If "Any Man" Thirst

[PrmtvBptst1832]

1 Cor. 2 is not talking about someone's inability to Believe the Testimony of Christ. Paul is simply explaining that the Gospel is foolishness to the natural man. Yet we are still called to Believe. Your idea that we have to be given faith to believe is Gnosticism.

So long as the word of the cross is folly to the natural person, they will not believe it. Do you believe things you consider to be folly? As far as the charge of Gnosticism is concerned, that is not even worth a response and is only a diversion of the real issue, viz. your soteriology cannot be reconciled with the Scriptures.

 

[JonShaff]

So long as the word of the cross is folly to the natural person, they will not believe it. Do you believe things you consider to be folly? As far as the charge of Gnosticism is concerned, that is not even worth a response and is only a diversion of the real issue.

First, we are called to repent and believe...The Spirit of God convicts us of "unbelief"

Second, an importation of knowledge that you speak of concerning faith is by definition Gnosticism.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The point is, the Scriptures teach that man is dead, not sick. The solution to his problem is not medicine, but resurrection (Ephesians 1:15-2:10). Perhaps Paul was the one who "pressed the analogy too far and beyond reason."

No, that's absolutely, positively, without question NOT THE POINT.

Calvinists are arguing that someone who is (physically) dead cannot "hear" or "see" etc... etc...
That's the analogy...

They want to equate that with "Spiritual" death..and therefore argue that regeneration is necessary for a man to respond to the gospel.

The problem is...
DEAD men....don't sin...they don't "plow" they don't "persecute the churches of God"...(as the apostle Paul claimed he did) they don't do "wickedness"...

They're DEAD....Therefore, they can't SIN either.

Realize two things:
1.) The Calvinist argument doesn't actually NEED this to survive..
that is to say.....
Calvinism COULD be true despite this, and it isn't even necessary for you to defend this line of argument.
2.) It's a pathetically, and self-evidently BAD line of argument, and it doesn't need defending, because Calvinist Theology doesn't even rise or fall upon it.

I'd be more convinced by Calvinists if you understood the strengths of your arguments instead of defended it's weaknesses...
You don't even need this to be true for your argument to work....or to demonstrate that the Calvinist schema is true.

But you guys fight this stupid battle for no apparent reason when it isn't even necessary.

I'd kill to debate a Calvinist who understood the first thing about what they believed.
They aren't to be found on Baptist Board that's for sure.

Analogizing "Spiritual death" with "physical death" is a stupid and sophomoric argument.....(which you don't even need to prove your case)...
I wish you guys understood Calvinist Theology enough to know that.

It isn't "Arminians" who don't understand Calvinism...
It's Calvinists.

 

[TCassidy]

That's where you press the analogy too far and beyond reason:

Except that is not what I did.

 

[TCassidy]

This is dealing with Holy Spirit illumination, not salvation.

Or both. Your next statement makes that clear. "an unsaved man will never understand the things of God."

Paul is simply pointing out to the saved Corinthians that an unsaved man will never understand the things of God until he becomes a child of God.

Exactly! Contrasting the Holy Spirit illuminated person with the lost person who does not have the Holy Spirit.

He is not talking about inability to come to Christ here.

He is saying that without the illuminating ministry of the indwelling Holy Spirit the unsaved man will not understand, and will think it is all foolishness.

It says what it says. You have to deal with it.

 

[TCassidy]

It seems to be translated "friend" in every English translation that I checked.

Yes. And unfortunate fact in light of the meaning of "friend" in the early 21st century.

Friend: archaic: a member of the same nation, party, etc. (American Heritage Dictionary)

It was Jews who came to arrest, torture, and kill the Lord.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Except that is not what I did.

That's exactly what you did.
Calvinists regularly do this.

You don't even NEED to...

The case for Calvinism is actually much stronger than this.
I wish you understood the case well enough to realize that you can abandon that line of argument wholesale because the case for Calvinism is MUCH stronger than this, and doesn't depend on it.
But, this line of argument is pathetic.

I'd defend Calvinism better than you would here because this "dead-man" stuff is not even necessary.
You won't hear it from me of course, but hopefully someone will teach you that one day, and then perhaps, you'll understand Calvinist apologetic.

You could concede this point entirely...and it wouldn't undermine the Calvinist case at all. (because it doesn't really hang on it.)
Maybe you'll figure that out one day.

 

[Katarina Von Bora]

Really:

[Personal attack edited]"Do you only accept the 'Reader's Digest Condensed Version' "?

That's what you're going with?
That's your response?

O.K. folks:
I've learned that sometimes, letting the other side debate their view...is the camel which drives others AWAY from it.

I want EVERYONE to see T.Cassidy's response here...
I'll requote it so you see it again:

That was his counter folks:
Absorb that.
And judge the strength of Calvinism's arguments upon his response here.
Everyone see this???
Yes, this is Calvinist debate in action 101:
Choose your side.

Remember folks, T. Cassidy is a highly educated, thoroughly ingrained dedicated Calvinist......
...and this is his response.
This is what he comes up with.....
I'll repeat that for you:

That was the sum total of his argument.
[Personal attack edited]

The Bible is instructive on how we should engage with each other.

Did you miss this verse?

James 1:26English Standard Version (ESV)

26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The Bible is instructive on how we should engage with each other.

Did you miss this verse?

James 1:26English Standard Version (ESV)

26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.

No...I didn't.
But. the verse, and your point is irrelevant.

