Flesh vs Spirit

[Aaron]

I almost forgot this one.

Yet, you PRESUME that this remedy is not applicable to most of humanity for the very reasons the remedy was sent..."because they are enemies, slaves and dead in sin." It's like saying the cure for cancer is not applicable to those with cancer.

Let's make one thing perfectly clear. We do not say that people are ill in sin, we say they are dead in sin. The natural man can no more reach out to receive the Gospel than a dead man can reach out for the cure of death.

But your analogy does highlight the vast gulf between Calvinists and yourself. You do not believe that people are dead. You believe they are only sick, and despite all your doublespeak, you believe men by nature have the power to receive the Gospel.

 

[Luke2427]

You are totallly hilarious. I simply cannot find the words that would be appropriate.

And yet you post any way.

Is there any POSSIBLE way to take your post here as anything other than inflammatory.

Is there ANYTHING at all it seeks to accomplish than to marginalize p4t and accuse him of being laughable.

Is there anything else you could have done and remain barely in the rules of bb that would have been any more inflammatory?

What could you have said, and got away with it, that would have been any more demeaning, insulting and inflammatory?

I bet you can't come up with a "legal" statement to top this one.

See, that's the problem- maybe with both sides.

Maybe BOTH sides of this issue in debate try to do this: boast of the amiable high ground while being personally insulting and snotty and demeaning.

I am sure I do it, too. But at least I recognize that I do it and admit it.

If you guys would do the same we could work through some of these issues.

But NONE of us are willing to make peace while the other is barbing us.

The barbs, are fine- not helpful- but fine. I don't necessarily have a problem with them.

But don't barb somebody for being the kind of person who barbs people.

That makes you guilty of something far worse than barbing people. It makes you guilty of hypocrisy.

If one barbs others and does not claim the amiable high ground then he is guilty of only one error.

But when one barbs those who barb for barbing people- he is guilty of a multiplicity of errors- including gross inconsistency.

 

[preacher4truth]

And yet you post any way.

Is there any POSSIBLE way to take your post here as anything other than inflammatory.

Is there ANYTHING at all it seeks to accomplish than to marginalize p4t and accuse him of being laughable.

Is there anything else you could have done and remain barely in the rules of bb that would have been any more inflammatory?

What could you have said, and got away with it, that would have been any more demeaning, insulting and inflammatory?

I bet you can't come up with a "legal" statement to top this one.

See, that's the problem- maybe with both sides.

Maybe BOTH sides of this issue in debate try to do this: boast of the amiable high ground while being personally insulting and snotty and demeaning.

I am sure I do it, too. But at least I recognize that I do it and admit it.

If you guys would do the same we could work through some of these issues.

But NONE of us are willing to make peace while the other is barbing us.

The barbs, are fine- not helpful- but fine. I don't necessarily have a problem with them.

But don't barb somebody for being the kind of person who barbs people.

That makes you guilty of something far worse than barbing people. It makes you guilty of hypocrisy.

If one barbs others and does not claim the amiable high ground then he is guilty of only one error.

But when one barbs those who barb for barbing people- he is guilty of a multiplicity of errors- including gross inconsistency.

Thanks Luke2427. I find his posts consistently representative of malicious in intent, akin to Galatians 5:19-22, and not according to verse 23. I have, however, prayed for him at times.

I've awaited good Biblical or theological discourse from him, Scriptural debate, even requesting for him to use such, v. his drive-bys, yet, to no avail, as you can see.

He's one of the non-cal cheerleaders, has a longer leash than most. BTW, I find way more personal attacks and snide remarks coming from the non-cal/arminian group than I do from the DoG group.

- Peace

 

[quantumfaith]

And yet you post any way.

Is there any POSSIBLE way to take your post here as anything other than inflammatory.

Is there ANYTHING at all it seeks to accomplish than to marginalize p4t and accuse him of being laughable.

Is there anything else you could have done and remain barely in the rules of bb that would have been any more inflammatory?

What could you have said, and got away with it, that would have been any more demeaning, insulting and inflammatory?

I bet you can't come up with a "legal" statement to top this one.

See, that's the problem- maybe with both sides.

Maybe BOTH sides of this issue in debate try to do this: boast of the amiable high ground while being personally insulting and snotty and demeaning.

I am sure I do it, too. But at least I recognize that I do it and admit it.

If you guys would do the same we could work through some of these issues.

But NONE of us are willing to make peace while the other is barbing us.

The barbs, are fine- not helpful- but fine. I don't necessarily have a problem with them.

But don't barb somebody for being the kind of person who barbs people.

That makes you guilty of something far worse than barbing people. It makes you guilty of hypocrisy.

If one barbs others and does not claim the amiable high ground then he is guilty of only one error.

But when one barbs those who barb for barbing people- he is guilty of a multiplicity of errors- including gross inconsistency.

I am simply going to have to assume that you don't always read. I have attempted on more than one occasion to make "peace" with PFT, to soften the edges, but the continued proclamations and inaccuracies continue. I have never claimed to be the paradigm of consistency, and yes I am a hypocrite at times....and YOU are not? As for inflammatory tendencies, consistency again comes to my mind regarding you, and you being the Pastor/Teacher should be the one modeling thus for all others.

 

[Skandelon]

I almost forgot this one.Let's make one thing perfectly clear. We do not say that people are ill in sin,

Yet another way in which you differ from Christ's teachings.

we say they are dead in sin.

Which is why I used this term and referred to the remedy of the life giving truth.

The natural man can no more reach out to receive the Gospel than a dead man can reach out for the cure of death.

I guess that is why God sent the spirit of the bride to them, to cry out "Come.." rather than expecting them to come on their own initiative. Our disagreement is not regarding God's initial working. Its really about the irresistible nature of that work, but you refuse to address that so called "peripheral issue.'

But your analogy does highlight the vast gulf between Calvinists and yourself. You do not believe that people are dead. You believe they are only sick, and despite all your doublespeak, you believe men by nature have the power to receive the Gospel.

Even Jesus said he came as a doctor for those who are sick, I guess you need to correct his analogy too?

You still haven't explained how any good thing is done "by nature," if indeed all good things come from God?

 

[Skandelon]

Horse pucky.

Very mature....or very manure. :laugh:

Only to them that believe. As Paul said, to them that perish it is foolishness.

You say that as if the verse somehow indicates that they didn't deem it to be "foolish" by their own choosing. It's almost as if you beg the question by presuming that they could ONLY determined the message to be foolish, which is the very point up for debate.

What parable is recorded in John 8? And yet many were still hardened against Him. The parables did not hide the message. Besides, that's not what Jesus said. He said the message was hidden by their blind eyes and gross hearts. You need to study it out again.

And you need to do a search of my previous posts and you will see that I discuss the various means God uses to judicially hardened people. He sends a "spirit of stupor," he uses "parables, lest they believe and repent unto salvation," he uses many means to keep them provoked and in their rebellion until His purpose is accomplished through them. I explain both the process of self hardening, by which someone freely rebels against the revelation of God and then I explain the purposeful direct work of God to judicially hardened someone who is already in rebellion by simply hiding the truth from them. He did it to Pharaoh to accomplish the first passover and to Israel to accomplish the second. This is what Romans 9 is about. You should study it out again.

He spoke in parables because they did not understand, not to keep them from understanding.

That is not what the text says:

Mark 4: "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that, " 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!' "

John 12: For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: 40 "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."

Acts 28:24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 26 " 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

Clearly the reason they could not believe was because of this judicial hardening process which was not universal to all mankind as reflected in the fact that Paul contrasts Israel who is being hardened and the Gentiles "who will listen." And if this is just about non-elect reprobates then why would he speak of their ability to see, hear, understand and repent OTHERWISE? How is it possible that would be their ability if they were born Totally Depraved?

