Carnal or Lost

[DHK]

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.

MacArthur is a Baptist or at least walks in Baptist circles.
Daniel Steele was a defender of the Methodist-Wesleyan and Holiness movement. He believed that we are living right now in the Millennial Kingdom. He also believed in entire sanctification. He may have been a saved man, and even a scholar but his beliefs are as far from Baptistic as one can get. He was a forerunner of the Pentecostal movement.
Why should we trust what he has to say on any of these doctrines?

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.

Then don't quote such people. Those statement are biased and non-factual. That is obvious. That is like trying to prove the pre-mil position is wrong by using Steele because Steele denies the Millenium in the first place. It doesn't make sense. He is biased.

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.

And you are going to take the words of a Holiness person to prove that?
You prove it. Where is your documentation?

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.

Read MacArthur again. He goes through the Scripture verse by verse. I challenge you to refute what he has to say: verse by verse.
You cannot do it, can you?

Post #171 is my explanation, and Post #178 I quoted some from MacArthur.

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman.......DHK is making mincemeat out of your foul posts......give it up.

I am a neutral observer....just trying to stop the carnage of your misguided posts....

 

[Winman]

MacArthur is a Baptist or at least walks in Baptist circles.
Daniel Steele was a defender of the Methodist-Wesleyan and Holiness movement. He believed that we are living right now in the Millennial Kingdom. He also believed in entire sanctification. He may have been a saved man, and even a scholar but his beliefs are as far from Baptistic as one can get. He was a forerunner of the Pentecostal movement.
Why should we trust what he has to say on any of these doctrines?
Then don't quote such people. Those statement are biased and non-factual. That is obvious. That is like trying to prove the pre-mil position is wrong by using Steele because Steele denies the Millenium in the first place. It doesn't make sense. He is biased.
And you are going to take the words of a Holiness person to prove that?
You prove it. Where is your documentation?
Read MacArthur again. He goes through the Scripture verse by verse. I challenge you to refute what he has to say: verse by verse.
You cannot do it, can you?

Post #171 is my explanation, and Post #178 I quoted some from MacArthur.

Believe whatever you want.

I will leave you with this, the rare Calvinist who believes Romans 7 describes an unregenerate man;

Walvoord thinks this passage describes the regenerate person‟s struggle with sin. He quotes from a 1962 article of mine, in which I supported this view. But I have since changed my mind. I now see this passage as a description, seen through the eyes of a regenerate person, of an unregenerate person (e.g., an unconverted Pharisaic Jew) struggling to fight sin through the law alone, apart from the strength of the Spirit. I admit that this position is not the usual Reformed interpretation. I should add that the view of the Christian as a new person does not stand or fall with the exegesis of Romans 7:14-25 here defended.

What is the Scriptural basis for this interpretation? First, Romans 7:14-25 reflects and elaborates on the condition pictured in verse 5: “When we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.” This verse obviously describes unregenerate persons, in contrast to the regenerate persons described in verses 4 and 6. Verse 13 reads, “In order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good.” This passage describes the same type of person pictured in verse 5 (namely, an unregenerate person); note the parallels: sinful passions aroused by the law produced fruit for death (v. 5), and sin, through what was good (i.e., the law), produced death (v. 13). Verses 14 and 15, which beginthe controversial passage, have three fors in them (see the Greek text, ASV, NASB). By means of these fors Paul ties in what follows with what he has just finished saying. The rest of chapter 7, therefore, elaborates on the condition of the unregenerate person described in verses 5 and 13.

Second, there is no mention of the Holy Spirit or of his strength for overcoming sin in Romans 7:14-25, but chapter 8 has at least sixteen references to the Spirit.

Third, the mood of frustration and defeat that permeates this section does not comport with the mood of victory in terms of which Paul usually describes the Christian life. The person pictured is still a captive of the law of sin (7:23), whereas the believer described in 6:17-18 is no longer a slave to sin.
Finally, Romans 7:25 reads: “I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin” (nsv). The words “I of myself” are emphatic in the Greek. Paul is here describing a person who tries to “go it alone,” to keep God‟s law in his or her own strength, rather than in the strength of the Spirit. I believe, therefore, that the biblical description of the normal Christian life is found, not in Romans 7:14-25, but in Romans 6 and 8.

