Incapacitation of the will

[saturneptune]

It is a large and central topic, that I am still learning much on. I was severly rebuked years ago at a bible conference when I made a loose statement about this topic when there much controversy on it.
One of the main conference speakers almost ripped my head off at first, but then when i looked like a deer in the headlights, he calmed down, and took some time to redirect my errant thoughts and point me in the right direction. It was rough at the time, but I look back on it now as one of the best things that happened to me in that I was challenged to see the seriousness of these issues, and vowed to not make that error again, if I was going to open my mouth publicly.

You have better knowledge than me in original sin, and no doubt many books have been written on the matter from different perspectives. The study of pre law sin and post law sin is also a complex subject. A lot of these subjects is what the destiny of children that die in infancy and the so called age of accountability are based on.

When the Lord calls one home, without Jesus Christ's finished work on the cross in an individual's soul, it makes no difference if the sin was pre law, post law, if the sin is original, continuing, or whether you are a Calvinist or not.

 

[Iconoclast]

I think it will be helpful to read what some great theologians have written:

E. Y. Mullins:
Now, from Thomas Paul Simmons A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine 1935:

In other words, we all operate freely within our natures. But not outside.

The use of the term "incapacitation" is imprecise in the A&D. And incorrect.

good post, thanks for the helpful and instructive quotes:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

It says many times we are all guilty because all have sinned. We all sin because Adam sinned.

This both at the same time....

We sinned in adam


we sin because we like to.

We are condemned both ways, perishing and in need of being saved.

When adam sinned we sinned in him

When Jesus provides new life, we have new life in him.

We did not help adam sin
we did not help Jesus live perfect for His people, yet both are true rom5;14

 

[Iconoclast]

[QUOTEWhen the Lord calls one home, without Jesus Christ's finished work on the cross in an individual's soul, it makes no difference if the sin was pre law, post law, if the sin is original, continuing, or whether you are a Calvinist or not.
__________________
][/QUOTE]

Agreed, the bottom line is what did we do with what we had.Not what did we know,and not do! In these forums we debate and discuss....but it should always be with a view to come away better equpped to serve and confront sinners who are set against the truth.
Scriptures should be our focus, and this board can be like a workshop where all the behind the scenes work and struggle goes on, so when we are in the market place we are ready for primetime interactions.
there is a diversity of personalities,and senses of humor[mine might be out of the mainstream].
So if I call Michael a druid[ just to make sure he is still reading my posts], or tell him he needs decaf...it was not meant to be---arrogant and offensive, it was designed to get a reaction.:smilewinkgrin:
It seemed to be he was overheating and blowing a fuse or two, and needed a reality check. I think he paused to realize it. We already fought with each other so to speak,and he had me condemned, I I had him in the heretics hall of fame, but we know the better way is to try and learn something from our exchanges...even if we stress each other out to some extent.
Thankfully he had the maturity to calm down and confront me on my attitude towards him,and I think we have sort of worked through it as best we can...with the completely different understandings we bring in here.

 

[Tom Butler]

Let's distinguish between the natural man and the regenerate man.

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Jeremiah 13:23

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

John 6:65

And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Clearly, the natural man, as long as he is in that state, can only continue in evil. But not because of outside influences, or outside compulsion; it is because of his own character.
Thomas Paul Simmons (referenced earlier) says he continues in sin for the same reason a hog "wallows in the mire." He is acting consistently with his nature.

Simmons says he continues in his sin for the same reason God continues in His holiness. Because neither acts contrary to his nature. Thus both God and man are free agents.

 

[agedman]

Let's distinguish between the natural man and the regenerate man.

Jeremiah 17:9
Jeremiah 13:23
John 6:65


Clearly, the natural man, as long as he is in that state, can only continue in evil. But not because of outside influences, or outside compulsion; it is because of his own character.
Thomas Paul Simmons (referenced earlier) says he continues in sin for the same reason a hog "wallows in the mire." He is acting consistently with his nature.

Simmons says he continues in his sin for the same reason God continues in His holiness. Because neither acts contrary to his nature. Thus both God and man are free agents.

Tom,

You have very good insight in this post.

I would like to suggest a bit of a distinction that I have in my own view.

I consider that because the natural character of the unregenerate is totally unregenerate, then the "unregenerate will" can only recognize and choose that which is unregenerate and unrighteous. No person can successfully choose human righteous outside of the very direct and purposed work of God's grace.

Further, I consider that, when Christ instills within the person a "new nature," then that also includes a new will which is tuned to the sanctification (holiness) of God which is also complete in the believer. This coupling of will and sanctification spurs both the Godliness and enabling recognition and distinguishing ability of Godly righteous from both human righteousness and unrighteousness.

Within those two statements is the view that there is NO "free agents" who outside of the direct and purposeful responses of the will (unregenerate or regenerate) conclude any business spiritual or otherwise.

Rather than "freedom of choice" as some would desire to cry, or human volition of choice, the believer will either submit to the unregenerate will or the "new nature" will; the unregenerate human has no other response but to submit to the unregenerate will.

In my opinion, any teaching of "free moral agency" or "freedom to choose" or "free will" is not Scripturally supported.

Every case in which the "natural man" was given choice, they ultimately failed in not only human righteousness but didn't even come close to Godly righteousness.

It is only with the "new nature" that humankind can choose righteously.

Not to derail the thread, but this brings about a problem with the teachings in most SB churches. That is the person "accepting" Christ as their Savior.

That "new nature" is only instilled into the person by God, and the Scriptures specifically state that humankind cannot perform the slightest thought or act in order for that installation to take place; Humankind only acknowledge their belief, they do not have the capacity to "accept." This is consistent with the teaching Paul gave in Romans 10.

I realize that in this modern age most SB churches teach that one must "accept" as in receiving the gift.

But, that is a frail teaching IMO. Rather, the gift of salvation is unconditional, and it is not up to Humankind to "accept" or "reject." The "natural man" will (by the very unregenerate nature of the will) turn from the truth of the Word. However, the installation of the "new nature" presents that person capable of expressing belief - rendering the appropriate interpretation of Romans 10:8 (in the mouth and in the heart already) and following verses (confession is made).

