Emotional or Exegetical?

[webdog]

It proves (along with scripture) that man cannot obey the Law. He is not born without a nature to sin.

Agreed...but that does not equate to being born totally depraved or born guilty. Christ being fully man was able to obey the law fully, but He was also divine.

 

[Skandelon]

It proves (along with scripture) that man cannot obey the Law.

Well it proves that men will not obey the law, but even if they did it wouldn't be enough to earn their way to heaven, because grace can't be merited, not even by faith.

Even the most faith filled person in the world doesn't deserve God's saving grace! God has graciously chosen to count humility, surrender, brokenness, and trust (all seen as weak in the eyes of the world) as righteousness.

We cannot attain righteousness by Law through Works.

We can attain righteousness by Grace through Faith, BECAUSE of God's provision through Christ alone!

 

[convicted1]

Excellent post. The heart of the matter is not emotion, but logic. The "T" is completely illogical. A corpse does not need to be encased in concrete, blinded and and muffed to prevent it from either hearing the Gospel or responding.

In that case, they need to dig a six foot hole, and place it in there. That'll show that mean ole corpse. :laugh: :tonofbricks::BangHead::tonofbricks:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

It proves (along with scripture) that man cannot obey the Law. He is not born without a nature to sin.

Yet one more random factoid that Pelagius was aware of...I think, Amy, that you are a "dyed-in-the-wool" Pelagian heretic...it is obvious from your posts, and from the links provided to Pelagian Theology...You have denied no premise he supports, and have repeatedly re-inforced them...you are a Pelagian.

 

[convicted1]

Well it proves that men will not obey the law, but even if they did it wouldn't be enough to earn their way to heaven, because grace can't be merited, not even by faith.

Even the most faith filled person in the world doesn't deserve God's saving grace! God has graciously chosen to count humility, surrender, brokenness, and trust (all seen as weak in the eyes of the world) as righteousness.

We cannot attain righteousness by Law through Works.

We can attain righteousness by Grace through Faith, BECAUSE of God's provision through Christ alone!

Correctamundo, Fonzie style.

Christ was made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law, whereby we could become the adoption of sons.

If they could have kept the Law, it would have still be an effort/work on their part. Any effort/work voids grace.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Correctamundo, Fonzie style.

Christ was made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law, whereby we could become the adoption of sons.

If they could have kept the Law, it would have still be an effort/work on their part. Any effort/work voids grace.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Amy.G]

Yet one more random factoid that Pelagius was aware of...I think, Amy, that you are a "dyed-in-the-wool" Pelagian heretic...it is obvious from your posts, and from the links provided to Pelagian Theology...You have denied no premise he supports, and have repeatedly re-inforced them...you are a Pelagian.

I have posted no links. And I'm certainly not a Pelagian.

 

[Amy.G]

If they could have kept the Law, it would have still be an effort/work on their part. Any effort/work voids grace.

So you are agreeing no one can keep the Law? If so, why can't they?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

It matters if you believe, as we do, that scripture does NOT teach that all men are born "Totally Depraved" (i.e. so blind from birth that a clear proclamation of the gospel could not and would not convert them UNLESS first effectually regenerated by the Holy Spirit).

We are arguing the validity of Calvinism's claim of Total Depravity here Luke and if a passage appears to suggest that a un-regenerate man might be converted from a parable free proclamation of truth, then the concept of Total Depravity is debunked. That is the real reason you want to dismiss it as 'emotive,' but the truth is that this is a LOGICAL problem, not an emotional one. In fact, let's take ALL the emotion out of it and agree EVERYONE deserves hell, even those with the most faith in Christ, okay?

It's not LOGICAL for God to blind a person from the gospel using a parable to prevent his conversion, if the doctrine of Total Depravity is true. PERIOD.​

If it helps you to stop blaming this on emotions, then let's change it from people to rocks. Would you think it illogical for God to use parables to prevent a rock from being converted since rocks weren't created with that capacity to begin with? Of course you would. That is completely illogical and frankly kind of crazy. Imagine going in your back yard and fearing the rocks are listening to your conversations so you speak in code lest they hear and believe your words. Why would you do such a thing? They are DEAD ROCKS!

Don't Calvinists, including yourself, continue to argue that men are dead like a corpse and thus UNABLE to respond willingly to any effort to persuade them with the gospel appeal? How it is logical to put a blindfold and ear plugs on a corpse? There is NOTHING emotive about that argument.

:wavey::thumbs::thumbs: That too:wavey:

 

[convicted1]

So you are agreeing no one can keep the Law? If so, why can't they?

Even if they could keep it Sissy, that would constitute a works based salvation. Anything that has works in it voids grace out entirely.


They could not keep it because they were man, and not God. This was God's way to show them they were self-deficient, and not self-sufficient. It caused them to realize their need for Him, and not themselves.

