No one is righteous = No one can believe???

[JesusFan]

When debating Calvinists I too often here them quote Romans 3 where Paul said, "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God."

They quote this as if it proves their contention that because no one is righteous according to the law that no one can be declared righteous through faith either. They wrongly seem to equate the righteousness which people of that day believed came by observing the law with righteousness, apart from the law, which comes through faith in Christ, who fulfilled the law on our behalf.

Paul explain this distinction if one continues to read the entire context of Romans 3:

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."

Now, on what basis do Calvinists equate the inability of man to be righteous observing the law with their contention regarding men's inability to be credited as righteous through faith in Christ?

IOW, does man's inability to be righteous through observing the law prove his inability to be righteous through faith in the one who fulfilled the law on our behalf? If so, where in scripture is that taught?

Well....

ALL werre saved or condemned by God NOT due to the inability to keep all of His law, as NONE of us are perfect within ourselves to do such...

So ANY who were rightous before God was due to God provoding it/crediting it to their account...

Think Apostle paul main point contending for here is that we are sinners, estranged form God, unable to come to the Lord UNLESS God credits His rightous to us...

that is through jesus Christ, and Him alone, faith is the means that we use to "tap" into and access it...

Don't think really addressing IF we come to God as the elect, or if its by a "free will" response!

 

[psalms109:31]

Paul

What ever Paul said was to support Jesus Christ not Arminian or Calvinism, only men do that. When I look at Paul's life not his word, his word becomes more enlightened. That his life depicted evangelizing Christ and Him crucified. When I see those verses that none are righteous, and none seek God. It is word to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a world that does not seek God or know Him. It is not to support they need a enabling because they can not have enabling without the word, but they need the word about Christ and His word that is Spirit and life. If we have not His word we have no life.

 

[Skandelon]

We don't 'equate' it.

Equate may not be the right word, but what I meant was that Cals often point to man's inability to keep the law as proof that man can't believe in the one who fulfilled the law. They typically use Romans 8 as a proof text to support this view.

Man is unable to be righteous according to the law because he is a sinner. He is unable to be credited as righteous through faith in Christ

This is what I'm talking about. Where do you get the link between man being unable to righteous according to the law and his being unable to be credited as righteous through faith?

Let's look at the two proof texts you use:

because, as sinners, 'There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.'

Again, this is a quote from Paul while speaking about the righteousness of the law. We all agree that no one seeks God, but what about when he seeks us by sending his son, the gospel, the church, apostles, preachers etc etc etc? Does proof that we don't seek God on our own prove that we can't respond to a God seeking to reconcile us? I don't see that supported in this text, do you? If so, how?

The other verse has been covered over and over...

Or. if you prefer, 'The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him.'

The fact that in the next several verses Paul refers to the "brethren" in the church of Corinth as "carnal/natural" men who can't receive these same things of the spirit proves this is not saying what you claim it is saying, otherwise they would never be "brethren" to begin with.

Now this is not because God forces them in some way to believe that faith in Christ is foolishness. No, they believe this because they are sinners and they want to believe that way

I understand your point because as a Calvinists I made that argument many times, but here is why I reject it now. Who decided what would happen to all mankind after Adam sinned? Who decided that all mankind would be born completely deaf, blind and unable to understand even the clear call of God to be reconciled? Was it not God? You can't avoid that by simply attempting to say that God was somehow passively letting them "be sinners," when in reality your system has God actively choosing to blind the mass of humanity from being able to see and understand his revelation and his message of reconciliation...all the while presenting it as if he means it to be for every man and desire all to hear it and repent. I don't believe that is biblical.

'And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil' (John 3:19).

That is why men will not believe unless God opens their hearts to do so.

And we agree on this point, we just disagree as to the means God uses to "open the hearts."

There are plenty of texts that show that unconverted men are unable to believe because of their own wickedness and the hardness of their hearts.