 

[agedman]

You have better knowledge than me in original sin, and no doubt many books have been written on the matter from different perspectives. The study of pre law sin and post law sin is also a complex subject. A lot of these subjects is what the destiny of children that die in infancy and the so called age of accountability are based on.

When the Lord calls one home, without Jesus Christ's finished work on the cross in an individual's soul, it makes no difference if the sin was pre law, post law, if the sin is original, continuing, or whether you are a Calvinist or not.

Thank you for bringing a laugh! :applause:

In response to Icon, when I first read, "You have better knowledge than me in original sin," I could imaging the casual reader assuming that Icon's past sin was exceedingly greater than yours. Then when you continued with, "no doubt many books have been written on the matter from different perspectives," my mind went to all the books that categorized the sins from all the perspectives (victims, media types, biographical sketches...) and wondered if Icon has gotten a movie deal about his life, yet. :smilewinkgrin:

I know that isn't what you meant, but it was a funny read, anyway.

Strange how our minds can construct meaning that isn't even implied.

Thanks for providing a bit of humor without intending for it to be. :applause:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I consider that because the natural character of the unregenerate is totally unregenerate, then the "unregenerate will" can only recognize and choose that which is unregenerate and unrighteous. No person can successfully choose human righteous outside of the very direct and purposed work of God's grace.

Every case in which the "natural man" was given choice, they ultimately failed in not only human righteousness but didn't even come close to Godly righteousness.

It is only with the "new nature" that humankind can choose righteously.

This may not be your intent....but even the unregenerate are not always "as evil as they could or might be"

Mat 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Luk 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if [he ask] a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?


Luk 11:12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?


Luk 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Decidedly, the unregenerate, the wicked, COULD always make an un-righteous decision in any application....but they don't right? This of course, does not effect our standing towards God, but sometimes I get the idea that Calvinists, while focussing so strongly upon man's depravity make statements which appear to suggest that all the decisions all the time of the wicked...are in fact the most wicked decisions they might otherwise make. This is not true is it?

 

[Winman]

Romans 8:7-8 gives us some useful insight into our fallen nature:

Yes, but this verse does not say a man is fixed in a carnal mind.

Here is what Albert Barnes wrote on these verses.

The carnal mind - This is the same expression as occurs in Romans 8:6 ̀ ́ ̀ ́ to phronēma tēs sarkos . It does not mean the mind itself, the intellect, or the will; it does not suppose that the mind or soul is physically depraved, or opposed to God; but it means that the minding of the things of the flesh, giving to them supreme attention, is hostility against God; and involves the sinner in a controversy with him, and hence, leads to death and woe. This passage should not be alleged in proof that the soul is physically depraved, but merely that where there is a supreme regard to the flesh there is hostility to God. It does not directly Proverbs the doctrine of universal depravity; but it proves only that where such attention exists to the corrupt desires of the soul, there is hostility to God. It is indeed implied that that supreme regard to the flesh exists everywhere by nature, but this is not expressly affirmed. For the object of the apostle here is not to teach the doctrine of depravity, but to show that where such depravity in fact exists, it involves the sinner in a fearful controversy with God.

Is enmity - Hostility; hatred. It means that such a regard to the flesh is in fact hostility to God, because it is opposed to his Law, and to his plan for purifying the soul; compare James 4:4; I John 2:15. The minding of the things of the flesh also leads to the hatred of God himself, because he is opposed to it, and has expressed his abhorrence of it.

Against God - Toward God; or in regard to him. It supposes hostility to him.

For it - The word "it" here refers to the minding of the things of the flesh. It does not mean that the soul itself is not subject to his Law, but that the minding of those things is hostile to his Law. The apostle does not express any opinion about the metaphysical ability of man, or discuss that question at all. The amount of his affirmation is simply, that the minding of the flesh, the supreme attention to its dictates and desires, is not and cannot be subject to the Law of God. They are wholly contradictory and irreconcilable, just as much as the love of falsehood is inconsistent with the laws of truth; as intemperance is inconsistent with the law of temperance; and as adultery is a violation of the seventh commandment. But whether the man himself might not obey the Law, whether he has, or has not, ability to do it, is a question which the apostle does not touch, and on which this passage should not be adduced. For whether the law of a particular sin is utterly irreconcilable with an opposite virtue, and whether the sinner is able to abandon that sin and pursue a different path, are very different inquiries.

Is not subject - It is not in subjection to the command of God. The minding of the flesh is opposed to that law, and thus shows that it is hostile to God.

Neither indeed can be - This is absolute and certain. It is impossible that it should be. There is the utmost inability in regard to it. The things are utterly irreconcilable. But the affirmation does not mean that the heart of the sinner might not be subject to God; or that his soul is so physically depraved that he cannot obey, or that he might not obey the law. On that, the apostle here expresses no opinion. That is not the subject of the discussion. It is simply that the supreme regard to the flesh, to the minding of that, is utterly irreconcilable with the Law of God. They are different things, and can never be made to harmonize; just as adultery cannot be chastity; falsehood cannot be truth; dishonesty cannot be honesty; hatred cannot be love. This passage, therefore, should not be adduced to Proverbs the doctrine of man' s inability to love God, for it does not refer to that, but it proves merely that a supreme regard to the things of the flesh is utterly inconsistent with the Law of God; can never be reconciled with it; and involves the sinner in hostility with his Creator

Folks are reading into this passage what it does not say. It does say when a man minds the carnal mind he cannot obey God. This does not mean that a person is fixed in this condition and cannot turn from the carnal mind and hear spiritual truth.

It would be like saying that as long as a man commits adultery he cannot possibly please God. This is true, but it does not mean he cannot turn from this sin.

The scriptures in fact show man can turn at God's rebuke, and when he does so God will pour out his Spirit on that man and teach him to understand scripture.

