Where is this proof you have?? I would love to see that. If you can show me from scripture where man was disabled in the fall so that he is unable to believe, and must be regenerated to have this ability, I will believe it. Please show me that in the word of God.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Flesh vs Spirit
- Thread starter Aaron
- Start date
- Status
Where is this proof you have?? I would love to see that. If you can show me from scripture where man was disabled in the fall so that he is unable to believe, and must be regenerated to have this ability, I will believe it. Please show me that in the word of God.
1. Faith is not a work.
2. Salvation is not of works, but salvation is by faith. Even Luther found out this truth.
3. The "new man" and "the old man" are irrelevant.
4. Faith is an innate character of man--saved and unsaved alike. Jesus said, "Unless you have faith as a little child (saved or unsaved) you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Little children have faith. Their nature makes no difference. It is in their God-given ability to choose between right and wrong. All men have this ability. It is in our God-given conscience (Romans 2:14,15).
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Like it was explained to you; You set up false dichotomies and dismiss our actual points of contention as "peripheral issues." After someone hears the gospel they are affected. They may not yet be made alive or made new, but they have been given what is needed to respond in faith, so they are not merely natural men acting on their own without the spirit as you attempt to make it appear. We BOTH believe they are responding to a work of the Spirit. We disagree as to the irresistibility of the Holy Spirit's work.
Old man, new man; flesh, spirit . . . false dichotomies? Wow. Too bad you weren't around to instruct Paul. If God were more sovereign Paul wouldn't have believed a lie!
Well, if it isn't the old man or the new man that responds to the Gospel, pray tell, who is it?
(25 words or less, please.)And, FWIW, the topic of the thread is Flesh vs Spirit. Though it's your stumbling stone, the nature of the work of the Spirit (whether or not it is irresistable) is not the issue.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Old vs New; spirit vs flesh are not the false dichotomies, Aaron. Please listen. A false dichotomy is insisting that one answer or the other must be true and the question you are asking implies that the natural man is acting WITHOUT the involvement of the Spirit in any way, which IS NOT OUR VIEW. The Spirit is confronting the natural man so that his respond IS a response OF A WORK OF THE SPIRIT. It is the same in your view regarding the prior work of the HS, the real difference is the irresistible nature of the working....what you dismiss as a "peripheral matter."
asked and answeredWell, if it isn't the old man or the new man that responds to the Gospel, pray tell, who is it?
Of course. It was an irrelevant point anyway as the Charismatics believe that tongues come as a result of salvation not necessarily as a prerequisite to being saved. All spiritual gifts are subsequent to salvation, even the gift of faith.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Aaron, here is the problem with your argument:
Aaron’s view of a “Natural man” ←-- Hears mere words without power of any kind because you don’t believe words should really be regarded as a “work of the Holy Spirit,” so any positive response is of his own power…or by his “nature.”
My view of a “Natural man” ←-- Hears the powerful, life-giving, Holy Spirit wrought Gospel truth that is more powerful than a double edged sword thus enabling him to respond, so any positive response is of the Gospel’s power, a work of God.
See, your false dichotomy sets up the situation that if I say, it’s the “natural man” who responds, then you think or presume or intentionally apply YOUR view of the “natural man” above who is acting without the Spirit’s power or involvement.
I won’t fall into that trap. When I say the natural man responds to the Gospel, I mean something entirely different than you do because you have a low view of the gospel.
Aaron’s view of a “Natural man” ←-- Hears mere words without power of any kind because you don’t believe words should really be regarded as a “work of the Holy Spirit,” so any positive response is of his own power…or by his “nature.”
My view of a “Natural man” ←-- Hears the powerful, life-giving, Holy Spirit wrought Gospel truth that is more powerful than a double edged sword thus enabling him to respond, so any positive response is of the Gospel’s power, a work of God.
See, your false dichotomy sets up the situation that if I say, it’s the “natural man” who responds, then you think or presume or intentionally apply YOUR view of the “natural man” above who is acting without the Spirit’s power or involvement.
I won’t fall into that trap. When I say the natural man responds to the Gospel, I mean something entirely different than you do because you have a low view of the gospel.
Think big difference is that you seem NOT to understand that mankind was "wreaked" by the fall of Adam, that we cannot receive the Gospel in the pitable spiritual condition ALL of us found ourselves in before saved by God!
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I understand that is the view of Calvinism, but I don't find it supported in the scripture. Can you find me the passage that teaches the work of the Spirit to draw or enable men to come to Christ through the work of the Gospel is not sufficient? In John 6 the gospel was being blinded from the Jews and hadn't even been sent to the Gentiles yet...the only people privy to the "secrets of the kingdom" to that point were those pre-select few apostles and those closest to them, yet even they didn't really "get it" until after the ascension where He sends the Spirit at Pentecost and sends them into all the world to preach it. Still, even then they didn't take it to the Gentile world until Peter has his dream and Paul was called.
Please explain to me why Jesus said that children have the ability to exercise faith even though they may be unsaved?
The childrens parents are nowhere in sight in that text! Talk about reading into the text!
Guess DHK and I were BOTH 'reading into the text" eh?
main point still valid, was an illistration, NOT directly addressing IF Children were to be saved by faith!
There's no way for a child to be saved but by faith! It matters not how old a person is, it's the object of the same faith that saves.
I asked you yesterday to provide scripture that supports this view of yours. Why won't you show the scripture(s) that says man was disabled in the fall and cannot come to or believe in Christ?
Simply making this claim does not make it so, please provide scripture to support your view.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Come on Winman, you've been doing this long enough to know the verses they alway appeal to.
John 6 (the passage where the gospel hasn't even been revealed to the world, by which to draw/enable men to respond)
Romans 8 (the passage that speaks of man's inability to submit to the law, which they translate to mean that man can't submit in faith to the one who fulfilled the law in our stead)
1 Cor 2 (the passage that speaks of the need for spiritual discernment concerning the "deep things of God" that even the carnal believers in Corinth could not receive, yet they apply it to man's total inability to believe the gospel (a spiritual message given by inspiration so that we can understand the mysteries of the kingdom).
Which ones am I missing?
- Status