Carnal or Lost

[Winman]

that is false!

True assurnace comes by grasping the truth that God Himself is the One that saved a sinner such as I and you, and that the bance that the same God basis of us getting right with God is by and due to the death of Christ, and His resuurection!

regardless wether Calvinist/Arminian, you can have full assurance that God saved you, and will keep you in Christ unto the end!

You do not know if Jesus saved either you or me. You believe in Limited Atonement, Jesus did not die for the vast majority of people in your view. You have no idea who Jesus died for. You cannot tell anybody that Jesus died for them.

How can you have assurance in a complete uncertainty? Absurb! :laugh:

 

[Winman]

And yet you believe (unlike MacArthur and other Calvinists) that a person can be a Carnal Christian. You do hold to a boatload of contradictions, don't you?

There is nothing contradictory about my view, you cannot show it.

Here is how MacArthur explains it. I hope it helps:

MacArthur is a Calvinist, he MUST explain away that Paul is speaking of an unregenerate man in Romans 7:14-25 or Calvinism collapses like the house of cards it is.

LOL, do you know of any more Calvinists that say Paul was speaking of a saved person here. :laugh:

Do you know any Christians that still smoke? Why are they still held in captivity to such sinful habits? Do you know anyone that is perfect? We still have an old nature.

Paul is not speaking of sinful habits, he is speaking of being CONDEMNED (Rom 8:1). Born again believers can have many bad habits, but they are not sold under sin, they are not captive to the law of sin, and they are not condemned.

How can you believe that the carnal Christian exists and advocate what you are advocating here? You are contradicting yourself.
Depending upon what you do with your mind you may still be in captivity.

Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
--The battle is in the mind. Christianity is not served up on a golden platter. It is a battle. We are in a war with Satan.

2 Corinthians 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

That war is won in the mind. The mind must be yielded to the Lord Jesus Christ. If it isn't then the flesh WILL serve the law of sin. It is the mind that must actively serve the Lord.
You haven't convinced me, and I doubt anyone else.
He describes his battle between the two natures within him.
He overcomes those battle with the power of Christ, Christ working through his mind. We are to yield our hearts (our minds) to the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the only way we can have victory in the Christian life. It is not a done deal so to speak. One just doesn't sit back in his chair and vegetate. It is an active Christian life. Our sins are paid for at the cross. We are eternally secure. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. But the Christian life does not stop there.

NOPE, Paul is speaking from the perspective of an unregenerate man in Romans 7. He is sold under sin and captive to the law of sin and death. It is impossible this is a saved person.

And I doubt anybody could convince you of anything. That means nothing.

 

[Winman]

The early church fathers believed Romans 7:14-25 was speaking of an unregenerate man.

Dr. Daniel Steele writes,

The best scholarship discredits this chapter as the photograph of a regenerated man. The Greek Fathers, during the first three hundred years of church history, unanimously interpreted this scripture as describing a thoughtful moralist endeavoring, without the grace of God, to realize his highest ideal of moral purity. Augustine, to rob his opponent Pelagius of the two proof-texts, originated the theory that the seventh of Romans delineated a regenerate man."3

Professor Tholuck says,

The more ancient teachers of the Church had unanimously explained it of the man who has not yet become a Christian, nor is upheld in the struggle by the Spirit of Christ. So Origen, Tertullian, Chrysostom, and Theodoret.4

Joseph Agar Beet writes,

Among those who reject this teaching (a regenerate man in vv. 14-25), the view of the Greek fathers prevails. It is worthy of note that this is the earlier opinion, and was accepted by nearly all who spoke as their mother-tongue the language in which this epistle was written.5(italics added)

Daniel R. Jennings states,

In analyzing the early Christian understanding of Romans 7 it has become very clear that the early church did not understand this passage to teach the necessity of sin in believers, usually attributing to it the interpretation that it was a man who was striving to please God under the Law of Moses. In fact this interpretation was so prevalent that when discussing this passage around 415AD, Pelagius (c.350-c.420?) could write in his now lost work entitled "In Defense Of The Freedom Of The Will," which is preserved by Augustine in "On The Grace Of Christ And On Original Sin" [1:43] that "that which you wish us to understand of the apostle himself, all Church writers assert that he spoke in the person of the sinner, and of one who was still under the law..." Augustine, in his attempt to refute this statement of Pelagius, was unable to offer any church writers who disagreed with Pelagius. 6

http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/books/counterfeit-cross/romans-7.php#.U59V0_nZUqM

This is not why I personally believe Romans 7 is speaking of an unregenerate man, I have given my reasons, and I think they are correct. This is just to show that the early church fathers did not see the Calvinist interpretation in this chapter.

 

[Reformed]

A brother and sister both made profession of faith as teens, both attended church for about a year, know both in their 30's and neither are going to church, both drink ( I know nothing wrong with that to some ) party and just do what they want. Mother say's Carnal ( 1 Corth. 3 ) I say Lost. What say you? I'm not trying to judge, just wondering your thoughts.

There is no way to answer your question accurately. God looks on the heart. He sees what we cannot. Even the wisest person cannot proclaim with certainty that someone is or is not saved. That said, if a person has given themselves over to a worldly lifestyle there is sufficient ground to be concerned about their spiritual well-being. Hopefully they belong to a church that is brave and caring enough to confront them about their lifestyle.

 

[Yeshua1]

You do not know if Jesus saved either you or me. You believe in Limited Atonement, Jesus did not die for the vast majority of people in your view. You have no idea who Jesus died for. You cannot tell anybody that Jesus died for them.

How can you have assurance in a complete uncertainty? Absurb! :laugh:

I can, and do have complete assurance, as i believe what Jesus and the Apostles said on this subject, do you?

 

[Yeshua1]

paul stated that WHATEVER we submit ourselves to being under will have control over us, so His exhortation was to submit to the Holy Spirit, and be continually filled by Him...

So since we can also chose to quench/grieve Him, and be submitting to sin again, why do you disagree with God in this?

 

[Yeshua1]

The early church fathers believed Romans 7:14-25 was speaking of an unregenerate man.

[/B]
http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/books/counterfeit-cross/romans-7.php#.U59V0_nZUqM

This is not why I personally believe Romans 7 is speaking of an unregenerate man, I have given my reasons, and I think they are correct. This is just to show that the early church fathers did not see the Calvinist interpretation in this chapter.

Perhaps those fathers had their own agenda to NOT see original Sin, and other things also in the scriptures!

Bottom linem ALL of us can quote every commenatry/father in history, but what counts is what the BIBLE itself teaches, and you have erred really badly in understanding this area!

 

[DHK]

The early church fathers believed Romans 7:14-25 was speaking of an unregenerate man.

[/B]
http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/books/counterfeit-cross/romans-7.php#.U59V0_nZUqM

This is not why I personally believe Romans 7 is speaking of an unregenerate man, I have given my reasons, and I think they are correct. This is just to show that the early church fathers did not see the Calvinist interpretation in this chapter.

Really? The Church Fathers? You rely on them???????
So do the Catholics!

Origen was a heretic. Even the RCC declared him as one.
Some say he was the "Father of Arianism."
Study up on all of the various heresies that he held.

Tertullian held that baptism washed away sin and gave one eternal life.
Later in life he joined the Montanists.

Need I go on? Is this as reliable source as you have? The ECF is the source that the RCC count on most.

 

[Winman]

I can, and do have complete assurance, as i believe what Jesus and the Apostles said on this subject, do you?

You can say whatever you want, anybody who believes in Limited Atonement cannot possibly know Jesus died for him.

Google "how can I know I am elect" and you will see page after page after page of Calvinists asking how they can know they are elect.

You are no different from them.

 

[Winman]

Really? The Church Fathers? You rely on them???????
So do the Catholics!

Origen was a heretic. Even the RCC declared him as one.
Some say he was the "Father of Arianism."
Study up on all of the various heresies that he held.