Plus, the full gospel wasn't even proclaimed until after Christ ascended and the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost. Even the disciples didn't understand the mystery of the ingrafting of the Gentiles until later when Paul was called and Peter had the white sheet dream. This is vital because it is God plan to provoke these hardened Jews to envy through the salvation of the Gentiles so they too might be provoked and saved.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally Posted by Aaron
The reason one does choose well, and the other doesn't is because one is less fallible than the other. You have no alternative other than random chance.

Not if you don't presume a deterministic framework. Are God's choices random chance too? What determined him to choose you over someone else? Was he not free to pass over you?

Why didn't you answer this question Aaron. Was God free to pass over you or not?

 

[Aaron]

That is not what the text says:

Mark 4: "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that, " 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!' "

John 12: For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: 40 "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."

Acts 28:24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 26 " 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

Clearly the reason they could not believe was because of this judicial hardening process which was not universal to all mankind as reflected in the fact that Paul contrasts Israel who is blah...blah...blah

It's fully explained in Matthew 13.

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
​

 

[Skandelon]

Why didn't you answer this question Aaron. Was God free to pass over you or not?

The strongest points of one's argument are not typically reflected in the portion that his opponents address, but in the portions ignored.

 

[Skandelon]

It's fully explained in Matthew 13.

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.​

Notice that the reason he speaks in parables is because these mysteries were not being revealed to them, but only to a select few. After Pentecost, when Peter preaches, many of these same Jews who were not given these mysteries when Christ was here were told of them and they came to faith. It was not there time to come to faith thus God hid these mysteries of the kingdom in parables.

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing,

Stop there...

Notice that their ears have grown or become DULL, they weren't born in that condition.

and their eyes they have closed;

Again, not a natural condition from birth, but a result of clearly seeing God's revelation and rebelling (see Romans 1 again)

lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Notice the word "LEST" or in some translations, "OTHERWISE." This shows their natural ability PRIOR to becoming calloused, dull, closed. And once provoked by envy they may still leave their unbelief and be saved (Rm. 11). If this is about non-elect reprobates being judged then why would he say, "and I should heal them?"

 

[Aaron]

Notice that the reason he speaks in parables is because these mysteries were not being revealed to them, but only to a select few. After Pentecost, when Peter preaches, many of these same Jews who were not given these mysteries when Christ was here were told of them and they came to faith. It was not there time to come to faith thus God hid these mysteries of the kingdom in parables.

Stop there...

Notice that their ears have grown or become DULL, they weren't born in that condition.
Again, not a natural condition from birth, but a result of clearly seeing God's revelation and rebelling (see Romans 1 again)

Notice the word "LEST" or in some translations, "OTHERWISE." This shows their natural ability PRIOR to becoming calloused, dull, closed. And once provoked by envy they may still leave their unbelief and be saved (Rm. 11). If this is about non-elect reprobates being judged then why would he say, "and I should heal them?"

Actually what you'll notice is that their hearts were already gross and their ears already dull. The plain preaching of the Gospel did not reform them, and neither would expounding upon the mysteries of the Kingdom, as we see in John 8.

They did not have an ear to hear, and from him that hath not, shall be taken even what he has. It's how I explained it earlier.

I understand that you really want it to be otherwise, because it's one of your best evidences that that men can understand and receive the Gospel through natural means. But if one is loyal to the text, he is forced to admit that you truly do violence to it to force your reading of it.

 

[Aaron]

The strongest points of one's argument are not typically reflected in the portion that his opponents address, but in the portions ignored.

Is that why you didn't address my citation of 1 Cor. 12:3?

 

[Skandelon]

Is that why you didn't address my citation of 1 Cor. 12:3?

No, I try to limit my responses to points of contention and I agree with that verse and need for a work of God's spirit. The difference is the view concerning the 'irresistibility" of the spirit's working...you know what you have dismissed as being a "peripheral" matter?

Now, your turn to answer my question...

 

[Skandelon]

Actually what you'll notice is that their hearts were already gross and their ears already dull.