Pro 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

Calvinists use these verses with 1 Cor 2:14 to teach that the natural man cannot understand spiritual matters. But this does not mean man cannot understand the simple gospel, that he is a sinner and that Jesus died for his sins. After turning to God in repentance and faith, God pours out his Spirit and then begins to give the new believer spiritual knowledge. There is a distinction between the simple gospel and the "deeper things" of God.

Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

 

[agedman]

This may not be your intent....but even the unregenerate are not always "as evil as they could or might be"

Mat 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Luk 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if [he ask] a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?


Luk 11:12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?


Luk 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Decidedly, the unregenerate, the wicked, COULD always make an un-righteous decision in any application....but they don't right? This of course, does not effect our standing towards God, but sometimes I get the idea that Calvinists, while focussing so strongly upon man's depravity make statements which appear to suggest that all the decisions all the time of the wicked...are in fact the most wicked decisions they might otherwise make. This is not true is it?

Of course not, that is why I use a term like "human righteousness" in comparison to Godly righteousness.

According to Paul in Roman's 10 even at best the human righteousness was not sufficient to gain any righteousness of or from God. And there is the Scriptures that state "all my righteousness is but a dirty rag."

Pelagius viewed man as basically good, and could attain a moral sinless state that was acceptable to God, because God would never ask what humankind was not capable of doing. It was his view that responsibility meant capability - taken in this manner if a person has responsibility to be a believer, then they have the capability to become a believer. Unfortunately, some of this teaching has infiltrated into various views and is called out in the affirmation as related in the OP. The first part of the OP statement of the affirmation that one must first sin for sin to condemn is a Pelagius view. He considered that there was no transfer of guilt or the sinful nature from parent to child. He was wrong.

Arminians (though they don't like to admit it) also agree with the Pelagian thinking in that God would not require of humankind what they could not actually achieve; that thinking leads to all manner of attempts to "free" the unregenerate will. The Scriptures do not allow for such, for then some part of salvation would rely upon Humankind ability, and that is not the way the Scriptures appoint salvation.

In the teaching of "age of accountability" most SB churches have done well to distinguish that a child is in fact sinful, but has no recognition of the sinfulness of sin. But, is that not the real state of every unregenerate. They can make vain attempts at doing good, but in reality it is meaningless and worthless.

The Scriptures clearly indicate that no matter how humanly righteous a person can attempt to attain, from God's perspective it is but filthy dirtiness.

Therefore, there is no capacity or innate ability in the natural unregenerate to attain, accept, or even acknowledge the righteousness of God.

Remember the two thieves? When the rebuke was given, he said to the other, "Do you not fear God..." The inability is complete in the unregenerate, and without the direct and purposed expression of the grace of God, there is no ability to do or chose Godly righteousness.

 

[Winman]

Agedman, I disagree with you. I believe it would be unjust of God to demand from man what he is unable to do.

Can the unnregenerate do that which is right? Of course, and this can be observed by everyone. An unregenerate man can be faithful to his wife, he can be honest, he can tell the truth.

But you attempt to turn this into sin. You say when an unregenerate man tells the truth it is "man's righteousness" and not "God's righteousness". Besides not having one word of support in scripture, this is utterly illogical.

Telling the truth is good, it is not sin. When an unregenerate man tells the truth, he is doing good by God's own standard.

In your view, God's commandments are meaningless and illogical. In your view, a man is committing sin when he tells the truth or is faithful to his wife. This is utterly absurd.

Why should any man do good if he is judged a sinner whether he does good or not? So, your view makes God's commandments meaningless and nonsensical. In fact, in your view there is no such thing as good, all things are evil.

This is one of the wacky and illogical doctrines of Calvinism. No wonder people reject religion.

 

[agedman]

Agedman, I disagree with you. I believe it would be unjust of God to demand from man what he is unable to do.

Can the unnregenerate do that which is right? Of course, and this can be observed by everyone. An unregenerate man can be faithful to his wife, he can be honest, he can tell the truth.

But you attempt to turn this into sin. You say when an unregenerate man tells the truth it is "man's righteousness" and not "God's righteousness". Besides not having one word of support in scripture, this is utterly illogical.

Telling the truth is good, it is not sin. When an unregenerate man tells the truth, he is doing good by God's own standard.

In your view, God's commandments are meaningless and illogical. In your view, a man is committing sin when he tells the truth or is faithful to his wife. This is utterly absurd.

Why should any man do good if he is judged a sinner whether he does good or not? So, your view makes God's commandments meaningless and nonsensical. In fact, in your view there is no such thing as good, all things are evil.

This is one of the wacky and illogical doctrines of Calvinism. No wonder people reject religion.

I gave Scriptural reference but you must have missed it.

More to the point, typical of Arminian/Pelagian thinking, you would call God unfair if he expected what humankind could not attain.

It doesn't matter which or what Law of God (commandments - Decalogue) is broken, the breaking of one causes the rest to be broken.

There is not one humankind that has the capability of keeping God's law.

That is directly in opposition to your view that God would never expect what humankind is incapable of achieving.

The rest of your statements are merely attempts to support your view which is couched in the premiss that is refuted by Humankind being incapable of keeping what God expects them to keep.

God is not unjust. Ezekiel addressed such claims, and they were soundly refuted.

It is man thinking that attempts to pull God down into some human rationalization and would attempt to present that any other thinking was making of God's character that which is unjust.

 

[Tom Butler]

Let me appeal to Ezekiel 36:26

Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

God is speaking through Ezekiel to an Israel which has been rebellious, profaned His name, and caused Him to be held up to ridicule by other nations.

Basically, he says "I'm going to fix that." The actions he will take will show the nations that He is a holy God. They will see this when they see what he is going to do with Israel.

God says that he's not going to do it for Israel's sake, but for the sake of his holy name.

Among the other things, is his intent to give them new hearts.
He continues in v 27-

And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws

The interesting thing is that these are unilateral acts by God. And he's not basing his actions on anything they do. In fact, their obedience to Him is the result of his moving on them to change their hearts. And then they will willingly follow his decrees and keep his laws.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Winman]

I gave Scriptural reference but you must have missed it.