Tertullian held that baptism washed away sin and gave one eternal life.
Later in life he joined the Montanists.

Need I go on? Is this as reliable source as you have? The ECF is the source that the RCC count on most.

Perhaps you cannot read, I said I already knew Romans 7 is speaking of an unsaved person. No Christain is sold under sin or in captivity to the law of sin.

I was just showing you that nearly ALL of the early church fathers believed this passage was speaking of an unregenerate man.

It was Augustine, the great perverter of scripture that introduced this error to the church, and the Calvinists followed this error.

 

[Winman]

Perhaps those fathers had their own agenda to NOT see original Sin, and other things also in the scriptures!

Bottom linem ALL of us can quote every commenatry/father in history, but what counts is what the BIBLE itself teaches, and you have erred really badly in understanding this area!

Right, you keep telling yourself that. :laugh:

 

[DHK]

Perhaps you cannot read, I said I already knew Romans 7 is speaking of an unsaved person. No Christain is sold under sin or in captivity to the law of sin.

I was just showing you that nearly ALL of the early church fathers believed this passage was speaking of an unregenerate man.

It was Augustine, the great perverter of scripture that introduced this error to the church, and the Calvinists followed this error.

You wrote down a few names. Then, you falsely attributed to them your belief system. That is wrong and deceitful.
I took a couple of those names and demonstrated that they believed contrary to what we believe.
If you have an ounce of honesty in you, you will take those names and prove what you say they believe by offering exact quotes with links to back up your statements.

 

[Winman]

You wrote down a few names. Then, you falsely attributed to them your belief system. That is wrong and deceitful.
I took a couple of those names and demonstrated that they believed contrary to what we believe.
If you have an ounce of honesty in you, you will take those names and prove what you say they believe by offering exact quotes with links to back up your statements.

I did not write anything, I copied and pasted from an article about Romans 7 that said the early church fathers almost unanimously agreed that Romans 7 was Paul speaking of an unregenerate man. Live with it.

How that has anything to do with being dishonest is beyond me. Logic is not your strength.

 

[DHK]

I did not write anything, I copied and pasted from an article about Romans 7 that said the early church fathers almost unanimously agreed that Romans 7 was Paul speaking of an unregenerate man. Live with it.

How that has anything to do with being dishonest is beyond me. Logic is not your strength.

1. The site you quoted from did not give direct quotes. It simply made generally stated opinions. To put it in perspective it goes like this:
"Winman says that the Administrator of said site says that Daniel Steele says that the Church Fathers say that Romans 7 should be interpreted this way..." What is that 3rd hand, 4th hand information? And it isn't even accurate. It is opinion. No direct quotes were given.
To be accurate look up each ECF you want and give an accurate quote of their belief.

2. The site you quoted from is a dubious source.
A. It is basically Calvinistic with some aberrant doctrines. Why would you quote from a site holding to the Total Depravity of Man? Have you read their statement of faith.
B. But look at this doctrine: It is called Conscious Immortality. Have you heard of it?

There will be no corner of this universe where sinners exist forever in rebellion against him!
CONCLUSION:
Conditional Immortality takes Scripture at face value: life means life; death means death. This affects how we understand the atonement, sin and its penalty, human nature, death, resurrection, and life in immortality. It puts the hope of the Second Coming and the Kingdom of God into proper perspective: at centre stage. It makes Judgment Day, the climax of history. It affirms the reality of "hell" without impugning God’s character. It affirms God’s final victory over sin and evil. "Life Only In Christ" gives full honour to Christ as "the resurrection and the life"

It is similar to the SDA doctrines of soul sleep and annihilation of the wicked, as far as I could understand.


3. If you are going to quote the ECF then do so, not another site that can't be trusted.

 

[Yeshua1]

1. The site you quoted from did not give direct quotes. It simply made generally stated opinions. To put it in perspective it goes like this:
"Winman says that the Administrator of said site says that Daniel Steele says that the Church Fathers say that Romans 7 should be interpreted this way..." What is that 3rd hand, 4th hand information? And it isn't even accurate. It is opinion. No direct quotes were given.
To be accurate look up each ECF you want and give an accurate quote of their belief.

