Calvinists: Best Argument?

[Allan]

As a whole, the nation of Israel did resist God's call. That conformed to His purpose, did it not? However, the believing elect remnant did respond in faith.

Great, then you agree that not everyone the Lord calls unto will respond positively.

That is resistable grace.

Of course it conformed to His purpose but His purpose included calling them and giving them a choice. thus we see He still gave them understanding to rebuke, call unto them and stretched out His hands toward them. But they had to reject or accept Gods truth and calling.

 

[MB]

Joh 6:37"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

Now you tell me who can resist? All, here means All. And all those who the father has Given Jesus will come to Jesus. (now thats irresistable)

Does the bible need to say it more than once to be belived?

I can see why you might have that view. Don't you think that you really should consider why God would give anyone to Christ? Is'nt it true that man must believe before coming. Paul wrote;

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Somewhere along the line the man had to be convinced and convicted. Men will either come to the light or they won't the ones who don't are still resisting.
If there is an irresistable grace then there is no such thing as rebellion. Rebellion is resistance.
MB

 

[Isaiah40:28]

But I did
The truth is this: it is you who can't prove man doesn't have the capcity to beleive. There is nothing in scripture that states it is a different KIND of faith than the same faith all other men have. As I said if man has even a common faith, in regenerating man (in your view) that would make mans faith now able to receive Christ because his faith (in you view) is bound by his nature - ergo regenerated man would not need faith from God but simply would follow his natural inclination to believe. Scripture DOES however state there is a different object in which to place our faith. Scripture never ONCE states that man can't believe, but repetedly, over and over, states for man TO believe, to come, to repent. Therefore, in light of the many things I have already brought forth, it is you who who has the biblical obsticles to overcome not me - at least on this particular point.

With regard for Rom 8, I actaully didn't see it, but it doesn't change anything since the meaning that has been attributed to it by many Calvinists is distorted though not intentionally but is so none-the-less.

Let us look at it:


First off, Romans 8 is about sanctification, or their lifestyle. That is the context and that is how we are to understand the verses 5-8, in light of the context. A life style is something judged on the whole and not an in the moment of every moment. This is observed in the fact that no Christian is sinless and inded will fall into sin at various times, otherwise Rom 8:13 would mean the moment a believer sins they must die and as long as they continue to not sin they will live. So IOW - Paul is showing the contrast of two ways of life in two types of people. NOT whether one can or can not do something at given point but on the whole.
1. One group are those who have a mind set on the flesh, literally fixated on the flesh.
2. The other are those who have a mind set on the Spirit, literally fixated on Spirit of God.

Paul is contrasting these two groups (man with no intervention from God, and man now in Christ) regarding how each will live consistently, NOT in relation to a moment by moment event.

I will work this backwards if I may. You stated:

No, that is NOT what Paul is saying at all. Also you misunderstood what the word 'controls' refers to and apparently ran with it in the wrong direction. The usage of word 'control' means to direct or influence not over ride. The word is more literally translated is ‘mind set’ meaning a fixation of the mind on something and not to control in the manner and definition which you attribute to the word. However you are partially right in that Paul believed apart from the Holy Spirit man could not know spiritual truth nor live a righteous and holy life (life of sanctification). Key words here are 'Holy Spirit' and ‘live’.
Ok, next you precede to state that man does not have the ability to submit to Gods law. Apparently you missed what Paul stated in Rom 2:14



So is Paul confused and just forgot that he stated previously in the same book that the sinful wicked man does BY NATURE those things contained IN THE LAW (God’s Law) then to turn around and say the “can’t” do it?. That same Law that is both good and holy reflecting the nature of God Himself. Yet we see in the verse of chapter 8 it stating man mind does not subject (submit) itself to the Law nor indeed can do so. Did Paul forget something?

No and this is where CONTEXT clears the problem up completely. Though man CAN DO those things contained in the Law at times. It must be 'at times' because we know that no man can ‘live’ their life according to the whole law. Man left to himself will not seek after God, can not come to a knowledge of God by himself. Yet scripture specifically states man does have the capcity to DO those things contained in the Law but he is unable to 'live' them in and do them in an acceptable way.

Another key to this is the word 'subject' or 'submit' or coming under to obedience of a thing. This is not refering different times but a 'life' that is submitted to following. THAT is what it can not do.