This fellow makes an excellent point. To believe Paul is writing from the perspective of a regenerate person is to believe that Christians live in utter failure and slavery to sin. Almost blasphemous.

So much for 1 John 5:4-5;

1 Jhn 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

What a dummy John must have been, thinking that a Christian can overcome the world. Too bad he didn't know folks here at BB that could tell him Christians are utter failures who cannot possibly do the good things they want to do to serve God.

This is the error of Calvinism.

 

[DHK]

Believe whatever you want.

I will leave you with this, the rare Calvinist who believes Romans 7 describes an unregenerate man;

This fellow makes an excellent point. To believe Paul is writing from the perspective of a regenerate person is to believe that Christians live in utter failure and slavery to sin. Almost blasphemous.

I saw on another thread where you "boasted" on how many infractions you got. You posted them all. Who knows why!
For every one of those infractions was a carnal and sinful post.
1. Those particular posts demonstrated your "slavery to sin" at that time. You chose to be a slave to sin rather than a servant to Christ.
Often when the Bible uses the word "servant" or "slave" they are used interchangeably. The Greek word "doulos" is translated either way--slave or servant.
Each post you made you were not a servant to Christ were you? Then whose servant were you when you wrote those posts that earned you infractions?
The same holds true for any person, of course, for any person that writes carnal things in their posting. They write out of their flesh. God is not in it. They are a slave to sin. They choose sin over Christ. The desire to serve Christ must come from the heart. It is active not passive.

So much for 1 John 5:4-5;

1 Jhn 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

What a dummy John must have been, thinking that a Christian can overcome the world. Too bad he didn't know folks here at BB that could tell him Christians are utter failures who cannot possibly do the good things they want to do to serve God.

This is the error of Calvinism.

In Revelation it tells us:
Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
1. The blood.
2. The Word of their testimony--This is not passive. This is preaching. It is standing up for what one believes. We are not just "overcomers" by sitting behind our computers all day on our comfy couches. That is not an overcomer; it is a fast track to the undertaker.
3. They loved not their lives unto death. It speaks of the activity in preaching the word in the face of adversity. Again, not hiding in the safety of their homes.

Your idea of 1John 5:4 is flawed. You can't overcome when you are not going forward. If the vehicle stays in park or neutral it doesn't "come over" any ground at all. One needs to go forward and fight for the victory.

 

[Winman]

I saw on another thread where you "boasted" on how many infractions you got. You posted them all. Who knows why!
For every one of those infractions was a carnal and sinful post.
1. Those particular posts demonstrated your "slavery to sin" at that time. You chose to be a slave to sin rather than a servant to Christ.
Often when the Bible uses the word "servant" or "slave" they are used interchangeably. The Greek word "doulos" is translated either way--slave or servant.
Each post you made you were not a servant to Christ were you? Then whose servant were you when you wrote those posts that earned you infractions?
The same holds true for any person, of course, for any person that writes carnal things in their posting. They write out of their flesh. God is not in it. They are a slave to sin. They choose sin over Christ. The desire to serve Christ must come from the heart. It is active not passive.


In Revelation it tells us:
Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
1. The blood.
2. The Word of their testimony--This is not passive. This is preaching. It is standing up for what one believes. We are not just "overcomers" by sitting behind our computers all day on our comfy couches. That is not an overcomer; it is a fast track to the undertaker.
3. They loved not their lives unto death. It speaks of the activity in preaching the word in the face of adversity. Again, not hiding in the safety of their homes.

Your idea of 1John 5:4 is flawed. You can't overcome when you are not going forward. If the vehicle stays in park or neutral it doesn't "come over" any ground at all. One needs to go forward and fight for the victory.

Just because I got an infraction does not mean I did anything wrong, sometimes I get infractions for telling the truth. :thumbsup:

But hey, who would know that better than you?

 

[DHK]

Just because I got an infraction does not mean I did anything wrong, sometimes I get infractions for telling the truth. :thumbsup:

But hey, who would know that better than you?

