Could God impart independency

[The Biblicist]

How anyone can see total inability in that verse is beyond me unless you think a spirit filled Paul was unable to do anything but sin.

But the verse is describing a non-Spirit filled Paul....a Paul solely dependent upon his own strength (Rom. 7:18). Where is a "Spirit filled Paul" even mentioned in this passage (Rom. 7:14-25)?

 

[webdog]

But the verse is describing a non-Spirit filled Paul....a Paul solely dependent upon his own strength (Rom. 7:18). Where is a "Spirit filled Paul" even mentioned in this passage (Rom. 7:14-25)?

HE was writing of the struggle between the spirit and the flesh as a spirit filled believer.

 

[kyredneck]

How anyone can see total inability in that verse is beyond me unless you think a spirit filled Paul was unable to do anything but sin.

41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. Mt 26

18 For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing....
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind Ro 7

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the things that ye would. Gal 5

Conflict is what Paul is describing; every one born of the Spirit is still carrying around that old dead crucified body of flesh that is forever in conflict with the heart that has had the law written upon it.

The flesh alone is utterly helpless to do good.

14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged. 1 Cor 2

 

[webdog]

41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. Mt 26

18 For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing....
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind Ro 7

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the things that ye would. Gal 5

Conflict is what Paul is describing; every one born of the Spirit is still carrying around that old dead crucified body of flesh that is forever in conflict with the heart that has had the law written upon it.

The flesh alone is utterly helpless to do good.

14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged. 1 Cor 2

I believe what I highlighted above is a false conclusion based on the passages provided. We agree on the constant conflict that takes place.

"If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him"

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

The wicked can do good, they cannot merit salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

HE was writing of the struggle between the spirit and the flesh as a spirit filled believer.

I certainly agree that WHEN he wrote this he wrote as a Spirit filled Christian. However, do you really believe WHAT he wrote about in Romans 7:18-20 is the fruit/product/consequence of living in the power and control of the Holy Spirit as a believer? If so, then he is clearly denying that under the control of the Spirit he has power to do good but only ends up doing evil. It would seem more logical to me that he is recording his experience as a child of God attempting to obey God WITHOUT THE POWER of the Holy Spirit rather than under the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[kyredneck]

I believe what I highlighted above is a false conclusion based on the passages provided. We agree on the constant conflict that takes place.

"If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him"

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

So then the scriptures are contradictory! The natural man can receive the things of the Spirit, he can know them, they are not foolishness to him, the children of the devil can hear, and those who are not Christ's sheep can believe. So says the theology of webdog.

The wicked can do good, they cannot merit salvation.

Does your theology also teach that one merits salvation?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

A thread by any other name ... is still a bad thread.

 

[webdog]

So then the scriptures are contradictory! The natural man can receive the things of the Spirit, he can know them, they are not foolishness to him, the children of the devil can hear, and those who are not Christ's sheep can believe. So says the theology of webdog.

Not contradictory at all. Just appears that way when you lift a passage from context.

Does your theology also teach that one merits salvation?

Didn't I just get done saying the opposite?

 

[kyredneck]

Not contradictory at all. Just appears that way when you lift a passage from context.

You haven't changed your shallow tactics of knee jerk accusations. Show exactly the passage that was used outside of context topic.

Didn't I just get done saying the opposite?

It sounded like you said the unregenerate can do good but cannot earn salvation. That was right after you lifted a passage out of context to imply that the unregenerate can ask for the Spirit and God will give it to him. Never mind that this is totally contradictory to passages such as 1 Cor 2:14.

 

[webdog]

You haven't changed your shallow tactics of knee jerk accusations. Show exactly the passage that was used outside of context topic.

. What knee jerk reaction? You took a passage given to the church in Corinth governing themselves by the flesh to prove total inability. Nothing shallow or knee jerk about it...you took it from context. If anything, it could be taken the rhetorical question of whether I believe in works based salvation to be a shallow attack 'tactic'.

It sounded like you said the unregenerate can do good but cannot earn salvation.

. Exactly what I said. You asked me if I believe we can earn salvation through merit.

That was right after you lifted a passage out of context to imply that the unregenerate can ask for the Spirit and God will give it to him. Never mind that this is totally contradictory to passages such as 1 Cor 2:14.

I never implied any such thing.

 

[kyredneck]

. What knee jerk reaction? You took a passage given to the church in Corinth governing themselves by the flesh to prove total inability....

Total inability of the unregenerate man is EXACTLY within context of 1 Cor 1 & 2:

10 But unto us God revealed them through the Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God.
12 But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in words which man`s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words.
14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged. 1 Cor 2

Nothing shallow or knee jerk about it...you took it from context.

No. Did not. The passage deals exactly directly with the utter helplessness of the flesh without the Spirit.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not contradictory at all. Just appears that way when you lift a passage from context.

If you agree that Paul is describing himself operating by the flesh which is being controled by the "law of sin" in Romans 7:18-20 rather than operating according to the new inward man under the control of the Holy Spirit, are you then arguing that the flesh under the law of sin is different than the fleshly mind described in Romans 8:7-8????

It seems to me you are in a dilemma as the descriptive evidence of the flesh in Romans 7:18-20 is exactly the descriptive evidence of the "carnal" or fleshly mindset in Romans 8:7 that dominates the lost man "in the flesh" (Rom. 8:8). If you agree Paul is operating according to the flesh under the "law of sin" in Romans 7:18-20 then how can you deny the very same descriptive principle is being characterized in Romans 8:7? If you deny Paul is operating according the flesh under the law of sin in Romans 7:18-20 then how can you attribute those characteristics to the Spirit?

Romans 8:7-8 explicitly teaches total depravity of the fleshly nature and total inability in undeniable terms.

 

[Winman]

But the verse is describing a non-Spirit filled Paul....a Paul solely dependent upon his own strength (Rom. 7:18). Where is a "Spirit filled Paul" even mentioned in this passage (Rom. 7:14-25)?

Boy, you say something different every day, sometimes twice a day. Just last week you implied Romans 7 was Paul speaking as a born again Christian;

Even in a born again man there exists the fallen nature within the domain of his physical body identified as the "law of sin" which the regenerated man does not have the WILL POWER to overcome:

Rom. 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Even in a born again person the "how to perform" is not found in the power of his will "For it is God that worketh in you both TO WILL and TO DO of His good pleasure" - Phili. 2:13. Thus, the will of the fallen nature is BOUND by sin and a SERVANT of sin without DESIRE and thus without POWER to choose that which is good IN GOD'S SIGHT.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2051416#post2051416

Last week you implied Paul was a born again and regenerated person in Romans 7:18, today you say he is speaking as a non-Spirit filled person.

So, which do you believe? Was Paul a born again, regenerated, and Spirit filled person in Romans 7:18, or was he a non-Spirit filled person in Romans 7:18?

I'll help you out, Paul is not speaking as a born again, Spirit filled person in Romans chapter 7, because in verse 14 he said he was sold under sin. No Christian is sold under sin, we have been made free from sin.

Paul also said he was brought into the captivity to the law of sin in Rom 7:23. This cannot be a Christian because Paul says the Spirit has made us free from the law of sin in Romans 8:2. Also, Paul never mentions the Spirit in chapter 7, not once.

Of course, I told you these things over a week ago, so I am glad you are paying attention and coming over to correct views at last. Keep up the good work.

Of course Romans 7 totally refutes Total Inability, because it repeatedly says Paul willed to do good.

That will probably make you reverse your view again, huh??

 

[The Biblicist]

Boy, you say something different every day, sometimes twice a day. Just last week you implied Romans 7 was Paul speaking as a born again Christian;

You are simply not reading or understanding what you read. I have believed and continue to believe Romans 7:14-25 refers to a born again Paul who is NOT SPIRIT FILLED but operating in the flesh. It seems that you make no distinction between being born again and being Spirit filled but treat them as one and the same when they are clearly not one and the same. In Romans 7 is a born again man but NOT SPIRIT FILLED while in chapter 8 is a born again man who is SPIRIT FILLED.

Last week you implied Paul was a born again and regenerated person in Romans 7:18, today you say he is speaking as a non-Spirit filled person.

Do you realize that in the same sentence above you have substituted the words "regenerated person" with "non-Spirit filled person" as though they have one and the same meaning???????? You make the same mistake in the next paragraph below:

So, which do you believe? Was Paul a born again, regenerated, and Spirit filled person in Romans 7:18, or was he a non-Spirit filled person in Romans 7:18?

Don't you realize that being born again is a ONE TIME COMPLETED EVENT that is always found in the AORIST TENSE but being filled is a REPETITIVE CONTINOUS EVENT not to be confused with the new birth but that is precisely what you are doing - confusing the two and treating them as one and the same??????????????

I'll help you out, Paul is not speaking as a born again, Spirit filled person in Romans chapter 7, because in verse 14 he said he was sold under sin. No Christian is sold under sin, we have been made free from sin.

Your position above relies wholly upon IGNORING the clear distinctions being made by Paul in this text. You obviously REFUSE to recognize that Paul is referring to his "flesh" rather than his "inward man" or new person. You obviously REFUSE to realize that Paul distinctily distinguishes his "flesh" (Rom. 7:18) as what is condemned under sin as he clearly and repeatedly tells you that the "law of sin" is what operates in his "flesh" as opposed to the law of the Spirit which operates through his "mind" (Rom. 7:25). Only by REFUSING to acknowledge what Paul explicitly identifies and distinguishes from his regenerated self can you maintain your interpretation.

To prove you are in error is very easy to do by simply asking you to answer the following questions:

QUESTION: Do you believe your "flesh" was born again or was it your "spirit" (Jn. 3:6)????

QUESTION: What aspect of your human nature is Jesus referring to in John 11:26 that NEVER DIES versus what aspect will and does die??

26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Paul was such a believer was he not? Did Paul's "flesh" suffer death or did it "never die"??? The "flesh" in Romans 7:14-25 is that aspect of the beleiver still sold under sin and the absolute proof is that it is that aspect of the believer which does in fact die - "This body OF DEATH."

So in summary here are a list of your errors:

1. You make the aorist tense "born again" INSEPARABLE and SYNONMOUS with the present tense "being Spirit filled." Your statements above prove this.

2. You misrepresent my position on Romans 7 simply because I do not confuse the issue of new birth with spirit filled.

3. You REFUSE to recognize that Paul repeatedly distinguishes his "flesh" as the area where the law of sin still operates in him as one whose spirit is born again and that his "flesh" remains under the law of sin, condemned to death and will and did actually die.

 

[Luke2427]

So you are saying the desire above is what you want the most? Keeping your money and living is not a greater desire? The robber repenting and allowing you to keep your money is not a greater desire? That would be what you MOST want regardless.

Between the two options that I am familiar with that are trly available to me- I will choose the one that I most want every time.

 

[Luke2427]

Wow Willis, you must have ESPN!

Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

Now, do you REALLY want to call the word of God a liar?

Think about that question awhile.

Yes, the thing that the inner man hates is the thing that the outer man does.

A Christian has two nature. Which ever one has the strongest desires gets its way.

When the desire of the inner man to do righteousness is greater than the desire of the outer man to satisfy the flesh- the man does what he MOST wants- righteousness.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, the thing that the inner man hates is the thing that the outer man does.

A Christian has two nature. Which ever one has the strongest desires gets its way.

When the desire of the inner man to do righteousness is greater than the desire of the outer man to satisfy the flesh- the man does what he MOST wants- righteousness.

May I make a slight correction to your statements. The fact is that the new inward man NEVER overcomes the desires of the outward man EXCEPT by the power of the Holy Spirit. So while the regenerated man attempts to please God IN HIS OWN STRENGTH he will ALWAYS fail.

So it is not a matter of greater or lesser desire but of greater or lesser POWER - the power of indwelling sin or the power of the indwelling Spirit of God. The inward new man NEVER ceases to desire what is good while the outer man NEVER ceases to desire what is evil. That is why in Romans 6 born again believers are told to YEILD to the Spirit and YEILD NOT to the flesh. Victory or defeat is determined by whom you YEILD or not YEILD to.

 

[percho]

In the previous thread along these lines Skandelon argued that man's will is independent so much that nothing causes it to choose what it chooses outside of the chooser. In other words, there is no cause for why the chooser chooses what he chooses.

Skandelon attributes to choice, or the chooser, the characteristic that God alone can have- being an uncaused cause.

That's what contra-causal is. It means nothing caused it.


con·tra
In contrast or opposition to; against.
adv.
In opposition to something stated or expected; to the contrary.


That attribute can belong to God alone. Only God is uncaused. Only his actions can be made based on himself.

When Skandelon says that a choice is based on the chooser he is attributing to the chooser God's incommunicable attribute of independency.

A choice cannot say of itself "I am that I am" and therefore it is dependent.

The chooser cannot say of himself "I am that I am." Therefore his choosing is contingent, dependent and fully relying upon God for his existence and for the existence of all that he does.

Skandelon tries to wiggle out from under this by saying that choices do have influences but that the influences are not sufficient guarantors of what the choice will be.

What then IS the sufficient guarantor and what does it look to in order to guarantee the choice?

He cannot answer.

But the answer is obvious to anyone who is remotely objective.

Scripture says that in God we live and move and have our being. The Word of God says that Christ was before all things and by HIM all things CONSIST.