I find several that speak of rebellious Jews being temporarily hardened after years of rejecting God's revelation, otherwise they might see, hear, understand and repent....but "the Gentiles will listen." (Acts 28:28) But I've yet to find any that speak of this as a condition from birth for all mankind.

 

[psalms109:31]

Risk

Who would risk their life for an unrighteous world that does not seek God? Who would still go spread the Gospel being warned that if they go something bad will happen, or be stoned to death, be crucified upside down, be imprisoned, be exiled if it is 100% God and none of man?

 

[Skandelon]

Why is the "no one who seeks God" hard to understand?

And what is so hard to understand that our contention is not about whether we are able to seek God, but whether or not we can respond to a God who is seeking us?

And what is so hard to understand that God sent his Son to seek and save the lost through inspiring the gospel, sending the apostles, preserving the scriptures, founding His church and sending Holy Spirit filled messengers to travel throughout all the world declaring "COME UNTO ME ALL YE WHO ARE WEAK."

Why does the message of reconciliation not have the ability to reconcile enemies of God?

 

[Skandelon]

The question, at least one of them, is: How does a man who is at constant enmity with God suddenly want to be a servant of God and thus trusts God for salvation?

Through the power of God unto salvation. Paul calls it the "gospel," and the "message of reconciliation."

My question is how can a message sent BY GOD for the purpose of bringing reconciliation to his enemies not be sufficient to accomplish that purpose? (Notice I said "sufficient" not "effectual," so please don't make the argument that because some resist the gospel's appeal that it isn't sufficient. In our view it is sufficient to save, in that it provide what is needed to allow a response. It accomplishes it's purpose, which is not to effectually save some, but to allow all to respond to that appeal.)

How does a man who hates everything about God suddenly STOP? How is a man who CANNOT receive the things of the Spirit of God suddenly able to receive them?

We both believe that the answer to this question is: "Through a powerful work of God." You just believe that "work of God" is effectual for a select few, while I believe it is sufficient for all.

The answer to these questions is clear- regeneration.

It is an "R" word, but I'd say it is RECONCILIATION, first. One must be reconciled to God before being regenerated. And that comes through the powerful message of reconciliation.

 

[Luke2427]

Through the power of God unto salvation. Paul calls it the "gospel," and the "message of reconciliation."
My question is how can a message sent BY GOD for the purpose of bringing reconciliation to his enemies not be sufficient to accomplish that purpose? (Notice I said "sufficient" not "effectual," so please don't make the argument that because some resist the gospel's appeal that it isn't sufficient. In our view it is sufficient to save, in that it provide what is needed to allow a response. It accomplishes it's purpose, which is not to effectually save some, but to allow all to respond to that appeal.)

It is sufficient (and effectual for that matter). It is by the Word of God that God gives the gift of faith to his elect.

We both believe that the answer to this question is: "Through a powerful work of God." You just believe that "work of God" is effectual for a select few, while I believe it is sufficient for all.

Why does God fail with most men?
Why does God succeed with some men?

It is an "R" word, but I'd say it is RECONCILIATION, first. One must be reconciled to God before being regenerated. And that comes through the powerful message of reconciliation.

It doesn't make sense.

Man who CANNOT receive the things of the Spirit of God (the very essence of faith) must be regenerated in order to be able to receive the things of the Spirit of God (iow, in order that they might have faith).

The carnal mind is enmity with God. The carnal mind stands in contradistinction to the spiritual mind which does not EXIST in the being of an unregenerate man.

The carnal mind CANNOT be subject to the law of God. It can do nothing BUT have other gods before God, etc, etc, etc... This is why regeneration is NECESSARY in order that man CAN be reconciled to God.

So long as he is ENMITY he is not reconciled.
Regeneration enables the CARNAL man to be overhauled SO THAT he can be reconciled to God.

 

[Winman]

"Done right in my sight" here could easily refer to doing right in terms of the law. In fact, considering that the verse specifically references a requirement of the law (specifically the year of jubilee) this would seem to be the natural reading. In short this verse is saying that they did what God commanded. It makes no reference to the ultimate moral impulse behind the act.