 

[convicted1]

:wavey::thumbs::thumbs: That too:wavey:

Hey, I only got three thumbs. Where's my "wavey", gravy? LOL

 

[Skandelon]

So you are agreeing no one can keep the Law? If so, why can't they?

They can keep the rules. There is nothing impeding them from keeping all the right rules, but the point is that they can't earn righteousness by doing so.

So, THEY technically could keep all the right rules, but even still would be condemned. That is the point of scripture. Scripture isn't attempting to prove that no one COULD keep all the rules, it is attempting to show that even if they COULD it wouldn't help them be saved. That is why God keeps raising the bar, so they'll eventually realize no matter how hard they try they can't measure up and they must give up.

 

[Amy.G]

Even if they could keep it Sissy, that would constitute a works based salvation. Anything that has works in it voids grace out entirely.


They could not keep it because they were man, and not God. This was God's way to show them they were self-deficient, and not self-sufficient. It caused them to realize their need for Him, and not themselves.

Hi brother! :wavey:

Exactly. We're human, born into sin. That's what I've been saying. We can't keep the law.

 

[Amy.G]

They can keep the rules. There is nothing impeding them from keeping all the right rules, but the point is that they can't earn righteousness by doing so.

So, THEY technically could keep all the right rules, but even still would be condemned. That is the point of scripture. Scripture isn't attempting to prove that no one COULD keep all the rules, it is attempting to show that even if they COULD it wouldn't help them be saved. That is why God keeps raising the bar, so they'll eventually realize no matter how hard they try they can't measure up and they must give up.

They can't measure up because in our flesh dwells no good thing. Thus OS in true.

 

[convicted1]

Hi brother! :wavey:

Exactly. We're human, born into sin. That's what I've been saying. We can't keep the law.

Egg-zactly, KYR style.


Even if they could/did, it wouldn't garner salvation, however. They were shut up unto the faith under the Law(Gal. 3). Where works/effort is, faith/grace are voided out.

 

[Skandelon]

They can't measure up because in our flesh dwells no good thing.

I agree, but that doesn't mean a sinner can't follow the right rule. A sinner can, and often does follow the right rules. The point is that mankind can't attain righteousness by Law through Works, but only by Grace through Faith.

Calvinists seem to equate Law to Grace and Works to Faith by insisting that both are equally as unattainable by mankind, which is biblically unfounded.

 

[OldRegular]

People today do not understand (or do not accept) the true vile nature of sin and thus do not understand their need.

- adapted from http://www.ligonier.org/rym/broadcasts/video/ultimate-spring-break1/

I believe that is one of the biggest problems in the Church today. People think their sins are minor and they graciously accept what God has to offer! Jesus Christ addresses this fallacy in the following Scripture.

Luke 7:36-50
36. And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to meat.
37. And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
38. And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
39. Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.
40. And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.
41. There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.
42. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?
43. Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.
44. And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.
45. Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.
46. My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.
47. Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
48. And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
49. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
50. And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

This is one of my favorite passages in the Bible because we see what is pictured here so often in the Churches of today. Perhaps it has always been thus!

The difference between the woman and the Pharisee: The Pharisee was self righteous just as the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14; the woman realized how sinful she was in the sight of God. Now both the woman and the Pharisee were the same in the eyes of God, the Pharisee was just too self righteous to understand it. I believe that this is what Jesus Christ had reference to when He said: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.[Luke 5:32]

 

[convicted1]

They can't measure up because in our flesh dwells no good thing. Thus OS in true.

Remember, Sissy, Adam's sin(s) placed a giant chasm betwixt us and God, that only Christ could fix. I have said it like this before. Jesus built a bridge from God to us, and paved it with His blood. Now, whosoever will, can be placed upon this bridge, and get to heaven.

Adam's sin(s) placed a sentence of death upon us that no one can escape(1 Cor. 15:22). Our sins are what cause us to die spiritually.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I have posted no links. And I'm certainly not a Pelagian.

I know you haven't......I did....you challenged Winman to provide the easily accesible links you demanded he provide you earlier in post: You were betting your Theological ranch that he couldn't provide them. As you stated here:

What are his "true" words? You didn't post them so how can we examine them?

....and it was a good gamble...but I COULD, and I supplied them... as I referenced Here...Yet again:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1897334&postcount=132

I am submitting to you, for the 452nd time...that you DON'T know the meaning of the word "Pelagian", and you don't KNOW, in any real sense whether you are one or aren't....I only know one thing...NOTHING you have affirmed or denied on this thread is in opposition to "Pelagian" Theology...You haven't bothered to read his words....and that isn't anyone's fault but your own...you have YET to either affirm or deny anything that Pelagius himself would disagree with...and you have been provided ample links to study that for yourself....you refuse to acknowledge that they even exist..as most Calvinists usually do.

 

[Amy.G]

I am submitting to you, for the 452nd time...

I think it was 453 times, but who's counting. :laugh::laugh: