Sympathy for the Arminian, Part 3

[Yeshua1]

That's correct. :thumbsup:

they deny the full effectsof the Fall of Adam towards Humanity, try to keep full free will intact still, and deny that jesus really meant that NONE can even come to Him apart from the will and working of both the Father and the Holy Spirit!

We all are born spiirutal blind and deaf, nothing residing withus to respond freely to him!

 

[Winman]

they deny the full effectsof the Fall of Adam towards Humanity, try to keep full free will intact still, and deny that jesus really meant that NONE can even come to Him apart from the will and working of both the Father and the Holy Spirit!

We all are born spiirutal blind and deaf, nothing residing withus to respond freely to him!

Where does the Bible say we are unable to respond to the gospel?

 

[Inspector Javert]

Originally Posted by Protestant

7. Many on this Baptist Board are in unbelief regarding this crucial teaching of Jesus. They claim man can see spiritually by his own power.

Even this very manner of speaking is merely a Determinist platitude devoid of any real meaning. Even one who is eating food or breathing oxygen isn't exactly doing so "BY HIS OWN POWER".

Inasmuch as:
Act 17:28
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Then no one really believes that one does anything "BY THEIR OWN POWER". Any "power" a human has to do ANYTHING is fundamentally given or granted by God to begin with: Thus, to say they can do it "by their own power" is really a misnomer. A "power" God can Sovereignly grant maybe...but it's not "theirs" to begin with.

But Calvinist Polemic is loaded with trading on such ambiguities to suggest something about the opposition which no one denies....it fools a lot of people.

Even P4T fell for what is essentially a vapid canard. That statement actually SAYS nothing meaningful.

What I have sympathy for...isn't the Arminian, it's the well-intentioned and easily confused sycophant who thinks statements like this make any legitimate point.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Where does the Bible say we are unable to respond to the gospel?

In Jonathan Edwards 4:6....sheesh Winman, keep up.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Yeshua1 doesn't understand that the word of God is like a light that enables men to see. He thinks a person has to be ZAPPED in addition to the word of God. This view is very similar to the mystical religions which so heavily influenced the RCC and her daughters. It's MAGIC!

It's also Manicheanism because in the mind of the Calvinist matter itself possesses innate evil or virtue. It's Medieval folklore.

 

[The Biblicist]

Even this very manner of speaking is merely a Determinist platitude devoid of any real meaning. Even one who is eating food or breathing oxygen isn't exactly doing so "BY HIS OWN POWER".

Inasmuch as:
Act 17:28
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Then no one really believes that one does anything "BY THEIR OWN POWER". Any "power" a human has to do ANYTHING is fundamentally given or granted by God to begin with: Thus, to say they can do it "by their own power" is really a misnomer. A "power" God can Sovereignly grant maybe...but it's not "theirs" to begin with.

But Calvinist Polemic is loaded with trading on such ambiguities to suggest something about the opposition which no one denies....it fools a lot of people.

Even P4T fell for what is essentially a vapid canard. That statement actually SAYS nothing meaningful.

What I have sympathy for...isn't the Arminian, it's the well-intentioned and easily confused sycophant who thinks statements like this make any legitimate point.

You are twisting his meaning and you know it. The doctrine of total depravity which in turn demands total inability according to any sane interpretation of Romans 8:7-8 robs the Arminian of his whole doctrine of an enabled fallen nature that acts in PARTNERSHIP with the Spirit of God in obtaining eternal life.

The following post has been reposted now for the seventh time and skandelon nor any other Arminian has dared to address it line by line simply because it proves grammatically and by word definition that the fallen nature of man "IS" incapable of participating with God in its salvation either before or after new birth:

Second, This carnal mindset of total inaiblity to please God is due to its nature of enmity toward God. Note that Paul says "IS enmity" not that it might "become" or has the "potential for" enmity as your doctrine of the fallen nature demands. The linking verb "is" is a STATE OF BEING verb and thus is describing what it "IS" by nature. The carnal mind IS enmity.

The term "enmity" means a STATE OF WAR. Hence, the fallen nature IS what it is - a state of war against God. This is what it is BY NATURE. That is its condition. That is its STATE OF BEING. That is not its POTENTIAL or what it MAY BECOME due to hardening but that is what it IS. What something IS, is its nature.

Your whole view of fallen man denies what it IS by nature as your view sees only that as its POTENTIAL due to hardening or something it becomes by process.

My view states this IS its nature and that is why it IS always at all times resistant to God's will/law - "and IS not subject to the law of God." Again, this "IS" what it "IS" by nature. By nature it is RESISTANT to God's will at all times because at all times it "IS" at war with God by nature.

This 'IS" what it "IS" from birth to death as man comes into the world with this kind of FALLEN NATURE and will leave this life with this kind of fallen nature.

Your view cannot accept this NATURE of fallen man because by nature the human will is totally IMPOTENT under the mastery of the law of indwelling sin and is FREE from righteousness and totally DEPRAVED as it IS by nature in a state of war and IS by nature resistant to the will of God and therefore is by nature TOTAL INABILITY to please God - "Neither indeed CAN be. So, they who are in the flesh CANNOT please God."

They CANNOT because they WILL NOT and they WILL NOT because that IS the nature of fallen man or the nature of ENMITY = state of war = the nature of resistance - "not subject to the law of God" That IS the nature of fallen man.

 

[Yeshua1]

Where does the Bible say we are unable to respond to the gospel?

have to ask isaiah and paul, as they seemed to indicate that NONE seek and follow after God by themselves, peter agreed with that also!

 

[Inspector Javert]

You are twisting his meaning and you know it.[/COLOR][/I]

I am not in the least. I am exposing the fallacious way he is trading on shades of meaning and verbal ambiguities....That was the entire purpose of the post.

And I'm correct in my assessment.

It was a meaningless canard.

 

[Inspector Javert]

The following post has been reposted now for the seventh time and skandelon nor any other Arminian has dared to address it line by line simply because it proves grammatically and by word definition that the fallen nature of man "IS" incapable of participating with God in its salvation either before or after new birth:

No...they haven't responded for 4 reasons:
1.) It's interminably long and self evidencing
2.) It isn't appreciably different from anything you've been saying for days/weeks now.
3.) No one HAS to respond to it, because, as I said before....you will take the time to respond to it yourself and begin debating solo for us.
(I mean why do the work when you will do it for us).
4.) We are getting bored with reading your dissertations.

We simply don't hold your postings in as high a regard as you obviously do.

Honestly, that's actually "why".

 

[Yeshua1]

You are twisting his meaning and you know it. The doctrine of total depravity which in turn demands total inability according to any sane interpretation of Romans 8:7-8 robs the Arminian of his whole doctrine of an enabled fallen nature that acts in PARTNERSHIP with the Spirit of God in obtaining eternal life.

The following post has been reposted now for the seventh time and skandelon nor any other Arminian has dared to address it line by line simply because it proves grammatically and by word definition that the fallen nature of man "IS" incapable of participating with God in its salvation either before or after new birth:

Second, This carnal mindset of total inaiblity to please God is due to its nature of enmity toward God. Note that Paul says "IS enmity" not that it might "become" or has the "potential for" enmity as your doctrine of the fallen nature demands. The linking verb "is" is a STATE OF BEING verb and thus is describing what it "IS" by nature. The carnal mind IS enmity.

The term "enmity" means a STATE OF WAR. Hence, the fallen nature IS what it is - a state of war against God. This is what it is BY NATURE. That is its condition. That is its STATE OF BEING. That is not its POTENTIAL or what it MAY BECOME due to hardening but that is what it IS. What something IS, is its nature.

Your whole view of fallen man denies what it IS by nature as your view sees only that as its POTENTIAL due to hardening or something it becomes by process.

My view states this IS its nature and that is why it IS always at all times resistant to God's will/law - "and IS not subject to the law of God." Again, this "IS" what it "IS" by nature. By nature it is RESISTANT to God's will at all times because at all times it "IS" at war with God by nature.

This 'IS" what it "IS" from birth to death as man comes into the world with this kind of FALLEN NATURE and will leave this life with this kind of fallen nature.

Your view cannot accept this NATURE of fallen man because by nature the human will is totally IMPOTENT under the mastery of the law of indwelling sin and is FREE from righteousness and totally DEPRAVED as it IS by nature in a state of war and IS by nature resistant to the will of God and therefore is by nature TOTAL INABILITY to please God - "Neither indeed CAN be. So, they who are in the flesh CANNOT please God."

They CANNOT because they WILL NOT and they WILL NOT because that IS the nature of fallen man or the nature of ENMITY = state of war = the nature of resistance - "not subject to the law of God" That IS the nature of fallen man.

Humanity has a sin nature, that in its very nature we desire to stay in the dark, and that we desire to assert "ourselves", as we mimic in that the Devil, as we refuse to bend to God on our own "wills"

 

[Winman]

have to ask isaiah and paul, as they seemed to indicate that NONE seek and follow after God by themselves, peter agreed with that also!

No, I'm asking you. You made this statement;

We all are born spiirutal blind and deaf, nothing residing withus to respond freely to him!

Now show us where the scriptures say we are all born spiritually blind and deaf, and have nothing residing within us to respond freely to Jesus.

If you are going to make statements like this, you should be prepared to support them with scripture.

You don't want to be a false teacher do you? That is a very serious offense.

 

[Winman]

Humanity has a sin nature, that in its very nature we desire to stay in the dark, and that we desire to assert "ourselves", as we mimic in that the Devil, as we refuse to bend to God on our own "wills"

Where does the Bible say this?

You need to quit making unsupported statements like this.

 

[The Biblicist]

No...they haven't responded for 4 reasons:
1.) It's interminably long and self evidencing
2.) It isn't appreciably different from anything you've been saying for days/weeks now.
3.) No one HAS to respond to it, because, as I said before....you will take the time to respond to it yourself and begin debating solo for us.
(I mean why do the work when you will do it for us).
4.) We are getting bored with reading your dissertations.

We simply don't hold your postings in as high a regard as you obviously do.

Honestly, that's actually "why".

Interpretation? They can't refute it! In regard to length it is quite short and to the point. It is specific and exegetically based. I guarantee you if they could point out any error in the exegetical based interpetation they would! You talk about a meaningless canard, it is this response by the Inspector.

Now for the eighth time I present this relative very short and concise exegetical based interpretation of Romans 8:7-8:

Second, This carnal mindset of total inaiblity to please God is due to its nature of enmity toward God. Note that Paul says "IS enmity" not that it might "become" or has the "potential for" enmity as your doctrine of the fallen nature demands. The linking verb "is" is a STATE OF BEING verb and thus is describing what it "IS" by nature. The carnal mind IS enmity.

The term "enmity" means a STATE OF WAR. Hence, the fallen nature IS what it is - a state of war against God. This is what it is BY NATURE. That is its condition. That is its STATE OF BEING. That is not its POTENTIAL or what it MAY BECOME due to hardening but that is what it IS. What something IS, is its nature.

Your whole view of fallen man denies what it IS by nature as your view sees only that as its POTENTIAL due to hardening or something it becomes by process.

My view states this IS its nature and that is why it IS always at all times resistant to God's will/law - "and IS not subject to the law of God." Again, this "IS" what it "IS" by nature. By nature it is RESISTANT to God's will at all times because at all times it "IS" at war with God by nature.

This 'IS" what it "IS" from birth to death as man comes into the world with this kind of FALLEN NATURE and will leave this life with this kind of fallen nature.

Your view cannot accept this NATURE of fallen man because by nature the human will is totally IMPOTENT under the mastery of the law of indwelling sin and is FREE from righteousness and totally DEPRAVED as it IS by nature in a state of war and IS by nature resistant to the will of God and therefore is by nature TOTAL INABILITY to please God - "Neither indeed CAN be. So, they who are in the flesh CANNOT please God."

They CANNOT because they WILL NOT and they WILL NOT because that IS the nature of fallen man or the nature of ENMITY = state of war = the nature of resistance - "not subject to the law of God" That IS the nature of fallen man.

 

[Winman]

No...they haven't responded for 4 reasons:
1.) It's interminably long and self evidencing
2.) It isn't appreciably different from anything you've been saying for days/weeks now.
3.) No one HAS to respond to it, because, as I said before....you will take the time to respond to it yourself and begin debating solo for us.
(I mean why do the work when you will do it for us).
4.) We are getting bored with reading your dissertations.

We simply don't hold your postings in as high a regard as you obviously do.

Honestly, that's actually "why".

Biblicist is an ego-maniac. He probably hates Calvin because he considers Calvin inferior to him.

He thinks Calvinism is all his idea. Kind of a theological Al Gore.

His posts are WAY too long, and difficult to follow. Not because they are too complex, but because he RAMBLES. Much of it is unintelligible and illogical.

He's a legend in his own mind. All of his posts are "indisputable!" :laugh:

It doesn't matter if we skip over his posts, he will read them and re-post them for himself over and over again.

The best thing about guys like Biblicist is that he doesn't mind if you insult him, because you are still talking about him. :thumbs:

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist is an ego-maniac. He probably hates Calvin because he considers Calvin inferior to him.

He thinks Calvinism is all his idea. Kind of a theological Al Gore.

His posts are WAY too long, and difficult to follow. Not because they are too complex, but because he RAMBLES. Much of it is unintelligible and illogical.

He's a legend in his own mind. All of his posts are "indisputable!" :laugh:

It doesn't matter if we skip over his posts, he will read them and re-post them for himself over and over again.

The best thing about guys like Biblicist is that he doesn't mind if you insult him, because you are still talking about him. :thumbs:

As I noted earlier in several other posts, when Arminians cannot respond to exegetical based exposition they resort to one or more of the following eisgetical tactics:

1. Personal attack
2. deflection
3. Run, Jump and Pit routine
4. Ridicule

Again, now for the NINTH time I present a relatively short exegetical based expositon of Romans 8:7-8 that proves that the fallen nature CANNOT particpate with God in obtaining salvation either before or after regeneration.

Second, This carnal mindset of total inaiblity to please God is due to its nature of enmity toward God. Note that Paul says "IS enmity" not that it might "become" or has the "potential for" enmity as your doctrine of the fallen nature demands. The linking verb "is" is a STATE OF BEING verb and thus is describing what it "IS" by nature. The carnal mind IS enmity.

The term "enmity" means a STATE OF WAR. Hence, the fallen nature IS what it is - a state of war against God. This is what it is BY NATURE. That is its condition. That is its STATE OF BEING. That is not its POTENTIAL or what it MAY BECOME due to hardening but that is what it IS. What something IS, is its nature.

Your whole view of fallen man denies what it IS by nature as your view sees only that as its POTENTIAL due to hardening or something it becomes by process.

My view states this IS its nature and that is why it IS always at all times resistant to God's will/law - "and IS not subject to the law of God." Again, this "IS" what it "IS" by nature. By nature it is RESISTANT to God's will at all times because at all times it "IS" at war with God by nature.

This 'IS" what it "IS" from birth to death as man comes into the world with this kind of FALLEN NATURE and will leave this life with this kind of fallen nature.

Your view cannot accept this NATURE of fallen man because by nature the human will is totally IMPOTENT under the mastery of the law of indwelling sin and is FREE from righteousness and totally DEPRAVED as it IS by nature in a state of war and IS by nature resistant to the will of God and therefore is by nature TOTAL INABILITY to please God - "Neither indeed CAN be. So, they who are in the flesh CANNOT please God."