Hence This does not conflict with the Clvnist position as they do not deny that man can and does follow the Law. In that sense man does right in Gods sight. The Clvnist does not deny that man can do right in some sense.

I'm sorry, but this argument makes no sense. If men at times do what is right in God's sight (which you concede), then it is truly good or God could not say it was right. You are redefining God's own words.

The whole point I am trying to make is that the scriptures do not teach Total Inability. Man of himself would not do good, but men have the ability to hear and obey God (as I have shown), and when they do, they can perform true good that is acceptable in his sight. Man can also believe God's words. Total Inability is not scriptural.

Saying something is not good or right when God himself says they are good and right is a false argument IMHO, I know of no scriptural support for this argument that you and several others put forth.

 

[jbh28]

I'm sorry, but this argument makes no sense. If men at times do what is right in God's sight (which you concede), then it is truly good or God could not say it was right. You are redefining God's own words.

No, they did "right" as far as doing what the law said. Nobody says that people cannot do the right thing. You are redefining our words.

The whole point I am trying to make is that the scriptures do not teach Total Inability. Man of himself would not do good, but men have the ability to hear and obey God (as I have shown), and when they do, they can perform true good that is acceptable in his sight. Man can also believe God's words. Total Inability is not scriptural.

What you said is not scriptural. Men do not have any spiritual ability in himself except that which is given to him by God. So total inability is very Scriptural. Men are unable/unwilling to come to God on their own without God.

Men are also made in the image of God, so there are going to be times that we see "good" things that come from man. He doesn't do anything of these things as glory to God. Unregenerate men can and often do love others. Is this good? Of course. But He isn't doing it as an act of worship to God nor doing it for the glory of God. He has no desire to give God glory.

Hope that helps you understand better.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Amazed at how often men WANT to believe they have something good in them or can do something righteous.

Way too many scriptures that tell the ugly truth about the lies that man can do something good apart from radical regenerative work of the holy Spirit in their lives first.

 

[Winman]

No, they did "right" as far as doing what the law said. Nobody says that people cannot do the right thing. You are redefining our words.

What you said is not scriptural. Men do not have any spiritual ability in himself except that which is given to him by God. So total inability is very Scriptural. Men are unable/unwilling to come to God on their own without God.

Men are also made in the image of God, so there are going to be times that we see "good" things that come from man. He doesn't do anything of these things as glory to God. Unregenerate men can and often do love others. Is this good? Of course. But He isn't doing it as an act of worship to God nor doing it for the glory of God. He has no desire to give God glory.

Hope that helps you understand better.

Pure nonsense. You make a mockery of God's word. If a man tells the truth, he is obeying God's command and doing his will, and yet you call it sin.

Many men do not know the gospel, but have heard the Ten Commandments and try to obey them to please God. All men sin and come short of the glory of God, but at those times they do obey God they are doing true good.

 

[Winman]

Amazed at how often men WANT to believe they have something good in them or can do something righteous.

Way too many scriptures that tell the ugly truth about the lies that man can do something good apart from radical regenerative work of the holy Spirit in their lives first.

I am not defending man, I am defending God. If God cursed man so that he is born without the ability to obey God's word, then man is not at fault for sin, God is!

I am AMAZED that anyone can hold this doctrine.

 

[Winman]

Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses's seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Was Jesus telling these people to sin by attempting to obey the law? NO. The sin was NOT DOING the law.

Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Were the scribes and Pharisees regenerate? NO. Did Jesus condemn them for tithing? NO, he said they OUGHT to have done these things.

Now, if everything the unregenerate does is false worship, why would Jesus tell them they OUGHT to do these things? Was Jesus telling them they should sin?

No, their tithing was good and correct and what they should do, there was no sin here. The sin was that they omitted the weightier matters of the law as judgment, mercy, and faith.

So, these scribes and Pharisees were unregenerate, but some things they did were good and according to Jesus, they should have done these things.

The problem with man is not when he does good, man's problem is when he sins.