More to the point, typical of Arminian/Pelagian thinking, you would call God unfair if he expected what humankind could not attain.

It doesn't matter which or what Law of God (commandments - Decalogue) is broken, the breaking of one causes the rest to be broken.

There is not one humankind that has the capability of keeping God's law.

That is directly in opposition to your view that God would never expect what humankind is incapable of achieving.

The rest of your statements are merely attempts to support your view which is couched in the premiss that is refuted by Humankind being incapable of keeping what God expects them to keep.

God is not unjust. Ezekiel addressed such claims, and they were soundly refuted.

It is man thinking that attempts to pull God down into some human rationalization and would attempt to present that any other thinking was making of God's character that which is unjust.

You did not give any scripture that supports your view. What scripture says that when man tells the truth or is faithful to his wife that this is sin?

I believe you were referencing Romans 10;

Rom 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

These verses in no way say that man is unable to do good, but that a man is not able to merit salvation. These are two distinct different subjects.

Man can do good, it is observed by everyone every day. But can man merit salvation? No, because to merit salvation a man would have to be absolutely perfect and never sin once in his entire life. No man has ever done this except Jesus Christ.

These men believed that they could attain a righteousness that is approved by God and could merit their salvation. This is not so, because all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

To "come short" of the glory of God is analogous to shooting at a target. Your arrow falls short of hitting the target. That does not mean the arrow did not leave your hands and fly toward the target, only that it fell short.

Likewise, men can do good, but no man is perfectly righteous and has not sinned. All men have "come short" of the glory of God, as God is absolutely righteous.

The scriptures do not teach that unregenerate man is unable to do good, but the scriptures do teach that all men have come short of the glory of God. These are not the same things whatsoever. It is your failure to recognize this distinction that leads to error.

 

[agedman]

You did not give any scripture that supports your view. What scripture says that when man tells the truth or is faithful to his wife that this is sin?

I believe you were referencing Romans 10;

Rom 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

These verses in no way say that man is unable to do good, but that a man is not able to merit salvation. Those are two distinct different subjects.

Did I not agree that there was a "human righteousness" that did not attain and never could attain to "Godly righteousness?" Are you making claim that "doing good" is the same as choosing "Godly righteousness?"

Ecclesiastes 7:15 All things have I seen in the days of my vanity: there is a just man that perishes in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man that prolongs his life in his wickedness.
16 Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why should thou destroy thyself?
17 Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why should thou die before thy time?
18 It is good that thou should take hold of this; yea, also from this withdraw not thine hand: for he that fears God shall come forth of them all.
19 Wisdom strengthens the wise more than ten mighty men which are in the city.
20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that does good, and sins not.

Man can do good, it is observed by everyone every day. But can man merit salvation? No, because to merit salvation a man would have to be absolutely perfect and never sin once in his entire life. No man has ever done this except Jesus Christ.

Then the good is only for social peace and regulation. This does not provide for the natural man to have any ability in which to attain Godly righteousness in what you now must admit is not attainable as you state in the next quote.

These men believed that they could attain a righteousness that is approved by God and could merit their salvation. This is not so, because all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

To "come short" of the glory of God is analogous to shooting at a target. Your arrow falls short of hitting the target. That does not mean the arrow did not leave your hands and fly toward the target, only that it fell short.

Doesn't matter - the target wasn't met. Many humankind have made vain attempts at self righteousness even a young rich man who came to Jesus and turned away in sorrow.

Pelagius considered that humankind (because his view was that man was basically good) could live sinless and attain heaven without the necessity of Christ.

Armininian adopts the similar thinking by declaring that the humankind will is not fallen and can attain to God's standard of righteousness by self volition. This is basically the same line that Pelagius provided, but to a lesser degree in an attempt to sway those who needed an alternative to God's decree of "not by the will of man." Hence the "free will" or "free choice" thinking.

You would consider that the arrow leaving the target shows some capability in at least seeing the target and therefore capability to eventually hit the target with enough strength or human effort.

That in essence is Pelagius thinking adopted into Arminianism. Godliness is not attained by human effort no matter how much practice and persistence - Pelagius died sinful.

The target is so far removed that it is not even seen nor considered by humankind to exist. How many have said, "I don't believe that God would ..." and refuse to acknowledge that what they said violated Scriptures. They don't see what God knows as truth, and therefore in that unregenerate eyes it doesn't exist.

Likewise, men can do good, but no man is perfectly righteous and has not sinned. All men have "come short" of the glory of God, as God is absolutely righteous.

The scriptures do not teach that unregenerate man is unable to do good, but the scriptures do teach that all men have come short of the glory of God. These are not the same things whatsoever. It is your failure to recognize this distinction that leads to error.

I didn't fail to make the distinction, you failed to read the distinction in my post(s). Perhaps you should quote in total what I posted and show where I left it out.

 

[Winman]

Did I not agree that there was a "human righteousness" that did not attain and never could attain to "Godly righteousness?" Are you making claim that "doing good" is the same as choosing "Godly righteousness?"

Telling the truth or being faithful to your spouse is righteous by God's own standard. There is no such thing as human righteousness and God's righteousness. If you tell the truth it is righteous, if you lie it is sin. In your view, telling the truth is sin. This is utterly ridiculous.

Ecclesiastes 7:15 All things have I seen in the days of my vanity: there is a just man that perishes in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man that prolongs his life in his wickedness.
16 Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why should thou destroy thyself?
17 Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why should thou die before thy time?
18 It is good that thou should take hold of this; yea, also from this withdraw not thine hand: for he that fears God shall come forth of them all.
19 Wisdom strengthens the wise more than ten mighty men which are in the city.
20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that does good, and sins not.

Yes, and these verses actually say man can do righteous works. How can you not see this?

Then the good is only for social peace and regulation. This does not provide for the natural man to have any ability in which to attain Godly righteousness in what you now must admit is not attainable as you state in the next quote.