They CANNOT because they WILL NOT and they WILL NOT because that IS the nature of fallen man or the nature of ENMITY = state of war = the nature of resistance - "not subject to the law of God" That IS the nature of fallen man.

 

[preacher4truth]

As I noted earlier in several other posts, when Arminians cannot respond to exegetical based exposition they resort to one or more of the following eisgetical tactics:

1. Personal attack
2. deflection
3. Run, Jump and Pit routine
4. Ridicule

Yep. This is a well known trait of anti-cals.

 

[Winman]

As I noted earlier in several other posts, when Arminians cannot respond to exegetical based exposition they resort to one or more of the following eisgetical tactics:

1. Personal attack
2. deflection
3. Run, Jump and Pit routine
4. Ridicule

This from the guy who's favorite debate tactic is to call people liars. You should go back in your posts sometime and count how many times you have called people liars, many dozens of times.

So you are the last person who should complain about personal attacks.

Again, now for the NINTH time I present a relatively short exegetical based expositon of Romans 8:7-8 that proves that the fallen nature CANNOT particpate with God in obtaining salvation either before or after regeneration.

Second, This carnal mindset of total inaiblity to please God is due to its nature of enmity toward God. Note that Paul says "IS enmity" not that it might "become" or has the "potential for" enmity as your doctrine of the fallen nature demands. The linking verb "is" is a STATE OF BEING verb and thus is describing what it "IS" by nature. The carnal mind IS enmity.

The term "enmity" means a STATE OF WAR. Hence, the fallen nature IS what it is - a state of war against God. This is what it is BY NATURE. That is its condition. That is its STATE OF BEING. That is not its POTENTIAL or what it MAY BECOME due to hardening but that is what it IS. What something IS, is its nature.

Your whole view of fallen man denies what it IS by nature as your view sees only that as its POTENTIAL due to hardening or something it becomes by process.

My view states this IS its nature and that is why it IS always at all times resistant to God's will/law - "and IS not subject to the law of God." Again, this "IS" what it "IS" by nature. By nature it is RESISTANT to God's will at all times because at all times it "IS" at war with God by nature.

This 'IS" what it "IS" from birth to death as man comes into the world with this kind of FALLEN NATURE and will leave this life with this kind of fallen nature.

Your view cannot accept this NATURE of fallen man because by nature the human will is totally IMPOTENT under the mastery of the law of indwelling sin and is FREE from righteousness and totally DEPRAVED as it IS by nature in a state of war and IS by nature resistant to the will of God and therefore is by nature TOTAL INABILITY to please God - "Neither indeed CAN be. So, they who are in the flesh CANNOT please God."

They CANNOT because they WILL NOT and they WILL NOT because that IS the nature of fallen man or the nature of ENMITY = state of war = the nature of resistance - "not subject to the law of God" That IS the nature of fallen man.

The problem with your view is that there is much scripture that refutes it.

For example, you say man by nature is at war with God, while the scriptures show man by nature obeys the law of God.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Here Paul says the Gentiles DO the things contained in the law. They are not rebelling against God here, they are not at war, they are OBEYING God's laws. And Paul shows that these laws are naturally written on these Gentile's hearts.

So, this contradicts your interpretation of Romans 8.

Another example is the disciples in the garden, which I think is key to understanding what Romans 8 is saying.

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

This is when Jesus asked several disciples to stay awake and pray with him in the garden, but they kept falling asleep. But note that Jesus said in their "spirit" they were willing. This was their natural born spirit, as they had not received the Holy Spirit yet. In their natural spirit they wanted to obey Jesus and pray with him, but their flesh was very weak and caused them to fall asleep.

Now, this I believe explains what Paul is saying in Romans 7:14-25 especially, but Romans 8 as well. The "flesh" does lust against the spirit. The flesh does not obey God, nor can it.