 

[webdog]

I never understood the logic behind an unregenerate person's obedience to God's law being deemed sin. It is taking the "filthy rags" bit beyond where it should go, which is no amount of works will ever earn righteousness.

 

[Skandelon]

Why does God fail with most men?

He would only be "failing" if you presume he is attempting to effectually save and can't, rather than what we actually believe...which is that God provides the means through which they can be saved. His word never fails to provide all that is needed for salvation for everyone, as he does in the Calvinistic system.

Why does God succeed with some men?

Again, it's not about God's success or failure, unless you presume His purpose is to save every single person regardless of their will. He is always successful at accomplishing his purpose, we just disagree as to what that purpose is. You think it is to save a few effectually. I believe it is to provide the means of reconciliation for the entire world.

Now, if you want me to presume my premise upon your view, I could ask you why God has failed to provide the means of reconciliation for everyone he claims to love and desire to come to salvation?

Man who CANNOT receive the things of the Spirit of God (the very essence of faith) must be regenerated in order to be able to receive the things of the Spirit of God (iow, in order that they might have faith).

The carnal mind is enmity with God. The carnal mind stands in contradistinction to the spiritual mind which does not EXIST in the being of an unregenerate man.

The carnal mind CANNOT be subject to the law of God. It can do nothing BUT have other gods before God, etc, etc, etc... This is why regeneration is NECESSARY in order that man CAN be reconciled to God.

Then explain to me why Paul goes on in the verse next couple of verses to call the "brethren" in Corinth "carnal" and unable to accept these same spiritual things? Answer that please.

So long as he is ENMITY he is not reconciled.

Right, thus the message of reconciliation sent for the purpose of bringing reconciliation to those who are enemies. It makes no since to assume that a message sent for the purpose of providing reconciliation is unable to reconcile because those it is sent to are enemies. It's like saying the cure for aids doesn't work on people with aids because they have aids, so you have to magically heal people from aids prior to their getting the cure so that they can accept the cure. That makes no sense.

 

[Winman]

I never understood the logic behind an unregenerate person's obedience to God's law being deemed sin. It is taking the "filthy rags" bit beyond where it should go, which is no amount of works will ever earn righteousness.

Yes, the scriptures do not say man cannot do righteous works, it says his righteousnesses are marred and polluted by sin.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Does this verse say we have no righteousnesses? NO, it says we do, but our iniquities have taken us away.

Away from what? What has our iniquities taken us away from? From sin? If we are born sinners, how can our iniquities take us away?

 

[Winman]

He would only be "failing" if you presume he is attempting to effectually save and can't, rather than what we actually believe...which is that God provides the means through which they can be saved. His word never fails to provide all that is needed for salvation for everyone, as he does in the Calvinistic system.


Again, it's not about God's success or failure, unless you presume His purpose is to save every single person regardless of their will. He is always successful at accomplishing his purpose, we just disagree as to what that purpose is. You think it is to save a few effectually. I believe it is to provide the means of reconciliation for the entire world.

Now, if you want me to presume my premise upon your view, I could ask you why God has failed to provide the means of reconciliation for everyone he claims to love and desire to come to salvation?

Then explain to me why Paul goes on in the verse next couple of verses to call the "brethren" in Corinth "carnal" and unable to accept these same spiritual things? Answer that please.

Right, thus the message of reconciliation sent for the purpose of bringing reconciliation to those who are enemies. It makes no since to assume that a message sent for the purpose of providing reconciliation is unable to reconcile because those it is sent to are enemies. It's like saying the cure for aids doesn't work on people with aids because they have aids, so you have to magically heal people from aids prior to their getting the cure so that they can accept the cure. That makes no sense.

Yes, how do you reconcile with a friend? Why preach reconciliation to someone who is regenerated and no longer an enemy? Nonsensical.

 

[jbh28]

Pure nonsense. You make a mockery of God's word. If a man tells the truth, he is obeying God's command and doing his will, and yet you call it sin.