You don't get it, telling the truth by anybody is not sin.

Doesn't matter - the target wasn't met. Many humankind have made vain attempts at self righteousness even a young rich man who came to Jesus and turned away in sorrow.

I agree with you, the scriptures teach that all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God. But that does not say unregenerate men are incapable of doing good. That is another subject altogether which you cannot seem to grasp. Nowhere do the scriptures teach that unregenerate man is unable to do good. You just don't get it.

Pelagius considered that humankind (because his view was that man was basically good) could live sinless and attain heaven without the necessity of Christ.

I really don't know much about what Pelagius believed (or care), I care about what the scriptures say.

Armininian adopts the similar thinking by declaring that the humankind will is not fallen and can attain to God's standard of righteousness by self volition. This is basically the same line that Pelagius provided, but to a lesser degree in an attempt to sway those who needed an alternative to God's decree of "not by the will of man." Hence the "free will" or "free choice" thinking.

Where do the scriptures say that man is fallen? The scriptures say all men have sinned, but the scriptures nowhere say man lost the ability to do good. Show me even one verse that says unregenerate men are UNABLE to do good.

You would consider that the arrow leaving the target shows some capability in at least seeing the target and therefore capability to eventually hit the target with enough strength or human effort.

No, it argues man can do good, but not good enough. If you sin even once in all your lifetime, then you have come short of the glory of God, because God is absolutely perfect.

That in essence is Pelagius thinking adopted into Arminianism. Godliness is not attained by human effort no matter how much practice and persistence - Pelagius died sinful.

Again, I do not care what Pelagius or Arminius believed, I do not get my beliefs out of some theology book, I get my beliefs from what the Bible says.

The target is so far removed that it is not even seen nor considered by humankind to exist. How many have said, "I don't believe that God would ..." and refuse to acknowledge that what they said violated Scriptures. They don't see what God knows as truth, and therefore in that unregenerate eyes it doesn't exist.

The target is to obey God and do what he says. Tell me, is there any law God gave us that is impossible for you to do? Can you tell the truth? Can you be faithful to your wife? Can you be honest and not steal?

The fact that we all disobey God and sin does not prove we are unable to obey God. You cannot seem to grasp this either.

I didn't fail to make the distinction, you failed to read the distinction in my post(s). Perhaps you should quote in total what I posted and show where I left it out.

If you believe that the scriptures teach inability, then you cannot see the distinction. It is one thing to say no man doeth good, it is altogether a different thing to say all men are UNABLE to do good.

Scripture says- "No man doeth good"

Calvinist interpretation- "No man is ABLE to do good"

If you can't see this distinction, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[agedman]

Winman,

Below are the original posts that seem to be confusing you. I have bolded areas in which you desire disagreement, but there is none.

Tom,

You have very good insight in this post.

I would like to suggest a bit of a distinction that I have in my own view.

I consider that because the natural character of the unregenerate is totally unregenerate, then the "unregenerate will" can only recognize and choose that which is unregenerate and unrighteous. No person can successfully choose human righteous outside of the very direct and purposed work of God's grace.
...

Rather than "freedom of choice" as some would desire to cry, or human volition of choice, the believer will either submit to the unregenerate will or the "new nature" will; the unregenerate human has no other response but to submit to the unregenerate will.

In my opinion, any teaching of "free moral agency" or "freedom to choose" or "free will" is not Scripturally supported.

Every case in which the "natural man" was given choice, they ultimately failed in not only human righteousness but didn't even come close to Godly righteousness.

It is only with the "new nature" that humankind can choose righteously.

Not to derail the thread, but this brings about a problem with the teachings in most SB churches. That is the person "accepting" Christ as their Savior.

That "new nature" is only instilled into the person by God, and the Scriptures specifically state that humankind cannot perform the slightest thought or act in order for that installation to take place; Humankind only acknowledge their belief, they do not have the capacity to "accept." This is consistent with the teaching Paul gave in Romans 10.

I realize that in this modern age most SB churches teach that one must "accept" as in receiving the gift.

But, that is a frail teaching IMO. Rather, the gift of salvation is unconditional, and it is not up to Humankind to "accept" or "reject." The "natural man" will (by the very unregenerate nature of the will) turn from the truth of the Word. However, the installation of the "new nature" presents that person capable of expressing belief - rendering the appropriate interpretation of Romans 10:8 (in the mouth and in the heart already) and following verses (confession is made).

Of course not, that is why I use a term like "human righteousness" in comparison to Godly righteousness.

According to Paul in Roman's 10 even at best the human righteousness was not sufficient to gain any righteousness of or from God. And there is the Scriptures that state "all my righteousness is but a dirty rag."

Pelagius viewed man as basically good, and could attain a moral sinless state that was acceptable to God, because God would never ask what humankind was not capable of doing. It was his view that responsibility meant capability - taken in this manner if a person has responsibility to be a believer, then they have the capability to become a believer. Unfortunately, some of this teaching has infiltrated into various views and is called out in the affirmation as related in the OP. The first part of the OP statement of the affirmation that one must first sin for sin to condemn is a Pelagius view. He considered that there was no transfer of guilt or the sinful nature from parent to child. He was wrong.

Arminians (though they don't like to admit it) also agree with the Pelagian thinking in that God would not require of humankind what they could not actually achieve; that thinking leads to all manner of attempts to "free" the unregenerate will. The Scriptures do not allow for such, for then some part of salvation would rely upon Humankind ability, and that is not the way the Scriptures appoint salvation.

In the teaching of "age of accountability" most SB churches have done well to distinguish that a child is in fact sinful, but has no recognition of the sinfulness of sin. But, is that not the real state of every unregenerate. They can make vain attempts at doing good, but in reality it is meaningless and worthless.

The Scriptures clearly indicate that no matter how humanly righteous a person can attempt to attain, from God's perspective it is but filthy dirtiness.