2. The site you quoted from is a dubious source.
A. It is basically Calvinistic with some aberrant doctrines. Why would you quote from a site holding to the Total Depravity of Man? Have you read their statement of faith.
B. But look at this doctrine: It is called Conscious Immortality. Have you heard of it?

It is similar to the SDA doctrines of soul sleep and annihilation of the wicked, as far as I could understand.


3. If you are going to quote the ECF then do so, not another site that can't be trusted.

Goes hand in hand though, for if one denies origianl Sin, one can also hold to other false teachings as soul sleep, and destruction of the wicked!

 

[Yeshua1]

You wrote down a few names. Then, you falsely attributed to them your belief system. That is wrong and deceitful.
I took a couple of those names and demonstrated that they believed contrary to what we believe.
If you have an ounce of honesty in you, you will take those names and prove what you say they believe by offering exact quotes with links to back up your statements.

Actually, Jesus and paul already told us that, way before Augustine did!

Augustine just rediscovered a truth, same way the reformers did!

 

[Winman]

1. The site you quoted from did not give direct quotes. It simply made generally stated opinions. To put it in perspective it goes like this:
"Winman says that the Administrator of said site says that Daniel Steele says that the Church Fathers say that Romans 7 should be interpreted this way..." What is that 3rd hand, 4th hand information? And it isn't even accurate. It is opinion. No direct quotes were given.
To be accurate look up each ECF you want and give an accurate quote of their belief.

2. The site you quoted from is a dubious source.
A. It is basically Calvinistic with some aberrant doctrines. Why would you quote from a site holding to the Total Depravity of Man? Have you read their statement of faith.
B. But look at this doctrine: It is called Conscious Immortality. Have you heard of it?

It is similar to the SDA doctrines of soul sleep and annihilation of the wicked, as far as I could understand.


3. If you are going to quote the ECF then do so, not another site that can't be trusted.

What does this have to do with quotes I provided? I gave a link to the page, there were footnotes at the bottom so you can see where those quotes came from, those author are well known, for instance;

Steele was a professor of theology at Boston Univ. and later the first president of Syracuse Univ.

Tholuck was a famous theologian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Tholuck

Beet is a well known theologian

After J. Agar Beet's commentary on Romans was published, his name was added to the list of great Bible expositors of his generation. His subsequent commentaries on the epistles to the Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and Galatians only added to his reputation as a solid exegete. Over 100 years later, these commentaries have stood the test of time, with preachers, teachers, and laity referring to them time and again.

Jennings has written numerous books.

These writers sound quite credible to me.

Personally, I wouldn't care what the early church fathers thought, because I can read what Paul said. In chapter 7 he does not mention the Holy Spirit, not once, whereas in chapter 8 he mentions the Spirit 22 times!

Paul said he was "sold under sin" and in "captivity to the law of sin" in chapter 7, in chapter 8 he says he is free from the law of sin and death.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

So, no way was Paul speaking as a regenerate man in chapter 7, he is speaking of himself as a Jew under the law before he was converted. He loved the law and he truly desired to keep the law but he could not. He had sinned and therefore was sold to sin and had become captive to the law of sin.

But in chapter 8 he is clearly writing from the perspective of a born again Christian who has received the Holy Spirit. He is now FREE from the law of sin and death.

It is very plain and simple.

 

[Winman]

Actually, Jesus and paul already told us that, way before Augustine did!

Augustine just rediscovered a truth, same way the reformers did!

I quote Paul more than you do. Paul said he was alive without the law once, this refutes Original Sin and Calvinism. Paul said that men from Adam to Moses HAD NOT sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, this also refutes Original Sin and Calvinism. Paul said Jacob and Esau had done no evil when they were in their mother Rebecca's womb, this also refutes Original Sin and Calvinism.

Paul does not support your views whatsoever, he clearly refutes them many times.