The administration doesn't give infractions for doing right.
The offense was posted by the infraction, such as "insulting others."
Even if you tell the truth, but don't tell it in love it is sin, isn't it?

Besides, it was an example. There are many examples.
There are Christians who were saved out of alcoholism, and have on occasion gone back to drink. Are they still saved?

There are Christians who have not been faithful to their wives. Are they still saved?

There are Christians that cheat on their taxes (probably regularly). Are they still saved?

If you make judgments on these people you are no better than the Calvinist who has already judged (in most cases), that you judge for the very same reason.

 

[Winman]

The administration doesn't give infractions for doing right.
The offense was posted by the infraction, such as "insulting others."
Even if you tell the truth, but don't tell it in love it is sin, isn't it?

No, it is not.

Pro 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

A true friend will tell somebody the truth, even if it insults him. If all you want to do is be friends with everybody, maybe you should enter politics.

Besides, it was an example. There are many examples.
There are Christians who were saved out of alcoholism, and have on occasion gone back to drink. Are they still saved?

There are Christians who have not been faithful to their wives. Are they still saved?

There are Christians that cheat on their taxes (probably regularly). Are they still saved?

If you make judgments on these people you are no better than the Calvinist who has already judged (in most cases), that you judge for the very same reason.

Christians can have all sorts of bad habits like drinking and smoking, but they are still saved. They are not sold under sin, and they are not captive to the law of sin and death. I have already showed at least half a dozen verses where Paul said Christians have been made free from sin. This is not talking about bad habits, this is not saying a Christian will never sin again, but it IS saying that sin is no longer our master, he does not own us anymore. We have died to sin and been raised with Jesus. We have been purchased with the blood of Jesus and now belong to him. We are not captives of sin any longer, Jesus is our new master.

Pretty ridiculous that I should have to tell you this. This is BASIC Christianity 101.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[DHK]

No, it is not.

Pro 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

A true friend will tell somebody the truth, even if it insults him. If all you want to do is be friends with everybody, maybe you should enter politics.

Who is the politician?
You would try and convince the policeman that you were not "really" breaking the law because you were "only" going 10 mph over the speed limit and everyone else was going faster.
But you did break the law, right? (an example)

But now you are saying that an insult (though the truth) is not sin, even though it is clearly stated as such in the BB rules. As in the above example it is breaking the law. But human rationalization says: "No, I really didn't sin." Right!

Christians can have all sorts of bad habits like drinking and smoking, but they are still saved. They are not sold under sin, and they are not captive to the law of sin and death. I have already showed at least half a dozen verses where Paul said Christians have been made free from sin. This is not talking about bad habits, this is not saying a Christian will never sin again, but it IS saying that sin is no longer our master, he does not own us anymore. We have died to sin and been raised with Jesus. We have been purchased with the blood of Jesus and now belong to him. We are not captives of sin any longer, Jesus is our new master.

Pretty ridiculous that I should have to tell you this. This is BASIC Christianity 101.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Now, take the passage from verse 14 forward.
"Sold under sin" is descriptive of the unsaved, but applicable to the saved.
Look at the rest of the chapter. The rest of the chapter is clearly a believer's struggle that he has between the two natures (old and new) that now dwell within him.
If that is not true, then tell me what sense does it make for the chapter to end this way:

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.

How does an unsaved man thank God through Jesus Christ his Lord?
Please answer!

 

[CarlandBeth]

I meant to comment on this

By living for self. I did it for 20.

I meant to comment on this...your experience is so encouraging to anyone who has any backslidden loved ones. Don't you just love that the prodigal son was welcomed back with open arms...how utterly amazing to have a Father who loves us that way! Truly an amazing love!! You are an encouragement, and your posting has exhorted me to pray for one of our friends who seems not to be walking with the Lord at the present time!

Beth

 

[The Biblicist]

The phrase "inward man" is NEVER used by Paul for a lost person in Scripture.

Ro 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

2Co 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.


In regard to the Phariseeical Jew, Jesus uses the phrase "inward" as following:

Lu 11:39 And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.

The willingness to always do good is the characteristic of the "inward man" in Romans 7:14-25 as it is a "law" operating within him in contrast to "the law of sin." However, the issue is about ABILITY of the "inward man" to DO good rather than the lack of DESIRE to do good.