Therefore, there is no capacity or innate ability in the natural unregenerate to attain, accept, or even acknowledge the righteousness of God.

Remember the two thieves? When the rebuke was given, he said to the other, "Do you not fear God..." The inability is complete in the unregenerate, and without the direct and purposed expression of the grace of God, there is no ability to do or chose Godly righteousness.

Now to point out some area of misunderstanding.

Telling the truth or being faithful to your spouse is righteous by God's own standard. There is no such thing as human righteousness and God's righteousness. If you tell the truth it is righteous, if you lie it is sin. In your view, telling the truth is sin. This is utterly ridiculous.

Not according to Romans 10

3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.​

What would you call "their own righteousness" if it is not "human righteousness?"

Yes, and these verses actually say man can do righteous works. How can you not see this?

I do, but not to the level of attaining anything of God's favor or even the ability to express anything favorable to God.

Isaiah 64:6

6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
​

Romans 3

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
​

I agree with you, the scriptures teach that all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God. But that does not say unregenerate men are incapable of doing good. That is another subject altogether which you cannot seem to grasp. Nowhere do the scriptures teach that unregenerate man is unable to do good. You just don't get it.

I didn't. I stated, "the unregenerate human has no other response but to submit to the unregenerate will."

Latter in the post I stated, "Every case in which the "natural man" was given choice, they ultimately failed in not only human righteousness but didn't even come close to Godly righteousness."

Isaiah 64:6

6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
​

I really don't know much about what Pelagius believed (or care), I care about what the scriptures say.

I was just showing the root of the thinking.

Where do the scriptures say that man is fallen? The scriptures say all men have sinned, but the scriptures nowhere say man lost the ability to do good. Show me even one verse that says unregenerate men are UNABLE to do good.

Because Adam sinned all have sinned. The sin of Adam is called the "Fall of Adam" therefore, all humankind have fallen.

I never stated they couldn't do good. I said that ultimately any choice the unregenerate makes is doomed, because the natural will is incapable of understanding much less attaining to Godly righteousness.

Isaiah 64:6

6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
​

No, it argues man can do good, but not good enough. If you sin even once in all your lifetime, then you have come short of the glory of God, because God is absolutely perfect.

Isaiah 64:6

6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
​

The fact that we all disobey God and sin does not prove we are unable to obey God. You cannot seem to grasp this either.

I understand it very well. You seem to be equating doing good as some Godly righteousness.

I have shown you that is just not Scriptural. The unregenerate obey God ONLY in matters in which God determines - for example pharaoh of Egypt was performing as God dictated he would when Moses confronted him. However, there is not any ability of the unregenerate man to posses any volition toward God that God did not first extend in Grace to allow.

If you believe that the scriptures teach inability, then you cannot see the distinction. It is one thing to say no man doeth good, it is altogether a different thing to say all men are UNABLE to do good.

Scripture says- "No man doeth good"

Calvinist interpretation- "No man is ABLE to do good"

If you can't see this distinction, I don't know what to tell you.

You can tell me that you now see that what I stated was correct and Scriptural; your desire to refute Calvinism apparently lead you to misread and interpret the posts.

 

[Winman]

Winman,

Below are the original posts that seem to be confusing you. I have bolded areas in which you desire disagreement, but there is none.

Now to point out some area of misunderstanding.

Not according to Romans 10

3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.​

What would you call "their own righteousness" if it is not "human righteousness?"

They believed they could attain righteousness through their own good works. They have not submitted to God's word that all men are sinners and have come short of the glory of God, and that the only way to attain righteousness is through faith in Christ.

Again, this is no proof that they are unable to do good. You cannot seem to stay on subject.

I do, but not to the level of attaining anything of God's favor or even the ability to express anything favorable to God.

Without faith it is impossible to please God, but there is no scripture that says men are UNABLE to have faith. Cornelius is a perfect example, he was not saved, yet he feared God and did works that were acceptable to God.

Isaiah 64:6

6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
​

Yes, righteousness is often compared to a robe in scripture. When Adam and Eve sinned, God made skins to clothe them when they believed God's promise representing the righteouness imputed them.

Again, this does not mean man cannot do good. In fact, the scriptures show man is clothed, he has righteousness, but his garments are torn and marred by sin. You don't get it, man can do good, but his righteousness is marred by sin.

Romans 3

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
​

No man can be justified by the law because all have sinned. The law condemns every man, because every man has sinned.

I didn't. I stated, "the unregenerate human has no other response but to submit to the unregenerate will."

You have not one scripture to support this. There were thousands who believed on Jesus before the Holy Spirit was given. How did they believe without the indwelling Holy Spirit if your view is correct?

Latter in the post I stated, "Every case in which the "natural man" was given choice, they ultimately failed in not only human righteousness but didn't even come close to Godly righteousness."

And this is false, thousands believed on Jesus.

Isaiah 64:6

6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
​

Addressed already.

I was just showing the root of the thinking.

No, it is the classic Calvinist tactic of guilt by association. Not fooled.

Why should I show you what I do not support?

The fact is that certainly all men are fallen creatures - that is what happened when Adam sinned - unless you hold to Pelagian thinking.

Again, where do the scriptures say that all men were disabled by Adam's sin so that they cannot do good? Show even one scripture that says this.

Isaiah 64:6

6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
​

Have you really read this verse? It says we fade like a leaf. A leaf at one time was new and green. Man is made upright (Ecc 7:29), but all men sin, and it is this sin that takes them away.

I understand it very well. You seem to be equating doing good as some Godly righteousness.

I am simply saying that telling the truth or being faithful to your wife is not sin, regardless of who does it. If EVERYTHING we do is sin (which is your view), then commandments are absolutely unnecessary and illogical.

In your view, a man who is honest is just as sinful as a perpetual thief. Commandments have no meaning whatsoever.

I have shown you that is just not Scriptural. The unregenerate obey God ONLY in matters in which God determines - for example pharaoh of Egypt was performing as God dictated he would when Moses confronted him. However, there is not any ability of the unregenerate man to posses any volition toward God that God did not first extend in Grace to allow.