But let us notice something here please. Though Paul is dealing with two groups, there is nothing in these passages that deal with those with whom God is dealing (a third group). In YOUR view even the ‘so called' regenerate person who is not saved YET is still in their sins though supposedly regenerate. Therefore no other conclusion can be drawn but that those whom Calvinists state are regenerate are infact not alive (and regenerate) but STILL dead. Why? Because to be alive is to be IN Christ and if one is IN Christ there is no sin, and can not be in sin. For if they are not sin free yet (no repentence and faith) they being STILL IN sin are STILL dead. Remember, we are dead IN our trespasses and sins. Also The Holy Spirit can not reside in them (indwell) because they are still IN sin. They can not and are not in a right relationship to God because they are STILL IN their sins. The propitiation has not been applied to them because they have not yet believed.
If none of these thing have happend then what I wonder compells person to no choice but BE saved.

And the first part of your question:

Answer: He doesn’t make state any such thing in the manner to which you presume. It is speaking about ‘living’ or a life style. The natural man can not submit live his life under the obedience of the Law, Because his mind is fixated or has set his mind on the things of the flesh (to live). This is a person with whom God is not dealing with, or a man that God has yet to deal with. A strong argument can be made that this is refering to those who have choosen to reject verses those who have choosen to believe, but I'm not contending that, just acknowledging that is an arugment that can be brought up.

What has been done is taking these few verses out of their context and in trying to read them separately from the first (surounding verses) and have created a context outside of the confines of those surrounding texts.

BTW - There is NOTHING in ANYTHING you posted that gives ANY credence to your postulation that man can 'not desire it'. That desire however would only come into play when God gives them understanding in His reproof (Prov 1) and they reject or accept it.


Lastly, if ANYTHING herein sounds offencive to you I'm sorry. That is not my intent so please read it again knowing I'm not TRYING to be offensive but it is late here at work and I have had a hard night and week. I went back through a couple of times because I DID see things I would not normally say. So forgive me please if anything else is here. Seriously, I appreciate your stance on your view and wish more believers were even HALF as passionate about the BASICS. I pray you new addition is doing well. My 10 mth old is has a bad chest conjection and is coughing alot lately from the flu.

Confession:
I didn't read all of your post.

I cannot believe how you've read your traditions into that passage. :BangHead:

 

[webdog]

Confession:
I didn't read all of your post.

I cannot believe how you've read your traditions into that passage. :BangHead:

For not reading the post you sure can accuse him of "reading traditions" into the passage

It's clear your "traditions" are set in stone, so it appears to be a waste of time debating anything regarding calvinism with you. I'm glad you have it all figured out.

 

[Allan]

Confession:
I didn't read all of your post.

I cannot believe how you've read your traditions into that passage. :BangHead:

I have to agree somewhat with Web here. What is comical but sad is that I was arguing against the 'traditionalism' of many Calvinists who do not question some key points (like the ones we discussed) of their beliefs that are based on (IMHO) logical falisies, and presupposition.

However, the passages I argued against was against the 'traditional' Calvinists concept of these passages that some accept without seriously examining and questioning it. Yes, it sounds good by itself but not in light of the surrounding passages and context of those passages and other scriptures. It is for that reason (IMO) the redering is not a proper one.

However, I am no fool as to say no traditions are good, some traditions are not only good but benificial as well.

So I will bow out and hope my posts help those who have questions and have given some answers.

Have a good day Isaiah, and the Lord bless you richly in all things.

 

[LORDs_strateuo]

I can see why you might have that view. Don't you think that you really should consider why God would give anyone to Christ? Is'nt it true that man must believe before coming. Paul wrote;
Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Somewhere along the line the man had to be convinced and convicted. Men will either come to the light or they won't the ones who don't are still resisting.
If there is an irresistible grace then there is no such thing as rebellion. Rebellion is resistance.
MB

I have considered why God gave the elect to Christ; my conclusion was for God's Glory...

Again as I have stated before there are two views of salvation; one from mans point of view, and one from God point of view. I see both aspects. But there is an order to salvation. God then man. God calls, man responds. I know there are two faiths the bible speaks of one like the demons and one that is toward God. When God calls and I'm speaking of His effectual call not a general call that he calls all the earth with. When he calls those who he calls will come to him. This must be true since the verse is very clear. All that He calls will come to Him. Now we must balance that out, scripture does not contradict itself.

