to people and they were not saved. - people are not saved by just giving them the gospel. So what was "manmade theology and not found in Scripture"

Those were my three statements. Your statement was

So the gospel is ineffective unless a further work of the Spirit is first performed? There is no Scripture that supports that view. The gospel isn't a divine tazer that everyone who hears WILL believe, but it is the work of the Spirit to convict sinners.

You used the term "work of the spirit" so lets you define what you meant when you said it. And what part of what I said was "manmade theology and not found in Scripture"?

 

[jbh28]

Faith comes by hearing, but if the man, who is without excuse, chooses to trade the truth in for a lie that is his own fault, not God's failing (i.e. not loving, choosing, or graciously providing everything needed)

Where in Scripture does it say that if God doesn't choose to save man has an excuse. Please provide the Scripture.

It's very simple.

1. Its not in the bile
2. the passage is___________


The Bible: man is without excuse because God has clearly revealed himself through creation
You: man has an excuse if God doesn't choose to save him despite the fact God has clearly revealed himself through creation.

So the Bible passage...

 

[webdog]

No, you will answer my question to you.


The Holy Spirit convicts the heart. - you said this
Just giving the gospel alone doesn't save. - obviously people have heard the gospel and are not saved
I've given the gospel to people and they were not saved. - people are not saved by just giving them the gospel. So what was "manmade theology and not found in Scripture"

Those were my three statements. Your statement was

You used the term "work of the spirit" so lets you define what you meant when you said it. And what part of what I said was "manmade theology and not found in Scripture"?

These are the very games that you claim you don't play. Post 61 I asked you to define what convicting the heart was. The manmade theology is the fact some other work of the Spirit besides the works of the ]pirit needs to be performed. Now drop the grandstanding and anty up. Define what a work of the spirit is to open a persons heart as you claim without further derailing this. Again, I already defined how the Spirit works. Your turn.

 

[Skandelon]

Where in Scripture does it say that if God doesn't choose to save man has an excuse. Please provide the Scripture.

I didn't say that. I said that he has an excuse for not accepting God's appeal to be reconciled. God doesn't have to provide salvation for anyone if he doesn't want to, but since he has and he makes an appeal to all, the question is, "What, if anything, prevents a man from accepting that divine appeal?" Calvinists believe the man's inborn nature (i.e. totally depravity) prevents him from desiring to accept such an appeal from God, thus the EXCUSE.

 

[Amy.G]

Calvinists believe the man's inborn nature (i.e. totally depravity) prevents him from desiring to accept such an appeal from God, thus the EXCUSE.

Of course it's man's nature that prevents him from desiring God. What else would prevent him??

 

[jbh28]

These are the very games that you claim you don't play.

It's not a game. It's a very direct question. The only game that is being played is your false accusation of me playing a game.

Post 61 I asked you to define what convicting the heart was. The manmade theology is the fact some other work of the Spirit besides the works of the ]pirit needs to be performed. Now drop the grandstanding and anty up. Define what a work of the spirit is to open a persons heart as you claim without further derailing this.

Which of my statements was false?
1. The Holy Spirit convicts the heart. - you said this
2. Just giving the gospel alone doesn't save.

Here's the post.http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1832673&postcount=57

I quoted you and made the statement. What was "Actually, what's written above is manmade theology and not found in Scripture."

When you can tell me that, we can then get to what it means to convict the heart of the sinner.

 

[jbh28]

I didn't say that.

yes you did.

Faith comes by hearing, but if the man, who is without excuse, chooses to trade the truth in for a lie that is his own fault, not God's failing (i.e. not loving, choosing, or graciously providing everything needed)

I said that he has an excuse for not accepting God's appeal to be reconciled. God doesn't have to provide salvation for anyone if he doesn't want to,

very good on the bolded part!

but since he has and he makes an appeal to all, the question is, "What, if anything, prevents a man from accepting that divine appeal?" Calvinists believe the man's inborn nature (i.e. totally depravity) prevents him from desiring to accept such an appeal from God, thus the EXCUSE.

Not according to the Romans 1 passage. Again and again you keep saying an excuse which is directly against the Bible. You have no Bible to back that statement up.

Let me revise my statement up to be sure I'm represeting correctly.

The Bible: man is without excuse because God has clearly revealed himself through creation
You: man has an excuse because of his sinful nature despite the fact God has clearly revealed himself through creation.

 

[Skandelon]

Of course it's man's nature that prevents him from desiring God. What else would prevent him??

Tell JHB, because he seems to think they have no excuse for such a response, when clearly their excuse is that they were born that way (nature) and thus couldn't do otherwise.