There is a civil war going in the Person of Paul, and Paul defines precisely what aspect of him is "sold under sin" and what aspect wherein "the law of sin" dwells and what aspect is subject to death - "that is, in my flesh...my members....this body of death....". He clearly separates and identifies precisely what aspect of him desires to sin and what aspect of him does not desire to sin. Hence two laws are at work in him and they are in conflict with one another. The law of sin abides in "the flesh....my members...this body" whereas the law of God abides in "the inward man...my mind..."

The issue is Power or ability for the "inward man....my mind" to defeat the law of indwelling sin IN MY FLESH. The solution to this problem is also clearly stated. The solution is identified or found with self but with Christ - the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 7:24) which is explained in the next chapter.

 

[Iconoclast]

The phrase "inward man" is NEVER used by Paul for a lost person in Scripture.

Ro 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

2Co 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.


In regard to the Phariseeical Jew, Jesus uses the phrase "inward" as following:

Lu 11:39 And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.

The willingness to always do good is the characteristic of the "inward man" in Romans 7:14-25 as it is a "law" operating within him in contrast to "the law of sin." However, the issue is about ABILITY of the "inward man" to DO good rather than the lack of DESIRE to do good.

There is a civil war going in the Person of Paul, and Paul defines precisely what aspect of him is "sold under sin" and what aspect wherein "the law of sin" dwells and what aspect is subject to death - "that is, in my flesh...my members....this body of death....". He clearly separates and identifies precisely what aspect of him desires to sin and what aspect of him does not desire to sin. Hence two laws are at work in him and they are in conflict with one another. The law of sin abides in "the flesh....my members...this body" whereas the law of God abides in "the inward man...my mind..."

The issue is Power or ability for the "inward man....my mind" to defeat the law of indwelling sin IN MY FLESH. The solution to this problem is also clearly stated. The solution is identified or found with self but with Christ - the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 7:24) which is explained in the next chapter.

Exactly correct...that is why chap8 speaks of the need to "mortify" sin. we are responsible to do this by the power of the Spirit enabling us to deprive sin of it's power.:thumbs::thumbs:....That is the only way the whole section 6-8 can be properly understood.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, it is not.

Pro 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

A true friend will tell somebody the truth, even if it insults him. If all you want to do is be friends with everybody, maybe you should enter politics.



Christians can have all sorts of bad habits like drinking and smoking, but they are still saved. They are not sold under sin, and they are not captive to the law of sin and death. I have already showed at least half a dozen verses where Paul said Christians have been made free from sin. This is not talking about bad habits, this is not saying a Christian will never sin again, but it IS saying that sin is no longer our master, he does not own us anymore. We have died to sin and been raised with Jesus. We have been purchased with the blood of Jesus and now belong to him. We are not captives of sin any longer, Jesus is our new master.

Pretty ridiculous that I should have to tell you this. This is BASIC Christianity 101.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

if a christian continues to try to live soely in the flesh, by own efforts after salvation, they are the ones paul described as falling from grace, in that they will live many ways similiar as they did before saved, as they have refused ONLY means God provided to live for Christ, relience upon the Holy Spirit!

 

[Zaac]

Why is there always so much talk about this Calvin dude anytime a thread gets really long?

Should be a new rule: No talk of Calvin EVER. :laugh:

 

[Yeshua1]

Why is there always so much talk about this Calvin dude anytime a thread gets really long?

Should be a new rule: No talk of Calvin EVER. :laugh:

Calvinist rarely mention him.... usually prefer to speak on jesus and the Apostles!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Calvinist rarely mention him...

oh ...















You were SERIOUS???

 

[Winman]

Who is the politician?
You would try and convince the policeman that you were not "really" breaking the law because you were "only" going 10 mph over the speed limit and everyone else was going faster.
But you did break the law, right? (an example)

But now you are saying that an insult (though the truth) is not sin, even though it is clearly stated as such in the BB rules. As in the above example it is breaking the law. But human rationalization says: "No, I really didn't sin." Right!

Sometimes it takes an insult to set a person straight. Some folks won't pay attention to anything else. Many folks have learned a truth when someone insulted them.