Jesus said the prodigal son was "alive again" when he repented, this also refutes Original Sin and Calvinism.

So neither Jesus nor Paul supported your views, they both refuted them.

You cannot possibly show a verse of scripture from Jesus or Paul that supports your view, I challenge you to show them.

You won't do it, because you CAN"T.

 

[DHK]

What does this have to do with quotes I provided? I gave a link to the page, there were footnotes at the bottom so you can see where those quotes came from, those author are well known, for instance;

Steele was a professor of theology at Boston Univ. and later the first president of Syracuse Univ.

1. The site is primarily Calvinistic.
But I gave you a very good explanation from John MacArthur. You outright rejected simply because MacArthur is a Calvinist. That is called hypocrisy.
2. The site holds to dubious doctrine such as conscious immortality. Why then would I trust it? That doctrine is similar to the SDA.
3. The quotes from those you quoted from are vague.
For example, here is what Steele said:

Dr. Daniel Steele writes,

The best scholarship discredits this chapter as the photograph of a regenerated man. The Greek Fathers, during the first three hundred years of church history, unanimously interpreted this scripture as describing a thoughtful moralist endeavoring, without the grace of God, to realize his highest ideal of moral purity. Augustine, to rob his opponent Pelagius of the two proof-texts, originated the theory that the seventh of Romans delineated a regenerate man."3

So what! That is an opinion without any verifiable fact. No quotes are given from any church fathers. It is simply his opinion. He says they are unanimously agreed in interpretation.
I will contend that is a lie. They are not, and he is full of hot steam. He just says that without any documented proof. Let him prove what he says through proper documentation. Not one ECF is quoted.

These writers sound quite credible to me.

If there work is credible they would document it, and the documentation would be available.

Personally, I wouldn't care what the early church fathers thought, because I can read what Paul said. In chapter 7 he does not mention the Holy Spirit, not once, whereas in chapter 8 he mentions the Spirit 22 times!

So what!
Often one does not mention the Holy Spirit when giving their testimony. What is important is the conclusion of the testimony. Is this the conclusion of an unregenerated man?

Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Paul said he was "sold under sin" and in "captivity to the law of sin" in chapter 7, in chapter 8 he says he is free from the law of sin and death.
--Does an unsaved man say: "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord...? Does he?

Rom 8:2

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

So, no way was Paul speaking as a regenerate man in chapter 7, he is speaking of himself as a Jew under the law before he was converted. He loved the law and he truly desired to keep the law but he could not. He had sinned and therefore was sold to sin and had become captive to the law of sin.

Do you realize that this is a letter written to the Romans? In this original letter there are no chapter divisions. The divisions put in by the translators are not inspired. There is nothing to say that if he is speaking of himself as an unsaved man that he would continue to speak as an unsaved man in chapter 8 because it is a continuation of chapter 7. There is no break.

And yet I have never heard an unconverted Jew say: "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord." Can you point to one?

But in chapter 8 he is clearly writing from the perspective of a born again Christian who has received the Holy Spirit. He is now FREE from the law of sin and death.

It is very plain and simple.

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
The law is holy and God. He delighted in it. The law was not sinful.
This doesn't sound like a man who is unsaved. An unsaved man does not delight in God's law does he?

 

[Winman]

You do not get it. MacArthur is a Calvinist. No Calvinist can be considered unbiased in this controversy, a Calvinist must insist Paul was regenerate in Romans 7 or else Calvinism is overthrown.

That has nothing to do with the quotes I provided. The early church fathers either believed Paul was speaking as a regenerate man in Romans 7 or they did not. It doesn't have a thing to do with the authors who made those quotes, it has to do with whether those statements are fact or not.

The early church fathers almost unanimously believed Paul was writing from the perspective of an unregenerate man in Romans 7. That is an HISTORICAL FACT. These early church fathers had no agenda, Calvinism was not an issue for them. They called it like they saw it.

It doesn't matter what Thoruck, or Steele, or Beets believed, they weren't giving their personal opinion as MacArthur was.

You cannot seem to grasp the difference.