Your view is not scriptural. If you think telling the truth is sin, you are very mixed up.

You can tell me that you now see that what I stated was correct and Scriptural; your desire to refute Calvinism apparently lead you to misread and interpret the posts.

Your view is that somehow it is different when an unregenerate man tells the truth and a regenerate man tells the truth. That is absurd, both are the truth and not sin. And likewise, when a person lies, it is sin whether you are regenerate or not.

 

[agedman]

They believed they could attain righteousness through their own good works. They have not submitted to God's word that all men are sinners and have come short of the glory of God, and that the only way to attain righteousness is through faith in Christ.

Again, this is no proof that they are unable to do good. You cannot seem to stay on subject.

Winman, YOU have not shown were I stated that the unregenerate was unable to do good.

Please show exactly were I made that statement.

Without faith it is impossible to please God, but there is no scripture that says men are UNABLE to have faith. Cornelius is a perfect example, he was not saved, yet he feared God and did works that were acceptable to God.

Oh, Winman, you neglect, "There is none righteous, no not one."

Barnes states the matter in these terms:

It should be remembered, further, that he was ready to receive the gospel when it was offered to him, and to become a Christian. In this there was an important difference between him and those who are depending for salvation on their morality in Christian lands. Such men are apt to defend themselves by the example of Cornelius, and to suppose that as he was accepted before he embraced the gospel, so they may be without embracing it. But there is an important difference in the two cases. For,

(1.) there is no evidence that Cornelius was depending on external morality for salvation. His offering was that of the heart, and not merely an external offering. Moral men in Christian lands depend on their external morality in the sight of men. But God looks upon the heart.

(2.) Cornelius did not rely on his morality at all. His was a work of religion. He feared God; he prayed to him; he exerted his influence to bring his family to the same state. Moral men do neither. All their works they do to be "seen of men;" and in their heart there is "no good thing towards the Lord God of Israel." Comp. #1Ki 14:13 2Ch 19:3. Who hears of a man that "fears God," and that prays, and that instructs his household in religion, that depends on his morality for salvation?

(3.) Cornelius was disposed to do the will of God, as far as it was made known to him. Where this exists there is religion. The moral man is not.

(4.) Cornelius was willing to embrace a Savior, when he was made known to him. The moral man is not. He hears of a Savior with unconcern; he listens to the message of God's mercy from year to year without embracing it. In all this there is an important difference between him and the Roman centurion; and while we hope there may be many in pagan lands who are in the same state of mind that he was --disposed to do the will of God as far as made known, and therefore accepted and saved by his mercy in the Lord Jesus--yet this cannot be adduced to encourage the hope of salvation in those who do know his will, and yet will not do it.
​

I posted, "I stated, "the unregenerate human has no other response but to submit to the unregenerate will."

To which you responded:

You have not one scripture to support this. There were thousands who believed on Jesus before the Holy Spirit was given. How did they believe without the indwelling Holy Spirit if your view is correct?

I thought you would have already known this, but here is "one Scripture to support" you desired.

Consider: 1 Cor 2

14 But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
​

And this is false, thousands believed on Jesus.

If they believed then they were infused with the "new nature" and will in order to express such belief - just as Romans teaches.

No, it is the classic Calvinist tactic of guilt by association. Not fooled.

Really? You aren't fooled? You embrace a view that I have shown Scriptural proof is adverse to your thinking and you are not fooled?

You stated you didn't investigate the connection, and yet have the audacity to doubt not only my veracity but claim I am using some tactic of deceit?

Winman, look at the evidence of the root of your view for yourself if you don't believe me.

Again, where do the scriptures say that all men were disabled by Adam's sin so that they cannot do good? Show even one scripture that says this.

This is Pelagian who was a heretic. I have shown you Scriptures. You reject the Scriptures and have embraced in at least two posts this Pelagian heresy.

Have you really read this verse? It says we fade like a leaf. A leaf at one time was new and green. Man is made upright (Ecc 7:29), but all men sin, and it is this sin that takes them away.

NO, that is Pelagian thinking. Humankind is born in sin. They from conception have the imputation of Adams unrighteousness.

Psalms 51:5 "Behold, I was shaped in iniquity (sin); and in sin did my mother conceive me."

I am simply saying that telling the truth or being faithful to your wife is not sin, regardless of who does it. If EVERYTHING we do is sin (which is your view), then commandments are absolutely unnecessary and illogical.

In your view, a man who is honest is just as sinful as a perpetual thief. Commandments have no meaning whatsoever.

I have posted Scripture and principle in which you disagree. You assert I have made statements that I have not, and in this area you are misapplying the principle of Godly versus human righteousness.

First, "human righteousness" does not mean sinful, but it is doomed to failure. That is Scriptures and has been proven to you.

Second, If you are unregenerate, than yes everything you do (even good) will ultimately fail, that doesn't make it sinful, it just is as any human effort there will be decay and eventual death. Nothing man generated lasts forever.

Third, I do not know how you extrapolate anything you stated about the commandments as reliably accurate to my posts. To do so is pure hyperbole.

Your view is not scriptural. If you think telling the truth is sin, you are very mixed up.

PLEASE, post were I ever stated this?

I haven't and when you brought it up, I showed that I had not made such an argument in the posts.

Your view is that somehow it is different when an unregenerate man tells the truth and a regenerate man tells the truth. That is absurd, both are the truth and not sin. And likewise, when a person lies, it is sin whether you are regenerate or not.

You are fixated on a single element, it is a falsehood that I did not state, and you continue to deny the truth.

YOU have some proving to do.

1) Prove your claim that I have made the statement you claim is absurd.

2) Demonstrate by Scriptures what error I have made in my use of human righteousness compared to the Godly righteousness.

3) Prove that you are not Pelagian in thinking on the matter of Adam's sin is not imputed to the prodigy as you have contended at least twice.

4) Prove by Scriptures how the natural (fallen) man can receive anything of the Spirit of God without the direct and purposed Grace of God intervening first.