I believe when God sets out to do something it will be done. There is no one who can stand against His Will. Now believe me I do understand there are times we see in scripture were God has called and they have not come, these verses are very clear (hear me out), but what kind of calling were they called with. For example God has been calling Israel for years and they have not come, right? So why have they not come. Because God has blinded there eyes, but there will come a day when God sets his effectual calling on them and give them a new heart and a new spirit and they shall come to Him. I know that seems I have just contradicted myself. But the difference is in the Calling. There could be something we are not getting. We both can’t be right, but remember we both can be wrong. So that being said if I have made since, I have come to the conclusion that there must be two types of calling. The Calvinist has named them the "effectual call" and the "general call" of God. It seems to fit into place for me, and this view Glorifies God more than any other that I have seen. In my view the Glory of God is what is most important.

As for the Scripture you have posted, I'm in total agreement with. God does reward those who diligently seek Him, and those that come must believe in Him. I will not go against scripture at least I don’t think I will.

Now your last statement "If there is an irresistible grace then there is no such thing as rebellion. Rebellion is resistance." let me just say when God sets His effectual call on someone they will not come kicking and screaming toward God, they will run to God, Run to Christ to be cleansed of there sins. Hence in them there is no rebellion against His call.

I hope that made since, I'm no English scholar just a trying to be a bible one.

 

[pinoybaptist]

I have considered why God gave the elect to Christ; my conclusion was for God's Glory...

Amen.

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved. And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 2:4-7

 

[Rippon]

I have considered why God gave the elect to Christ; my conclusion was for God's Glory...

To the praise of His glorious grace !

 

[Timtoolman]

I have to agree somewhat with Web here. What is comical but sad is that I was arguing against the 'traditionalism' of many Calvinists who do not question some key points (like the ones we discussed) of their beliefs that are based on (IMHO) logical falisies, and presupposition.

However, the passages I argued against was against the 'traditional' Calvinists concept of these passages that some accept without seriously examining and questioning it. Yes, it sounds good by itself but not in light of the surrounding passages and context of those passages and other scriptures. It is for that reason (IMO) the redering is not a proper one.

However, I am no fool as to say no traditions are good, some traditions are not only good but benificial as well.

So I will bow out and hope my posts help those who have questions and have given some answers.

Have a good day Isaiah, and the Lord bless you richly in all things.

Allen, read this thread from top to bottom. Although you have pointed out the inconsistancy of calvinist in many of the same ways done here over and over again your manner and articulation was great! You took on all questions biblically and with the right spirit. I appreciate the example.
Tim

 

[Allan]

Allen, read this thread from top to bottom. Although you have pointed out the inconsistancy of calvinist in many of the same ways done here over and over again your manner and articulation was great! You took on all questions biblically and with the right spirit. I appreciate the example.
Tim

I appreciate the compliment brother, and at the same time there are those times when I am less than an example. Your encouraging words help a great deal in reminding me of humilty. Thank you.

 

[MB]

I have considered why God gave the elect to Christ; my conclusion was for God's Glory...

Again as I have stated before there are two views of salvation; one from mans point of view, and one from God point of view. I see both aspects. But there is an order to salvation. God then man. God calls, man responds. I know there are two faiths the bible speaks of one like the demons and one that is toward God. When God calls and I'm speaking of His effectual call not a general call that he calls all the earth with. When he calls those who he calls will come to him. This must be true since the verse is very clear. All that He calls will come to Him. Now we must balance that out, scripture does not contradict itself.

The effectual call is the one that works and the reason it works IMHO is because there is no resistance. Many claim that they decided to choose Christ too. Although I don't necessarily believe that is the case. I believe they were willing to listen to the gospel and became convinced of it's truths. By hearing it and they began to have there own faith in Jesus Christ. We are not saved by our faith, but by Grace. So this is not a saving faith, there fore it isn't something they did to obtain Salvation. It is merely a product of the works of the Holy Spirit, and the word of God. They did not choose anything they just listened and the Spirit convinced them giving them that measure of faith.
Why did they listen? Calvinism says they were regenerated but, scripture never says this has to happen in order for man to be convinced of the truth. Many hold the truth in unrighteousness.
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;

I believe when God sets out to do something it will be done. There is no one who can stand against His Will.

This seems so honorable to be so convinced of the power of God. When we see in scripture that it's His will that all be saved we have to consider why isn't this so.
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
If it's God's will and all men aren't saved, there has to be some other aspect of His will we have over looked.
Christ said;
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
There is nothing between him and the light that should keep him from coming to the light.
Here we have man's limited freewill. His choice is to avoid the light and this choice was obviously given to man from the beginning. Man's free will is what keeps man from being saved. Man doesn't choose Christ because He can't. God has already chosen Him in Christ from before the foundation of the world. Man unforunately can choose not to come to the light and does for the most part. We don't choose the light we are drawn to the light and inspite of that drawing men choose darkness.