The only thing in the universe that is uncaused is GOD. Not man's puny choices and not the puny choosers of those choices.

Being UNCAUSED is the PREMIER attribute of God. It is THE ESSENCE of his very name, Jehovah.

To snatch that attribute down from its highest and holiest perch in the nature of God and to attribute it to a man choosing is really a VERY DANGEROUS THING.

I believe what God imparts is the righteousness of God, ultimately we will be holy even as he is holy for we will be like him, and will see him as he is.

Then we will, by character, choose the will of God our Father just as Jesus the only begotten, whatever that means, Son of God always dis the will of his Father, Spirit the God.

I believe all of those traits above require resurrection and or instant change to come to fruition. I believe that is what it means to be born of God, to be born again.

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3:2

We should give that our best shot. Verse 3
And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

1 John 1:5-10 tells us God will continue to cleanse us unto perfection. Then:

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3:2.

The new birth does not refer to the future resurrection of our body as that is referred to in scriptures as "adoption" not new birth. The New birth has to do with our "spirit" not the flesh (Jn. 3:6).

 

[Winman]

You are simply not reading or understanding what you read. I have believed and continue to believe Romans 7:14-25 refers to a born again Paul who is NOT SPIRIT FILLED but operating in the flesh. It seems that you make no distinction between being born again and being Spirit filled but treat them as one and the same when they are clearly not one and the same. In Romans 7 is a born again man but NOT SPIRIT FILLED while in chapter 8 is a born again man who is SPIRIT FILLED.

There is no mention whatsoever of the Holy Spirit in Romans 7, ZILCH. Christians are not sold under sin, Christians are not captive to the law of sin, so Romans 7 cannot be a born again person.

Do you realize that in the same sentence above you have substituted the words "regenerated person" with "non-Spirit filled person" as though they have one and the same meaning???????? You make the same mistake in the next paragraph below:

That is what YOU said. Read your own quotes;

But the verse is describing a non-Spirit filled Paul....a Paul solely dependent upon his own strength (Rom. 7:18). Where is a "Spirit filled Paul" even mentioned in this passage (Rom. 7:14-25)?

Even in a born again man there exists the fallen nature within the domain of his physical body identified as the "law of sin" which the regenerated man does not have the WILL POWER to overcome:

I was pointing out what YOU said.

Don't you realize that being born again is a ONE TIME COMPLETED EVENT that is always found in the AORIST TENSE but being filled is a REPETITIVE CONTINOUS EVENT not to be confused with the new birth but that is precisely what you are doing - confusing the two and treating them as one and the same??????????????

I realize that you talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Your position above relies wholly upon IGNORING the clear distinctions being made by Paul in this text. You obviously REFUSE to recognize that Paul is referring to his "flesh" rather than his "inward man" or new person. You obviously REFUSE to realize that Paul distinctily distinguishes his "flesh" (Rom. 7:18) as what is condemned under sin as he clearly and repeatedly tells you that the "law of sin" is what operates in his "flesh" as opposed to the law of the Spirit which operates through his "mind" (Rom. 7:25). Only by REFUSING to acknowledge what Paul explicitly identifies and distinguishes from his regenerated self can you maintain your interpretation.

To prove you are in error is very easy to do by simply asking you to answer the following questions:

QUESTION: Do you believe your "flesh" was born again or was it your "spirit" (Jn. 3:6)????

QUESTION: What aspect of your human nature is Jesus referring to in John 11:26 that NEVER DIES versus what aspect will and does die??

26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Paul was such a believer was he not? Did Paul's "flesh" suffer death or did it "never die"??? The "flesh" in Romans 7:14-25 is that aspect of the beleiver still sold under sin and the absolute proof is that it is that aspect of the believer which does in fact die - "This body OF DEATH."

So in summary here are a list of your errors:

1. You make the aorist tense "born again" INSEPARABLE and SYNONMOUS with the present tense "being Spirit filled." Your statements above prove this.

2. You misrepresent my position on Romans 7 simply because I do not confuse the issue of new birth with spirit filled.

3. You REFUSE to recognize that Paul repeatedly distinguishes his "flesh" as the area where the law of sin still operates in him as one whose spirit is born again and that his "flesh" remains under the law of sin, condemned to death and will and did actually die.

Yes, our body is not yet changed. Nevertheless, no Christian is sold under sin, and no Christian is captive to the law of sin.

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

A Christian is fully able to yield his members (body) to righteousness unto holiness. Your view is refuted right there and also proves Romans 7 is speaking of an unregenerate man.

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.

A Christian has been set free from the law of sin and death, again refuting your view.