That is why the scriptures call it the "wounds" of a friend. They say something to you that hurts your feelings, it insults you, but it is for your own good.

Now, take the passage from verse 14 forward.
"Sold under sin" is descriptive of the unsaved, but applicable to the saved.
Look at the rest of the chapter. The rest of the chapter is clearly a believer's struggle that he has between the two natures (old and new) that now dwell within him.
If that is not true, then tell me what sense does it make for the chapter to end this way:

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.

How does an unsaved man thank God through Jesus Christ his Lord?
Please answer!

The term "sold under sin" IS NOT applicable to a born again believer. We have been REDEEMED. We have been purchased with the blood of Jesus. We are not the property of sin any longer, Jesus is our new master.

This also holds for being "captive to the law of sin". No Christian is a captive to the law of sin and death any more, we have been made 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.

We are not under the law anymore. Yes, we sin on occasion, but that sin will not bring eternal death as it did when we belonged to sin. We died to sin with Jesus and rose with him to new life. The law and sin has absolutely no hold on us now, we are free.

I can't believe I am having to explain this to a born again Christian.

 

[DHK]

Sometimes it takes an insult to set a person straight. Some folks won't pay attention to anything else. Many folks have learned a truth when someone insulted them.

That is why the scriptures call it the "wounds" of a friend. They say something to you that hurts your feelings, it insults you, but it is for your own good.

You are well acquainted with the public school system. They must have taught you well. It is called situational ethics. There are no absolutes (you say). Even when the law says "Thou shalt not kill (do no murder):--it is ok in some cases.
Even when the law says "Thou shalt not steal" I can do it sometimes depending on my situation.
It's okay to break the law depending on my situation you say.
Even if at the time of registration you agreed to the rules, one of which that states "insulting others will not be tolerated," you believe it is perfectly okay to break the rules and yet not sin. You believe you are above the law.
I suppose that is a good example of "being sold under sin."
It is allowing your mind to believe you can do wrong continually and actually believe you are not doing wrong. That is about as good an example as one can give.

The term "sold under sin" IS NOT applicable to a born again believer. We have been REDEEMED. We have been purchased with the blood of Jesus. We are not the property of sin any longer, Jesus is our new master.

Then why do believers sin continually. You have given us a perfect example. Others have other vices that they are caught up in. Redeemed or not, they allow themselves to be servants of sin when they shouldn't be. Thus there is such a thing as a carnal Christian. I thought you believed that.
What does 1John 1:8,10 say about those who believe they don't sin?

This also holds for being "captive to the law of sin". No Christian is a captive to the law of sin and death any more, we have been made free from the law of sin and death.

Then why do you (all Christians) still sin? We should all be perfect shouldn't we? That was the ultimate belief of Finney. He thought it was possible.

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.

At the same time "the wages of sin is death."
Sin and death always go together. The sin of a Christian will separate him from God spiritually. That is spiritual death. You cannot be reconciled until you confess your sin and repent of it. You may be free positionally but not practically. Thus we have 1John 1:9 in the Bible for a purpose. To restore our fellowship with him we must come and confess our sin to him.

We are not under the law anymore. Yes, we sin on occasion, but that sin will not bring eternal death as it did when we belonged to sin. We died to sin with Jesus and rose with him to new life. The law and sin has absolutely no hold on us now, we are free.

I can't believe I am having to explain this to a born again Christian.

And yet you still sin, law or no law, you still sin.
The law is holy and good Paul said. He also said it is our school master. It shows us our sin, and our sinfulness. The law is not bad. It is the sin that is bad.
Paul talked of the sin that dwells in him.

You have not answered this question yet.
Paul cries out: O wretched man that I am; who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Then he answers:
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord...
How does an unsaved man say: "I thank Jesus Christ our Lord"?
Please answer! This is at least the third time I have asked this and yet without response.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Winman, DHK ...

Do either of you actually think you are going to change each other's minds?

This debate goes on seemingly endlessly between you two. It's spilled over onto at least a half dozen threads in the last two months.

Give it a rest, already! Neither of you are ever going to give an inch. Your efforts are wasted.