Now believe me I do understand there are times we see in scripture were God has called and they have not come, these verses are very clear (hear me out), but what kind of calling were they called with. For example God has been calling Israel for years and they have not come, right? So why have they not come. Because God has blinded there eyes, but there will come a day when God sets his effectual calling on them and give them a new heart and a new spirit and they shall come to Him. I know that seems I have just contradicted myself. But the difference is in the Calling. There could be something we are not getting. We both can’t be right, but remember we both can be wrong.

Humility is very rare indeed and I appreciate yours. I agree we can both be wrong but, Scripture is never wrong. Both Calvin and Wesly can be wrong which is why I do my best to rely on the Bible instead of the teachings of men.

So that being said if I have made since, I have come to the conclusion that there must be two types of calling. The Calvinist has named them the "effectual call" and the "general call" of God. It seems to fit into place for me, and this view Glorifies God more than any other that I have seen. In my view the Glory of God is what is most important.

As for the Scripture you have posted, I'm in total agreement with. God does reward those who diligently seek Him, and those that come must believe in Him. I will not go against scripture at least I don’t think I will.

Now your last statement "If there is an irresistible grace then there is no such thing as rebellion. Rebellion is resistance." let me just say when God sets His effectual call on someone they will not come kicking and screaming toward God, they will run to God, Run to Christ to be cleansed of there sins. Hence in them there is no rebellion against His call.

I hope that made since, I'm no English scholar just a trying to be a bible one.

When men come to Christ there can be no rebellion but, that doesn't mean they can't rebel making there call of no effect.

When I was saved I had reached the very bottom of myself I had come to the lowest part of my life and had wallered in it for quite a while. I was raised by God fearing Christians who had taught me the right way to go and I refused. I rebelled almost to the very end. I didn't choose Christ to be set free of my perdicament. I just became so tired I surrendered. I gave up the rebellion and when I did I became convinced, and convicted, still this didn't save me it only broke my spirit.
I don't believe man is saved by his own faith or anything that a man does but is instead is saved by the very Faith of Jesus Christ.
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

God gave me enough rope to hang myself and when I had painted myself into a corner I just gave up. It's when I gave up that all that my parents had taught me became attractive it was that moment of not rebelling that I became convinced and the conviction of my sins was so over whelming I saught forgiveness for all I did wrong and found it. Then I submitted my will to His righteousness.
Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
MB

 

[LORDs_strateuo]

Good comments.

It's just hard for me to understand when I ask someone why they think there saved and they always begin with themselves. I'm saved because I... The statement seems to me to be totally self centered. I am saved because I have done such and such.

It appears to me in the Christian world that I live in its Christ + me. And Christ + anything in my understanding is adding to the work He has already done.

I have talked with Christians that when backed into a corner they have said I know I'm saved because I was baptized, or I know I'm saved because I have been going to church thus many years. Christ + the works that I do.

Don’t get me wrong I'm not judging the persons heart. The statements just make me feel a little uneasy in my spirit. Christ Alone I scream in my heart.

We can’t trust in ourselves, in our feelings. This Armenian type belief has led to a host of errors one of which I know all on both sides of the argument would agree to not agree with. The belief that one can loose there salvation, but that is the end result of Armeniasm.
But that being said I see how mans responsibility must be preached. Christ preached it, the apostles preached it, I preach it.
I myself will probably struggle with this argument until the day I'm die, but for now I know that I'm a staunch 5 pointer. so until then, "Unless I can be instructed and convinced with evidence from the Holy Scriptures or with open, clear, and distinct grounds of reasoning ... then I cannot and will not recant, because it is neither safe nor wise to act against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me! Amen!"

LOL...I love that quote...

God Bless

 

[Isaiah40:28]

For not reading the post you sure can accuse him of "reading traditions" into the passage

It's clear your "traditions" are set in stone, so it appears to be a waste of time debating anything regarding calvinism with you. I'm glad you have it all figured out.