Many men do not know the gospel, but have heard the Ten Commandments and try to obey them to please God. All men sin and come short of the glory of God, but at those times they do obey God they are doing true good.

Nobody is pleasing God that is unsaved. You claim in your usual childlike responses that I "make a mockery of god's word" yet I'm only quoting the Scriptures. You remind me of the pharisees that Jesus dealt with in the gospels. You say one does good because of his outside actions, when true goodness goes to the heart of the issue. Colossians 3:23 says to do your work to the lord and not to men. If one does his work. He does everything he is supposed to do. He obeys his boss. He tells the truth. He's on time. If he does this as unto men and not to God, he is sinning.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Does this verse say we have no righteousnesses? NO, it says we do, but our iniquities have taken us away.

It says that our righteousness are "filthy rags." They are worthless. While the act itself is "right" it's worthless.

If God cursed man so that he is born without the ability to obey God's word, then man is not at fault for sin, God is!

God cursed man because of man's sin. (Rom 5)

All good comes from God. Man has no good in himself except through Jesus Christ. Unregenerate man do not have good in them.

 

[Winman]

Nobody is pleasing God that is unsaved. You claim in your usual childlike responses that I "make a mockery of god's word" yet I'm only quoting the Scriptures. You remind me of the pharisees that Jesus dealt with in the gospels. You say one does good because of his outside actions, when true goodness goes to the heart of the issue. Colossians 3:23 says to do your work to the lord and not to men. If one does his work. He does everything he is supposed to do. He obeys his boss. He tells the truth. He's on time. If he does this as unto men and not to God, he is sinning.

Cornelius was not saved (or else why would he need to hear the gospel?), yet he was devout and feared God, and God heard his prayers.

It says that our righteousness are "filthy rags." They are worthless. While the act itself is "right" it's worthless.

You overlook the obvious, the scriptures say man has righteousnesses. I agree they are worthless, because our sins have carried us away. The point I am making is that Total Inability is a false and unscriptural doctrine.

God cursed man because of man's sin. (Rom 5)

No, you believe God cursed man nature because of Adam's sin, violating God's own word that the son shall not bear the sin of his father (Eze 18:20).

All good comes from God. Man has no good in himself except through Jesus Christ. Unregenerate man do not have good in them.

All good does come from God, and man was made in God's image. This is stated after the fall, (Gen 9:6, Jam 3:9). How can we still be in God's image and incapable of good?

I have already shown several examples of the scriptures showing man doing good, but you ignore them, or try to redefine God's own words. If God says men did right in his sight, then it was truly right.

 

[Winman]

Nobody is pleasing God that is unsaved. You claim in your usual childlike responses that I "make a mockery of god's word" yet I'm only quoting the Scriptures. You remind me of the pharisees that Jesus dealt with in the gospels. You say one does good because of his outside actions, when true goodness goes to the heart of the issue. Colossians 3:23 says to do your work to the lord and not to men. If one does his work. He does everything he is supposed to do. He obeys his boss. He tells the truth. He's on time. If he does this as unto men and not to God, he is sinning.

Cornelius was not saved (or else why would he need to hear the gospel?), yet he was devout and feared God, and God heard his prayers.

It says that our righteousness are "filthy rags." They are worthless. While the act itself is "right" it's worthless.

You overlook the obvious, the scriptures say man has righteousnesses. I agree they are worthless, because our sins have carried us away. The point I am making is that Total Inability is a false and unscriptural doctrine.

God cursed man because of man's sin. (Rom 5)

No, you believe God cursed man's nature because of Adam's sin, violating God's own word that the son shall not bear the sin of his father (Eze 18:20).

All good comes from God. Man has no good in himself except through Jesus Christ. Unregenerate man do not have good in them.

All good does come from God, and man was made in God's image. This is stated after the fall, (Gen 9:6, Jam 3:9). How can we still be in God's image and incapable of good?

I have already shown several examples of the scriptures showing man doing good, but you ignore them, or try to redefine God's own words. If God says men did right in his sight, then it was truly right.