5) Prove by Scriptures that the unregenerate man can of self volition claim any portion of salvation without the direct and purposed work of God having already first done a work of Grace in that person.

 

[Winman]

Winman, YOU have not shown were I stated that the unregenerate was unable to do good.

Please show exactly were I made that statement.

When you said this;

"the unregenerate human has no other response but to submit to the unregenerate will."

Perhaps you can explain exactly what you are saying here.

Oh, Winman, you neglect, "There is none righteous, no not one."

I do not deny this, to be righteous means to be 100% righteous without ever sinning. No man is righteous in this respect. This does not mean than man cannot do righteous works, in fact the scriptures say he can.

Eze18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

This is God himself speaking, and he is speaking of a lost person here. God says if a man turns from his righteousness and commits sin, all his "righteousness that he hath done" shall not be mentioned.

Men can do righteous works, God himself said so. But the moment a man sins he is condemned by the law and comes short of the glory of God. A man will die in this sin unless he places faith in Christ.

Barnes states the matter in these terms:

It should be remembered, further, that he was ready to receive the gospel when it was offered to him, and to become a Christian. In this there was an important difference between him and those who are depending for salvation on their morality in Christian lands. Such men are apt to defend themselves by the example of Cornelius, and to suppose that as he was accepted before he embraced the gospel, so they may be without embracing it. But there is an important difference in the two cases. For,

(1.) there is no evidence that Cornelius was depending on external morality for salvation. His offering was that of the heart, and not merely an external offering. Moral men in Christian lands depend on their external morality in the sight of men. But God looks upon the heart.

(2.) Cornelius did not rely on his morality at all. His was a work of religion. He feared God; he prayed to him; he exerted his influence to bring his family to the same state. Moral men do neither. All their works they do to be "seen of men;" and in their heart there is "no good thing towards the Lord God of Israel." Comp. #1Ki 14:13 2Ch 19:3. Who hears of a man that "fears God," and that prays, and that instructs his household in religion, that depends on his morality for salvation?

(3.) Cornelius was disposed to do the will of God, as far as it was made known to him. Where this exists there is religion. The moral man is not.

(4.) Cornelius was willing to embrace a Savior, when he was made known to him. The moral man is not. He hears of a Savior with unconcern; he listens to the message of God's mercy from year to year without embracing it. In all this there is an important difference between him and the Roman centurion; and while we hope there may be many in pagan lands who are in the same state of mind that he was --disposed to do the will of God as far as made known, and therefore accepted and saved by his mercy in the Lord Jesus--yet this cannot be adduced to encourage the hope of salvation in those who do know his will, and yet will not do it.
​

Well, I only quoted Barnes before because I knew you would not listen to my explanation of Romans 8. I do not agree with Barnes here, the scriptures say that Cornelius was a devout man who feared God, yet we know for a fact he was not saved, and did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Now, did Cornelius do this without the grace of God? No, and I have always said that no man could possibly believe in the true God unless God had graciously revealed himself through the word of God. But this does not mean that a man must be supernaturally regenerated to believe. Cornelius no doubt had heard the OT scriptures and believed them, so he certainly was assisted by God. But there is no mention of him being regenerated to believe as Calvinsim teaches.

I posted, "I stated, "the unregenerate human has no other response but to submit to the unregenerate will."

To which you responded:

Yes, and I would like you to explain exactly what you mean by this. Are you saying a man will always reject the gospel? If so, scripture argues against you, many thousands of folks believed on Christ before the indwelling Holy Spirit was given. Can a man be regenerated without the indwelling Holy Spirit?

I thought you would have already known this, but here is "one Scripture to support" you desired.

Consider: 1 Cor 2

14 But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
​

Oh, I have seen this quoted by Calvinists dozens of times, but Galatians 3:2 shows the Calvinist interpretation of this false.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

This question by Paul demands the answer that these Galatians received the Holy Spirit AFTER hearing and believing the gospel.

Now, I ask you, is it possible for a man to be regenerated without the indwelling Holy Spirit? Please answer that question directly.

If they believed then they were infused with the "new nature" and will in order to express such belief - just as Romans teaches.

There is no "if" about it, the scriptures say many people believed on Christ before the Holy Spirit was given.

Again, I ask you, is it possible to be regenerated without the indwelling Holy Spirit? Please answer that.

Really? You aren't fooled? You embrace a view that I have shown Scriptural proof is adverse to your thinking and you are not fooled?

No, I am not. Calvinists constantly accuse non-Cals of being Pelagians. It is simply the old "guilty by association" tactic. I don't have a clue what Pelagius truly believed, and I doubt you do either.

You stated you didn't investigate the connection, and yet have the audacity to doubt not only my veracity but claim I am using some tactic of deceit?

Yes, I am saying directly that you are using the old tactic of "guilty by association" that many Calvinists use. You have been taught well.

If you can call me a Pelagian, then why can't I accuse you of a dishonest tactic? What is good for the goose is good for the gander, if you can't take the heat, you should get out of the kitchen.

Winman, look at the evidence of the root of your view for yourself if you don't believe me.

My view is arrived at by my personal study of scripture. If it happens to agree with Pelagius in some respects, who cares? I don't. I am not exactly sure what Pelagius believed, and I doubt anyone does. Most of what has been written about Pelagius has been written by those who use him to slur others. It is real easy to make claims against a dead man who cannot defend himself.

This is Pelagian who was a heretic. I have shown you Scriptures. You reject the Scriptures and have embraced in at least two posts this Pelagian heresy.

Who called him a heretic? The Roman Catholic Church and Augustine, the most corrupt church that the world has ever seen! Do you believe everything that Augustine and the RCC tells you?

NO, that is Pelagian thinking. Humankind is born in sin. They from conception have the imputation of Adams unrighteousness.

I disagree, the scriptures say that God has made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions. In other words, they become sinful AFTER they are born.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions

The word "they" points back to the word "man" and shows this is speaking of every man.