[Harassment edited]

 

[Reformed]

I will write later about why men thirst for God, but I don't have the time right now.

I promised I would write about why men thirst for God.

I will start with the biblical doctrine of total inability. Total inability is defined as the view that because of their sinfulness, humans are not able to perform any action that will lead to their salvation. God must take the initiative to give the gift of faith and repentance.*

Romans 8:5-8 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

The sinner is unable (v. 7) to subject himself to the law of God because he is spiritually dead (Eph. 2;1; Col. 2:13). I know this fact has been debated numerous times on the Baptist Board and some Synergists grow weary of hearing it. Unfortunately (for them) weary does not mean the point is wrong. Sin is a theological pathogen. It is an invasive infection that kills man's spiritual nature. Being spiritually dead does not mean a lack of spiritual activity. Man is a spiritual being. He possesses an insatiable spiritual appetite. Because his sin has effectively cut him off from God, he fills his spiritual need on those things that can never satisfy. We see the symptoms of a sinful appetite all the time. Anger, hatred, drunkenness, sexual perversion, greed, envy - I can go on. Paul described this type of life in Ephesians:

Ephesians 2:1-3 1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

How can a sinner thirst for righteousness when he is in bondage to sin? Unless the Lord intervenes no man will develop a genuine thirst for the things of God. I wrote in my previous post that God will use circumstances of all types to call His elect. He may bring us through deep waters until we are the end of ourselves. You hear these stories all the time on the Pacific Garden Mission radion program "Unshackled". Many of the stories are about people who fell into the depths of sin and then turned their hearts to God. None of these people turned to God until God first did a transforming work in their lives. You have heard the verses on the Monergist view of the ordo salutis (order of salvation) before, so I will not spend much time on it here. God calls His elect in time. When He calls them He quickens them to the things of God. At that point, He creates in them a thirst for the water of life. This thirst did not originate from within the sinner since the sinner is not capable of any good thing. The good news is that once that thirst is created, it is quenched by the Spirit of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

*Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms

 

[Pastor_Bob]

It says what it says. You have to deal with it.

Indeed, but it is not saying what you're saying it is saying. Context is the key, my Brother.

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

So long as the word of the cross is folly to the natural person, they will not believe it. Do you believe things you consider to be folly? As far as the charge of Gnosticism is concerned, that is not even worth a response and is only a diversion of the real issue, viz. your soteriology cannot be reconciled with the Scriptures.

I will have to assume you are referring to John 16:9 since you did not reference it in your reply. However, I fail to see its relevance in this discussion.

Paul is simply pointing out to the saved Corinthians that an unsaved man will never understand the things of God until he becomes a child of God.

According to your simplistic (and incorrect) definition of Gnosticism, you are a Gnostic as well. Do you not consider the gospel to be among "the things of God?" You have failed to provide any meaningful exegesis of the passages under discussion. I will assume you do not have an answer.

 

[TCassidy]

Indeed, but it is not saying what you're saying it is saying. Context is the key, my Brother.

So, what part of "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" is so hard to understand?

Doesn't it mean what it says?

 

[thatbrian]

They don't sin either.
That analogy has always proved too much.
It floors me that Calvinists use it.

Spiritually dead, Spiritually dead men don't seek God. They do; however, sin. They do that very well.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Spiritually dead, Spiritually dead men don't seek God. They do; however, sin. They do that very well.

Brian...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
If you don't want them to "HEAR"......................................................................................................................................................................................................
or "SEE"....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Than you can't press the analogy as far as you do.


It's so simple a baby could see it.
You guys press this analogy too far, and it proves too much.
One has to be cognitively disconnected not to see the problem here.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

According to your simplistic (and incorrect) definition of Gnosticism, you are a Gnostic as well. Do you not consider the gospel to be among "the things of God?" You have failed to provide any meaningful exegesis of the passages under discussion. I will assume you do not have an answer.

Not sure to what you are referring. As far as I know, I’ve never offered any definition of Gnosticism.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

So, what part of "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" is so hard to understand?

Doesn't it mean what it says?

It absolutely does. It means that, until the man is saved, he will not understand spiritual truth. It is in no way a proof text for the total inability of man in regard to salvation.

 

[TCassidy]

It means that, until the man is saved, he will not understand spiritual truth.

Exactly! He does not understand spiritual truth until God saves him and he is indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Then he has faith to believe, repent, and obey. Just as it says.

And where do you get this "total inability" stuff? What does that have to do with the discussion? I never mentioned it because I know it is a cop out by those who hate the fact that sinful man has been ruined by the fall and want to deny man's depravity.

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

First, we are called to repent and believe...The Spirit of God convicts us of "unbelief"

Second, an importation of knowledge that you speak of concerning faith is by definition Gnosticism.

I will have to assume you are referring to John 16:9 since you did not reference it in your reply. However, I fail to see its relevance in this discussion.

Second, an importation of knowledge that you speak of concerning faith is by definition Gnosticism.

According to your simplistic (and incorrect) definition of Gnosticism, you are a Gnostic as well since you do admit that one "must be a child of God in order to understand the things of God." Do you not consider the gospel to be among "the things of God?" You have failed to provide any meaningful exegesis of the passages under discussion. I will assume you do not have an answer.

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

Not sure to what you are referring. As far as I know, I’ve never offered any definition of Gnosticism.

That part of the response was intended for JohnShaff. My apologies, Sir.