Because they had "BECOME HARDENED," they had "GROWN CALLOUSED," they weren't born in that condition:

Acts 28: "For this people's heart has become calloused"
Rom 11: "the rest have become hardened."
Heb. 3: "so that none of you become hardened by the deception of sin."
​

The plain preaching of the Gospel did not reform them and neither would expounding upon the mysteries of the Kingdom,

First, the Gospel is the means of revealing the mysteries of the Kingdom. Second, it wasn't plainly preached to them yet. The mystery of the gospel wasn't even fully made known to the apostles until after Christ's was raised, so it surely wasn't clearly proclaimed to these who were being temporarily blinded and provoked so as to get them to kill Jesus.

"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in."​

- Paul

They did not have an ear to hear

On this point we agree. They have been temporarily blinded/deafened, so they do not have an ear to hear, but does that guarantee they will be eternally lost? Paul anticipates that very question when he writes:

The others were hardened, 8 as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day." 9 And David says: "May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. 10 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever." 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring! 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.​

So, follow the "others" throughout this text:
The others who were hardened (vs 7) have not "stumble beyond recovery" (vs 11), but they may be aroused or provoked "to envy and saved." (vs 14)

I understand that you really want it to be otherwise, because it's one of your best evidences that that men can understand and receive the Gospel through natural means. But if one is loyal to the text, he is forced to admit that you truly do violence to it to force your reading of it.

Many translators do use the word "otherwise," and the word "lest" is just as strong in its clear meaning of what could happen IF NOT for their BECOMING hardened.

 

[Aaron]

No, I try to limit my responses to points of contention and I agree with that verse and need for a work of God's spirit. The difference is the view concerning the 'irresistibility" of the spirit's working...you know what you have dismissed as being a "peripheral" matter?

Now, your turn to answer my question...

I work for brief, concise and straightforward posts. That demands I ignore nebulous, trifling, irrelevant and otherwise inconsequential statements.

Question, is faith a work of the flesh? IOW, do men possess faith by nature? Your answer: I can't say. But you seem hell-bent on proving that men can by their own power choose to have faith in a lie, and that the Gospel is something that natural men can receive. That took us to parables. You're saying Jesus was cryptic in His public discourses, to keep the Jews from believing. I'm saying that He was cryptic so as not to cast His pearls before swine, or to give that which is holy unto the dogs. Why? Because they would be transformed from swine and dogs? No, because they would trample the pearls under their feet. They had no spiritual ear to hear, so their natural ear was taken away.

The Scriptures support my view, not yours.

 

[Skandelon]

I work for brief, concise and straightforward posts.

Translation: If I can't answer the hard questions I skip them.

That demands I ignore nebulous, trifling, irrelevant and otherwise inconsequential statements.

Translation: Statements that go beyond my Calvinistic pat answers are dismissed as "nebulous and irrelevant."

Question, is faith a work of the flesh? IOW, do men possess faith by nature? Your answer: I can't say.

Translation: Instead of allowing your quotes to supply the answer, I'll just pretend that you have said, "I can't say," so I can put ridiculous words into your mouth and marginalize you as being unorthodox.

 

[Skandelon]

That took us to parables. You're saying Jesus was cryptic in His public discourses, to keep the Jews from believing.

I just quoted scripture, which says:

"But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that, " 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!' "

I'm saying that He was cryptic so as not to cast His pearls before swine, or to give that which is holy unto the dogs. Why? Because they would be transformed from swine and dogs? No, because they would trample the pearls under their feet. They had no spiritual ear to hear, so their natural ear was taken away.

The Scriptures support my view, not yours.

Oh, are you sure? Where is the text that says:

"But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might trample the pearls under their feet?

 

[webdog]

A relevant passage for this discussion...

1 Cor. 4:7 " For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?"

 

[Aaron]

...blah, blah, blah...