And why might not the same be said of you?
And btw, you made an error in your first line.
I candidly admitted to not reading "all of the post" that Allan wrote.
I did read it, just not in it's entirety.
What I did read, struck me as so absurdly concocted that I knew Allan had to rely on his tightly held traditions to escape the clear meaning of the text.
And since Allan is so highly revered around here, his interpretation is perfect for the rest of the non-Calvinists who don't want to think outside of their traditions either.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

But I did
The truth is this: it is you who can't prove man doesn't have the capcity to beleive. There is nothing in scripture that states it is a different KIND of faith than the same faith all other men have. As I said if man has even a common faith, in regenerating man (in your view) that would make mans faith now able to receive Christ because his faith (in you view) is bound by his nature - ergo regenerated man would not need faith from God but simply would follow his natural inclination to believe. Scripture DOES however state there is a different object in which to place our faith. Scripture never ONCE states that man can't believe, but repetedly, over and over, states for man TO believe, to come, to repent. Therefore, in light of the many things I have already brought forth, it is you who who has the biblical obsticles to overcome not me - at least on this particular point.

With regard for Rom 8, I actaully didn't see it, but it doesn't change anything since the meaning that has been attributed to it by many Calvinists is distorted though not intentionally but is so none-the-less.

Let us look at it:


First off, Romans 8 is about sanctification, or their lifestyle. That is the context and that is how we are to understand the verses 5-8, in light of the context. A life style is something judged on the whole and not an in the moment of every moment. This is observed in the fact that no Christian is sinless and inded will fall into sin at various times, otherwise Rom 8:13 would mean the moment a believer sins they must die and as long as they continue to not sin they will live. So IOW - Paul is showing the contrast of two ways of life in two types of people. NOT whether one can or can not do something at given point but on the whole.
1. One group are those who have a mind set on the flesh, literally fixated on the flesh.
2. The other are those who have a mind set on the Spirit, literally fixated on Spirit of God.

Paul is contrasting these two groups (man with no intervention from God, and man now in Christ) regarding how each will live consistently, NOT in relation to a moment by moment event.

I will work this backwards if I may. You stated:

No, that is NOT what Paul is saying at all. Also you misunderstood what the word 'controls' refers to and apparently ran with it in the wrong direction. The usage of word 'control' means to direct or influence not over ride. The word is more literally translated is ‘mind set’ meaning a fixation of the mind on something and not to control in the manner and definition which you attribute to the word. However you are partially right in that Paul believed apart from the Holy Spirit man could not know spiritual truth nor live a righteous and holy life (life of sanctification). Key words here are 'Holy Spirit' and ‘live’.
Ok, next you precede to state that man does not have the ability to submit to Gods law. Apparently you missed what Paul stated in Rom 2:14



So is Paul confused and just forgot that he stated previously in the same book that the sinful wicked man does BY NATURE those things contained IN THE LAW (God’s Law) then to turn around and say the “can’t” do it?. That same Law that is both good and holy reflecting the nature of God Himself. Yet we see in the verse of chapter 8 it stating man mind does not subject (submit) itself to the Law nor indeed can do so. Did Paul forget something?

No and this is where CONTEXT clears the problem up completely. Though man CAN DO those things contained in the Law at times. It must be 'at times' because we know that no man can ‘live’ their life according to the whole law. Man left to himself will not seek after God, can not come to a knowledge of God by himself. Yet scripture specifically states man does have the capcity to DO those things contained in the Law but he is unable to 'live' them in and do them in an acceptable way.

Another key to this is the word 'subject' or 'submit' or coming under to obedience of a thing. This is not refering different times but a 'life' that is submitted to following. THAT is what it can not do.

But let us notice something here please. Though Paul is dealing with two groups, there is nothing in these passages that deal with those with whom God is dealing (a third group). In YOUR view even the ‘so called' regenerate person who is not saved YET is still in their sins though supposedly regenerate. Therefore no other conclusion can be drawn but that those whom Calvinists state are regenerate are infact not alive (and regenerate) but STILL dead. Why? Because to be alive is to be IN Christ and if one is IN Christ there is no sin, and can not be in sin. For if they are not sin free yet (no repentence and faith) they being STILL IN sin are STILL dead. Remember, we are dead IN our trespasses and sins. Also The Holy Spirit can not reside in them (indwell) because they are still IN sin. They can not and are not in a right relationship to God because they are STILL IN their sins. The propitiation has not been applied to them because they have not yet believed.
If none of these thing have happend then what I wonder compells person to no choice but BE saved.

