Calvinism vs. DoG??

[webdog]

My point is you made a mockery concerning the word corpse. The Scriptures support this by definition, so the fact is, corpse is the correct definition. No need to go down another rabbit trail over it.

I disagree that Scripture supports the "corpse theory" of spiritual death. The entire point at all in referring to to our spiritual condition apart from God as "death" in the first place is to merely show separation.

It's just a plain fact: you cannot give much credit to anyone, even when Scriptures support what is said.

Pure hyperbole. I've given credit numerous times where credit is due, just did with RAdam on the thread about Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays in fact.

Instead of admitting to any point, you just continue to argue it and avoid it and move it into another area.

Wrong. I will not admit to man's spiritual separation being compared to a corpse in being unable to respond because Scripture does not support it, not because of who I am. Paul was speaking to these "corpses" telling them that God put these "corpses" in the right place and time to seek Him and "perhaps" reach out and find Him although He is not far from any one. Awful lot of ability for a corpse, no?

Didn't you say you are new to this theology? How can you be so adamant, then concerning it? I was once where you are at now, btw.

 

[webdog]

I said find a time I used it in such a manner. That was your whole point if you were going to use dead in the way you were going to use it. Again, find me a time I used it in such a manner and defined the parameters of such a comparison.

The bible used natural Jerusalem to illustrate spiritual Jerusalem (New Jerusalem). If I make that statement without further explanation, that doesn't give you the right to set up an argument and then try to hedge me into a corner based on some position you've taken when I never explained what I meant.

I said lacks life and/or movement. You zoned in on movement because it suited your purpose.

In such a manner as what? You compared spiritual death to physical. That is using it in such a manner.

It's not an "and/or" issue. Lack of movement is a result OF death not defined AS death.

 

[Luke2427]

Wrong. I will not admit to man's spiritual separation being compared to a corpse in being unable to respond because Scripture does not support it, not because of who I am.

Scripture DOES teach that one is a corpse spiritually. It says as much in Ephesians- the very word for dead meaning corpse.

It teaches that the natural man CANNOT receive the things of the spirit of God.

Jesus said a man must be born again before he can SEE the Kingdom of God.

Why? Because the spirit is dead. It must be made alive to be able to SEE the Kingdom of God.

The new birth is called being born of the Spirit which indicates that the thing BORN is the spirit of man since that is the part of man that the Holy Spirit deals with. The reason it must be born is because it is dead.

Romans 3 says that there is NONE that doeth good, no not one. Why do you suppose that is? Because the natural man is dead spiritually and can do no real good since real good must be done in a worshipful way toward God and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth and the natural man is dead spiritually so he can do NO good.

Romans 3 also says there is none that seeketh after God. Why do you suppose that is? Because the natural man is dead spiritually and to seek after God is impossible because it is a spiritual endeavor.

 

[webdog]

Scripture DOES teach that one is a corpse spiritually. It says as much in Ephesians- the very word for dead meaning corpse.

It teaches that the natural man CANNOT receive the things of the spirit of God.

Jesus said a man must be born again before he can SEE the Kingdom of God.

Why? Because the spirit is dead. It must be made alive to be able to SEE the Kingdom of God.

The new birth is called being born of the Spirit which indicates that the thing BORN is the spirit of man since that is the part of man that the Holy Spirit deals with. The reason it must be born is because it is dead.

Romans 3 says that there is NONE that doeth good, no not one. Why do you suppose that is? Because the natural man is dead spiritually and can do no real good since real good must be done in a worshipful way toward God and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth and the natural man is dead spiritually so he can do NO good.

Romans 3 also says there is none that seeketh after God. Why do you suppose that is? Because the natural man is dead spiritually and to seek after God is impossible because it is a spiritual endeavor.

Find the word corpse anywhere in Ephesians and Romans, and you might have a point. Being dead in trespasses and in sins does not say one is a corpse.

Also, please tell us what good does it do punishing a corpse. Hell is rendered moot in your corpse model. Can you punish a physical corpse? If you are going to be adamant in the comparison, be consistent at least.

 

[preacher4truth]

I disagree that Scripture supports the "corpse theory" of spiritual death. The entire point at all in referring to to our spiritual condition apart from God as "death" in the first place is to merely show separation.
Pure hyperbole. I've given credit numerous times where credit is due, just did with RAdam on the thread about Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays in fact.
Wrong. I will not admit to man's spiritual separation being compared to a corpse in being unable to respond because Scripture does not support it, not because of who I am. Paul was speaking to these "corpses" telling them that God put these "corpses" in the right place and time to seek Him and "perhaps" reach out and find Him although He is not far from any one. Awful lot of ability for a corpse, no?

Didn't you say you are new to this theology? How can you be so adamant, then concerning it? I was once where you are at now, btw.

The fact that spiritually dead, is literally nekros, in Ephesians and elsewhere, is not a theology, nor is it Calvinism, it's just plain Scripture. It is the definition of the word.

If you want to reject that, then that's your call.

I never interpreted the plain meaning of the word in order to sound Calvinist nor to support it. Also, I did this without any regard to what Calvinistic theology might have to say about it brother. I just looked at its literally meaning.

Just because the Calvinists got the definition of this correct, doesn't make it soley Calvinist theology, and thus in your mind, must be wrong.

To cast it off as such, when the truth is plain, isn't very wise. Who cares what Calvinism says about this word, and the extreme slant others give to this word corpse via this theology?

"And you has he made alive, who were spiritually, corpses"

Oh no!!! Calvinism? Uh, naw. That's plain Bible.

Lighten up Francis, it is what it is. Why do I have to be painted a hyper (nearly) because of this? Please don't assume I take every minute doctrine of Calvinism as a given. I think I have been completely honest in my theology. I don't take the teachings to an extreme. I happen to believe in it, but I am a Bible believing, Bible thumping Christian first and foremost. I feel you take me to task over my theology, assuming I embrace it to the extreme of an HC.

Maybe if you look at me in another light, you'll not be so biased when you respond. Again, I am not on the extreme side of this theology.

I lubs ya man!!!!

:love2:

 

[webdog]

P4T, don't take it so personal...breathe into a brown paper bag

I also don't believe it's "hyper" to hold to your understanding of it. It's mainstream...but still wrong

Here is your definition of nekros. Notice the "metaphorical" usage AND the primary. Context determines it's meaning, and based on the metaphorical use and NOT the literal physical understanding, it cannot mean "corpse"

1. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]
   [*] properly
   
   1. one that has breathed his last, lifeless
   2. deceased, departed, one whose soul is in heaven or hell
   3. destitute of life, without life, inanimate
   
   [*] metaph.
   
   1. spiritually dead
      1. destitute of a life that recognizes and is devoted to God, because given up to trespasses and sins
      2. inactive as respects doing right
   2. destitute of force or power, inactive, inoperative
   [/FONT]

 

[preacher4truth]

So what you do is interpret the word however it best fits your theology and however it makes better intellectual sense to you, instead of in its literal meaning, although you cannot understand it clearly, nor want to accept it?

I simply am interpreting it literally. And all of us will live forever. Either in our spiritual corpse, or in our glorified body.

 

[webdog]

So what you do is interpret the word however it best fits your theology and however it makes better intellectual sense to you, instead of in its literal meaning, although you cannot understand it clearly?

Not what I said, is it. Context determines it's meaning. When used to speak of spiritual death it is a metaphor...not the literal comparison to the physical. The primary is "one who breathed their last". That alone puts a huge dent in Augustine's position.

I simply am interpreting it literally. And all of us will live forever. Either in our spiritual corpse, or in our glorified body.

Not what I asked. What point is there in punishing a corpse? How can a corpse suffer, weep and gnash teeth? How can a corpse obey? Reject? Sin?

 

[preacher4truth]

Not what I said, is it. Context determines it's meaning. When used to speak of spiritual death it is a metaphor...not the literal comparison to the physical.
Not what I asked. What point is there in punishing a corpse? How can a corpse suffer, weep and gnash teeth?

I have no clue how they can do this. Do you?

What you do in your intepretation is place way more faith and value in mans ability, even while he is spiritually a corpse.

On the Calvinist side, there is way more faith placed in God who did all of the saving, and little to no value placed upon the spiritually dead nor in his ability to do a thing unless God intervenes. I'll hang out on that side of the camp.

None of us knows the full implcations of being spiritually dead. Knowing the holiness of God, I'll stick to the fact that we are a corpse in his Holy presence, and totally incapable. Without Him we can do nothing.

 

[webdog]

I have no clue how they can do this. Do you?

Yes...they can't It's impossible for a corpse to do those things and to be punished. That alone should refute that notion, no?

What you do in your intepretation is place way more faith and value in mans ability, even while he is spiritually a corpse.

How? I'm going by what the Bible says. The Bible says a spiritually dead person can reach out and perhaps find God. Like I said, that's ability.

On the Calvinist side, there is way more faith placed in God who did all of the saving, and little to no value placed upon the spiritually dead nor in his ability to do a thing unless God intervenes. I'll hang out on that side of the camp.

I disagree (are you shocked ) If anything, it renders hell meaningless and puts everything including sin onto God. If you are comfortable doing that, so be it...but excuse me for not joining you around the camp fire.

None of us knows the full implcations of being spiritually dead. Knowing the holiness of God, I'll stick to the fact that we are a corpse in his Holy presence, and totally incapable. Without Him we can do nothing.

We do know the full implication of being spiritually dead. It is complete separation from God and leads to an eternity apart from Him. Corpses won't be able to stand before God one day and give an account of their lives. Corpses can't do anything, right?

Now, not being able to come to God on our own apart from Him working first is not what spiritual death is.

 

[preacher4truth]

You asked if spiritually dead, corpse, is in Ephesians. It certainly is.

The difference here is you are believing your own logic, I am simply basing mine on the Bibles definition.

Those that are lost are spiritually dead, literally, a corpse. To you, the definition must work with your intellectual understanding and come under what you say it must mean, or it is not valid. That's the plain truth. Thus you twist its literal meaning to fit your finite mind, making you the authority by proxy.

In other words, it just can't be true if you can't figure it out, or it doesn't fit your theology or system, or it can't be true because it smells Calvinistic.

Jesus did ALL of the saving.

The definition stands as corpse, even if you can't understand or accept that. It's pure Bible. I'll stick to pure Bible rather than your finite definition controlled by your disdain for Calvinistic doctrine.

 

[webdog]

P4T, you are now simply talking past me, the accusations are starting to flow freely and I don't feel this is going anywhere. You should really deal with what is said, and not what you want to hear

 

[preacher4truth]

P4T, you are now simply talking past me, the accusations are starting to flow freely and I don't feel this is going anywhere. You should really deal with what is said, and not what you want to hear

I've dealt with what was said. You're "whatevering" now.

Didn't you consult a medical dictionary to supplant the meaning earlier?

Everything I said is true. If it doesn't fit your meaning, it must be wrong, even going as far as grabbing a medical dictionary to describe spiritual matters, at the same time telling one he can't use "dead as a door nail" to describe and explain things biblical.

That's a double standard.

I stuck to the facts.

I answered your questions, and now you tuck tail. But it's my fault. OK! Do tell me plainly where there are accusations. Because I reject your definition and stick to the Bibles definition? Why go to another source other than the Bible to get a definition webdog?

There were no accusations, just a description of your process, that's all. Saying there are accusations doesn't make it true.

My process stuck to the Biblical definition. You went elsewhere, thus I described your process. If that is accusing I apologize.

 

[Luke2427]

I've dealt with what was said. You're "whatevering" now.

Didn't you consult a medical dictionary to supplant the meaning earlier?

Everything I said is true. If it doesn't fit your meaning, it must be wrong, even going as far as grabbing a medical dictionary to describe spiritual matters, at the same time telling one he can't use "dead as a door nail" to describe and explain things biblical.