Here's the conclusion of the matter. Men do not possess faith by nature. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing. Faith is endowed by the Holy Spirit. No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Men do not gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles, and neither can faith be found in the corrupt tree of human nature. On the contrary, human nature is at enmity with God. It hates God, and does not want peace with God.

Faith is not imparted by the mere mechanics of preaching the Gospel, just as the sons of Sceva could not cast out demons by the mere mentioning of the name of Jesus.* The Gospel is not some kind of hocus pocus, as if the mere physical utterance of the words carries any power, as Scandal would have us believe. Those who become the sons of God do not become so by the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. So it is not by him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. Throw pearls all you want at swine, and they remain swine.

And so why the parables? As I've explained. (Actually, as Christ explained.) They do not have an ear to hear. As we see in numerous other places, they trampled the plain words of Christ under their feet and turned to rend Him. They do not have an ear to hear, so even what they had was taken from them.

Very simple and straightforward once you accept the Spirit's testimony of the condition of man and the nature of the atonement, and exorcise Scandal's presuppositions and eisegeses.

*Lest it be argued that the lack of authority was due to the unworthiness of the vessels, we should keep in mind that Judas Iscariot was given authority to cast out demons. The power isn't in the words or the vessel, but in the will of God.

 

[Skandelon]

Here's the conclusion of the matter. Men do not possess faith by nature. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing. Faith is endowed by the Holy Spirit. No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

I agree. He "endows" it through the gospel appeal in which he calls us to be reconciled to God and some refuse the truth and thus will perish for their unbelief. :thumbs:

Nice to finally be in agreement. =

Men do not gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles, and neither can faith be found in the corrupt tree of human nature. On the contrary, human nature is at enmity with God. It hates God, and does not want peace with God.

Yep. Nothing like a message of reconciliation to address an enemy, right? :thumbs:

Faith is not imparted by the mere mechanics of preaching the Gospel

I think your problem is that you have too low of a view of the gospel.

I agree with Paul in calling it the "power of God unto salvation" yet in your view it only serves as a means to inform the elect of the power that already regenerated them. What you don't seem to get it that the gospel is TRUTH and the SPIRIT and the TRUTH are INSEPARABLE!

"And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth." 1 John​

Catch that? When people resist the truth they are resisting the Spirit. You want to make them two separate works. The truth is preached over hear and maybe the spirit works, maybe it doesn't. NOOOOO! They are the SAME! Where the truth is the Spirit is and where the Spirit is there is TRUTH!

Jesus said it like this:

"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." -Jesus

Why do you think Jesus was called the WORD? Because WORDS have power, especially when you consider their source.

as if the mere physical utterance of the words carries any power, as Scandal would have us believe.

Truth has power regardless of whether a jackass speaks it, a money hungry false-prophet speaks it, or the Son of man speaks it.

God word shall not return to void, But it shall accomplish the purpose for which it was sent! (Is. 55:11)

Why else do you think Paul rejoiced in the truth being preached if even by the heathen? The power is not in the one speaking, but in the source. "Thus saith the Lord," means something!

And so why the parables? As I've explained. (Actually, as Christ explained.) They do not have an ear to hear. As we see in numerous other places, they trampled the plain words of Christ under their feet and turned to rend Him. They do not have an ear to hear, so even what they had was taken from them.

Yet once again you ignore the plain reading of the text and I understand why you would just put "blah blah blah" as my quote instead of taking it line by line, because all I did was quote my scripture versus what you attempted to make the scripture say.

*Lest it be argued that the lack of authority was due to the unworthiness of the vessels, we should keep in mind that Judas Iscariot was given authority to cast out demons. The power isn't in the words or the vessel, but in the will of God.

I agree about the vessel, as stated above, but you say this as if the "words" of God could be anything other than what He has "willed" to speak. Once again you create a false dichotomy by suggesting it must be "either/or" (the will of God or the words spoken) rather than what it is: "both/and"...the will expressed by His words which are the divine and eternal truth with power to set the captive free! Moreover, truth that He has chosen to speak through broken and imperfect vessels.