And the first part of your question:

Answer: He doesn’t make state any such thing in the manner to which you presume. It is speaking about ‘living’ or a life style. The natural man can not submit live his life under the obedience of the Law, Because his mind is fixated or has set his mind on the things of the flesh (to live). This is a person with whom God is not dealing with, or a man that God has yet to deal with. A strong argument can be made that this is refering to those who have choosen to reject verses those who have choosen to believe, but I'm not contending that, just acknowledging that is an arugment that can be brought up.

What has been done is taking these few verses out of their context and in trying to read them separately from the first (surounding verses) and have created a context outside of the confines of those surrounding texts.

BTW - There is NOTHING in ANYTHING you posted that gives ANY credence to your postulation that man can 'not desire it'. That desire however would only come into play when God gives them understanding in His reproof (Prov 1) and they reject or accept it.


Lastly, if ANYTHING herein sounds offencive to you I'm sorry. That is not my intent so please read it again knowing I'm not TRYING to be offensive but it is late here at work and I have had a hard night and week. I went back through a couple of times because I DID see things I would not normally say. So forgive me please if anything else is here. Seriously, I appreciate your stance on your view and wish more believers were even HALF as passionate about the BASICS. I pray you new addition is doing well. My 10 mth old is has a bad chest conjection and is coughing alot lately from the flu.

You believe in prevenient grace which drives your whole view of Scripture.
That's what I meant by your "traditions".

 

[Isaiah40:28]

The truth is this: it is you who can't prove man doesn't have the capcity to beleive. There is nothing in scripture that states it is a different KIND of faith than the same faith all other men have.

Allan,
Saving faith is the only kind of faith that is important. And saving faith can only be found in a spiritual man. Thus, natural man does not have saving faith.
Romans 8 says it and so does 2 Cor. 2:14.
You've turned Romans 8 around, I suspect you do the same to 2 Cor.

As I said if man has even a common faith, in regenerating man (in your view) that would make mans faith now able to receive Christ because his faith (in you view) is bound by his nature - ergo regenerated man would not need faith from God but simply would follow his natural inclination to believe.

Did you forget that regenerated man receives Christ because his faith is from God?
Man is not regenerated to be neutral, he is regenerated to be saved.

Scripture DOES however state there is a different object in which to place our faith. Scripture never ONCE states that man can't believe, but repetedly, over and over, states for man TO believe, to come, to repent.

See how you had to change the sentence structure to accomodate your view?
Instead of saying that "Scripture states that man can believe", you went for the statement that "man is to believe, to come, to repent".
Why don't you show me where the Bible says man can believe instead of saying what man is commanded to do?

No, that is NOT what Paul is saying at all. Also you misunderstood what the word 'controls' refers to and apparently ran with it in the wrong direction. The usage of word 'control' means to direct or influence not over ride. The word is more literally translated is ‘mind set’ meaning a fixation of the mind on something and not to control in the manner and definition which you attribute to the word.

I didn't attribute anything to the word "control". I just used it cause that's what the NIV says. KJV says "spiritually minded". Either way, it's true.

However you are partially right in that Paul believed apart from the Holy Spirit man could not know spiritual truth nor live a righteous and holy life (life of sanctification). Key words here are 'Holy Spirit' and ‘live’.

I don't know what you're talking about here.

Ok, next you precede to state that man does not have the ability to submit to Gods law.

No that's what the Bible says.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.

"Can" is ability.
Is this exchange familiar?
Child: "Can I have a drink?"
Teacher: "I don't know, can you?" (Meaning, are you able?)
Child:"May I have a drink?" (Meaning are you allowed?)

Apparently you missed what Paul stated in Rom 2:14

And 2:15 finishes that thought.
Gentiles did what was written on the wall of their hearts, their consciences bearing witness.

So is Paul confused and just forgot that he stated previously in the same book that the sinful wicked man does BY NATURE those things contained IN THE LAW (God’s Law) then to turn around and say the “can’t” do it?.

Anything "good" that man does is still not the good that God requires. That's why, Paul repeats the Old Testament in 3:10-18. Man's conscience, by nature, teaches him what is good. It's not the same as the Jews having God's Law revealed to them through Moses.

But let us notice something here please. Though Paul is dealing with two groups, there is nothing in these passages that deal with those with whom God is dealing (a third group).

There is no third group.

In YOUR view even the ‘so called' regenerate person who is not saved YET is still in their sins though supposedly regenerate.

But that's not a third group. That's the spiritually minded group. Those to whom the Spirit has given birth to a spirit within them.

Therefore no other conclusion can be drawn but that those whom Calvinists state are regenerate are infact not alive (and regenerate) but STILL dead. Why? Because to be alive is to be IN Christ and if one is IN Christ there is no sin, and can not be in sin. For if they are not sin free yet (no repentence and faith) they being STILL IN sin are STILL dead. Remember, we are dead IN our trespasses and sins. Also The Holy Spirit can not reside in them (indwell) because they are still IN sin. They can not and are not in a right relationship to God because they are STILL IN their sins. The propitiation has not been applied to them because they have not yet believed.

Wow, you really thought you were on to something there.
Only two groups of mankind. Spiritually minded and naturally minded

BTW - There is NOTHING in ANYTHING you posted that gives ANY credence to your postulation that man can 'not desire it'.

LOL. Oh my.
the sinful mind is hostile to God.
the carnal mind is enmity against God.
Please show where in that verse there is desire to submit to God's law by the natural man.

That's like me saying, "I hate Satan, but I desire to submit to his law."

That desire however would only come into play when God gives them understanding in His reproof (Prov 1) and they reject or accept it.

I don't know what this means. I assume you mean prevenient grace.

 

[John18]

Lets begin by lookoing at what is probably the most well known verse in the Bible.That verse is John 3:16-"For God so loved the world"....

Now,if we look at this verse and what it says,we can see that it says "world".

God loved and still loves the world so much that His Son,His ONLY begotten Son became the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of all mankind,if they will repent and believe.

This salvation isnt limited to a certain group but is available to all.It is for the world,not a certain group or set people.

In Rom. it states the following:

10:12
For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

These verses do not limit who may call on the Lord but says that any that call on Him can be saved.

Rom. 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Here we have salvation being made available to all,not just a certain group.

If one looks at the Bible as a whole,it can be seen that salvation is come to all mankind,to any that will accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

The Bible teaches us that we are begotten by the Spirit,we are drawn to Christ and given the chance to be saved,it is a persons choice as to whether or not they let Jesus Christ in and allow him to be their Lord and Savior.

God loves all,He made salvation easy and available to all.It is so simple that even a wayfaring man can be saved.

Isaiah 35:8
And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.

There are several references to support salvation being made for all.

Acts 2:21
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Acts 10:43
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Romans 9:33
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Romans 10:11
For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

God made a way for man to return unto Him,he made the plan of salvation that is for all people regardless of who they are or where they came from.

Mark 8:35
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.

Luke 17:33
Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

Last but by no means least,a couple of verses from Luke:

2:10
And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

2:11
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

The birth of Jesus was annonced and it was joy for ALL people.

 

[John18]

Oops,double post.

 

[Allan]

You believe in prevenient grace which drives your whole view of Scripture.
That's what I meant by your "traditions".

No again Isaiah.
Scripture drives my understanding and that is the only reason I can not accept the whole of Calvinism.

 

[Allan]

Allan,
Saving faith is the only kind of faith that is important. And saving faith can only be found in a spiritual man. Thus, natural man does not have saving faith.
Romans 8 says it and so does 2 Cor. 2:14.

Of course saving faith is the only kind of faith that is important, did I ever state or insinuate otherwise? Nope. Your above statements with regard to faith being found only in the the spiritual man is merely a blacket statement and lacks support. Saving faith is found in the spiritual man since it was his faith that brought forth regeneration unto a spiritual man. That brings us back to the Calvinistic misunderstanding about regeneration. The natural man does not have saving faith because their faith is set on those things that do not save, thus it is not saving.

You've turned Romans 8 around, I suspect you do the same to 2 Cor.

Actaully I turned your understanding around. I merely showed the context had to be side stepped in order to get your version. I truely feel sorry for you at times to have such an 'apparent' lack of respect for the Non-Cal brethren. You presume everyone not calvinistic are either inept, unstudied, and or are purposely twisting scripture to make it state what Calvinism does not dictate.

With that said, what does 2 Cor 2:14 have to do with Rom 8?:

But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and manifests through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge of Him in every place. - NASB

Did you forget that regenerated man receives Christ because his faith is from God?

Nope, I can't forget what scripture doesn't say

Again I state:

As I said - if man has even a common faith, in regenerating man (in your view) that would make mans faith now able to receive Christ because his faith (in you view) is bound by his nature - ergo regenerated man would not need faith from God but simply would follow his natural inclination to believe

Man is not regenerated to be neutral, he is regenerated to be saved.

Again you have no BIBLICAL proof of accertion. Scripture establishes regeneration AT salvation NOT before. If one is regenerated before salvation one is made to be in a right relationship with God - Justified. They are also sanctified by God (set apart) before salvaiton, they also have the Holy Spirit empowering them (most calvinists state indwelling them), and that they are a new creation. But scripture states ALL of these are obtained THROUGH FAITH and not before.
It is 'by faith' we are justified (Rom 3:28)
It is 'by faith' we are sanctified (Acts 26:18,)
It is 'by faith' we are made righteous (Rom 3:22, Rom 4:5)
It is 'by faith' the propitiation (substituationary death) is applied to man (Rom 3:25)
It is 'by faith' we receive (obtain) the indwelling Holy Spirit (Gal 3:14)

Remember, the 'new man' is not pre-salvation (what you term regeneration). For of the new man scriptures states: old things have passed AWAY (no longer there) all things have become NEW (having no taint, blemish, tarnish = sin)
Thus before faith they are saved, having their sins removed, sanctifying them, and justifying them. There is no need for faith because it already has happened. However scripture speaks in direct contradiction to your view by stating it is by faith these things occur. Therefore regeneration is AT salvaiton and NOT before it since we can not be a NEW man apart from faith.:thumbs:

Why don't you show me where the Bible says man can believe instead of saying what man is commanded to do?

It has been shown to you a hundred times but until you are willing to actaully hear it is becoming quite pointless to debate with you. Scripture is replete with passages that illistrate man 'CAN' believe like Josh 24:15, Duet 30:19-20.

"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

Now watch how chooseing to believe establishes regeneration:

and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

CHOOSE life - that you may (1) love God (2) listen to Him (3) be devoted to Him. For the Lord IS your Life. (new life).

Not to mention MANY others and also parables like the Wedding Feast.

"Can" is ability.
Is this exchange familiar?
Child: "Can I have a drink?"
Teacher: "I don't know, can you?" (Meaning, are you able?)
Child:"May I have a drink?" (Meaning are you allowed?)

You just established my point yet again.
Can - meaning they ARE able but they are not allowed to that which they CAN. So the question is when are they allowed? When the choice is set before them to choose. Not all will choose to do what they CAN do, but all are allowed. But they are only allowed as God moves upon them in His time.

And 2:15 finishes that thought.
Gentiles did what was written on the wall of their hearts, their consciences bearing witness.

You tried to take the verse in ROm 8 and state the natural man CAN NOT DO the things of the Law. I showed where Paul stated they DID DO those things contained IN THE LAW (of Moses). It completely destroys your premise because what you are TRYING to make it say is not what the context is conveying.

Anything "good" that man does is still not the good that God requires.

Have I denied this? No.

That's why, Paul repeats the Old Testament in 3:10-18. Man's conscience, by nature, teaches him what is good. It's not the same as the Jews having God's Law revealed to them through Moses.

That is not what Paul stated. "they DO BY NATURE those things contained IN THE LAW". That is specifically speaking about the Law of Moses. The revelation IS the same because it is God who reveals it to both groups through various means.

There is no third group.

The spiritually minded group IS the third group because they are not IN Christ/saved but are still in between till they believe and are THEN saved or reject and become damned.

Only two groups of mankind. Spiritually minded and naturally minded

What about those unsaved whom God is dealing with. This can take seconds or even years. I for one was one with thom the Lord dealt with for 2 years. You state they are spiritually minded and yet they focus on the flesh. When does regeneration take place Isaiah? When God begins dealing with them? Later on? right then (otherwise how do they know God is dealing with them)? And if they are regenerated right them, why does it take years? So Yes Isaiah, there is a third group, a group who is in the midst of a choice.

the sinful mind is hostile to God.
the carnal mind is enmity against God.
Please show where in that verse there is desire to submit to God's law by the natural man.

That is not what the verse is talking about. Again you want to maintain a view that is directly contrary to the context. I showed you that in Rom 2 man DOES do those things contained in the Law. If man does it, he does so because he desires to. The verse you keep trying to rest out of context isn't about all unsaved are NOT able or desirous to do good but that they can not live it - lifestyle. It is speaking about a lifestyle and living out those things continuously. :BangHead:

 

[Allan]

Isaiah,

We are not getting anywhere, nor do I see us getting anywhere from here except to a downgrade spiral.
This is quite apparent in your posting to web (post #193).

Lets us leave off, knowing we have both said our peace and made plain what we understand.

May God continue to bless you and your family in both life and health.
Allan.