That's a double standard.

I stuck to the facts.

I answered your questions, and now you tuck tail. But it's my fault. OK! There were no accusations, just a description of your process, that's all. Saying there are accusations doesn't make it true.

My process stuck to the Biblical definition.

And when you got on here you witnessed a tussle between me and webdog and villainized me as arrogant, etc... because of what you saw.

Maybe now you will begin to see me in context since you are getting a taste of his ways yourself.

 

[webdog]

And when you got on here you witnessed a tussle between me and webdog and villainized me as arrogant, etc... because of what you saw.

Maybe now you will begin to see me in context since you are getting a taste of his ways yourself.

...or maybe it is still a matter of perspective, and we all have our faults, not just "webdog". Of course that cannot be possible...eh Luke?

 

[preacher4truth]

And when you got on here you witnessed a tussle between me and webdog and villainized me as arrogant, etc... because of what you saw.

Maybe now you will begin to see me in context since you are getting a taste of his ways yourself.

lol.

Do I sound arrogant and abrasive, or simply debating? BTW, I saw what you were dealing with, he avoids facts and goes on another trail.

 

[webdog]

I've dealt with what was said. You're "whatevering" now.

Didn't you consult a medical dictionary to supplant the meaning earlier?

Everything I said is true. If it doesn't fit your meaning, it must be wrong, even going as far as grabbing a medical dictionary to describe spiritual matters, at the same time telling one he can't use "dead as a door nail" to describe and explain things biblical.

That's a double standard.

I stuck to the facts.

I answered your questions, and now you tuck tail. But it's my fault. OK! Do tell me plainly where there are accusations. Because I reject your definition and stick to the Bibles definition? Why go to another source other than the Bible to get a definition webdog?

There were no accusations, just a description of your process, that's all. Saying there are accusations doesn't make it true.

My process stuck to the Biblical definition. You went elsewhere, thus I described your process. If that is accusing I apologize.

I believe my process was sound, and you are talking past me. You fail to address what I ask of you, and have many times.

 

[RAdam]

In such a manner as what? You compared spiritual death to physical. That is using it in such a manner.

It's not an "and/or" issue. Lack of movement is a result OF death not defined AS death.

I made no comparison. I simply brought up the fact that scripture makes a comparison. You haven't grasped that fact. You have stated I made a comparison and then attempted to use that to prove your definition of the word dead. I never made such a comparison. I also never stated to what extent scripture made the comparison. Just because scripture uses one thing to illustrate another it does not give us license to take it as far as we want. Scripture used the Day of Atonement to picture the sacrifice Christ made at Calvary, but that does not give us license to go as far as we want. The High Priest, who pictured Christ, had to make atonement for his own sins during that ceremony. Does that mean Christ had to as well? Of course not. So, you see there are limits to which the bible illustrates something and we must not go beyond that.

The big problem you are having with the word dead is you've picked one definition and strictly applied it with no regard whatsoever for how the bible uses such a word or how the word has been used in by English speaking people for hundreds of years. I've shown that we English speaking people have used the word dead for inanimate objects, objects which never had life. Your definition breaks down under such a usage. Scientists speak of matter without life as dead matter. They aren't saying the matter they have under consideration once had life, they are saying it currently lacks life.

 

[preacher4truth]

I believe my process was sound, and you are talking past me. You fail to address what I ask of you, and have many times.

We must then be twins!!!!

This is simply your technique in every thread bro.

I've simply answered you with biblical definitions. Is it better to define this with a medical dictionary?

Is it poossibly beyond our finite understanding that we are when in sin, a spiritual corpse?

 

[Luke2427]

lol.

Do I sound arrogant and abrasive, or simply debating? BTW, I saw what you were dealing with, he avoids facts and goes on another trail.

Not today- but I have seen you at least as abrasive as me in SOME exchanges.

But it is apparent that we are BOTH working on it.

But this guy brings out the worst in many of us.