But a man's spirit is quite different, in a man's spirit he can be quite willing to obey God. I believe this is what Paul is repeatedly saying in Romans 7;

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Paul shows here that in his spirit he wills to do good. In his spirit he consents that the law of God is good.

But in his flesh he desires to do evil, he desires to please the flesh.

Now, Paul cannot be speaking from the perspective of a saved man in Romans 7, because no saved person is "sold under sin", and no saved person is brought "into captivity to the law of sin" as Paul says in Romans 7. Note also that Paul NEVER mentions the Holy Spirit even once in Romans 7.

So, this is the key to Romans 8. While a man minds the things of the flesh he cannot please God. It is impossible. But this is not saying that a man cannot mind the things of the spirit.

This would be like saying you cannot possibly please your wife while you stare at a young girl in a bikini on the beach. Your wife is NOT going to be happy while you do this, you cannot possibly please your wife while you do this, it is IMPOSSIBLE.

Does that mean you are unable to look away and make your wife happy? NO. You are reading inability into the scriptures when they are not there.

 

[The Biblicist]

This from the guy who's favorite debate tactic is to call people liars. You should go back in your posts sometime and count how many times you have called people liars, many dozens of times.

I NEVER respond to any new post by calling anyone a liar. That accusation occurs after there has been a substantive exchange and the other person simply ignores the evidences and/or perverts the evidences without any exegetical basis and/or charges me with things I never said or meant. The accusation is then called for.

However, you charateristically respond to new posts by ridicule, personal attack, deflection or the RUN JUMP and PIT routines and every reader following us knows that.

The problem with your view is that there is much scripture that refutes it.

Only because you treat every scripture the way you treat the contextual evidence of the scripture in the post. You RUN, JUMP and PIT rather than dealing with the internal facts of the immediate context. You can't and so you do the RJP routine or ridicule or deflect or make personal attacks.

For example, you say man by nature is at war with God, while the scriptures show man by nature obeys the law of God.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Here Paul says the Gentiles DO the things contained in the law. They are not rebelling against God here, they are not at war, they are OBEYING God's laws. And Paul shows that these laws are naturally written on these Gentile's hearts.

I have taken you to task by the immeidate context of this scripture and shown repeatedly you are abusing it, jerking it out of context and that Paul's intention is to prove exactly the opposite of how you are employing his words and his summary conclusion explicitly says so - Rom. 3:9-20. What do you do? Just repeat like a parrot and IGNORE the evidences.

But look what you are doing? You are doing the RUN, JUMP and PIT routine in living color.

Another example is the disciples in the garden, which I think is key to understanding what Romans 8 is saying.

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

This is when Jesus asked several disciples to stay awake and pray with him in the garden, but they kept falling asleep. But note that Jesus said in their "spirit" they were willing. This was their natural born spirit, as they had not received the Holy Spirit yet. In their natural spirit they wanted to obey Jesus and pray with him, but their flesh was very weak and caused them to fall asleep.

Again, you refuse to deal with the internal context of Romans 7:14-25 which contradicts your assumptions but you do the RUN, JUMP and PIT routine once again. You cannot deal with the internal contextual evidences which completely destroy your assumptions.

Now, this I believe explains what Paul is saying in Romans 7:14-25 especially, but Romans 8 as well. The "flesh" does lust against the spirit. The flesh does not obey God, nor can it.

Romans 7:14-25 explains itself and does so very clearly and contradicts every aspect of your premise that is founded not on the context but on your RUN, JUMP and PIT eisgesis.

But a man's spirit is quite different, in a man's spirit he can be quite willing to obey God. I believe this is what Paul is repeatedly saying in Romans 7;

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Paul shows here that in his spirit he wills to do good. In his spirit he consents that the law of God is good.

YOUR interpretation is a direct contradiction to Romans 8:7-8. It is a direct contradiction to the internal evidences of Romans 7:14-25. You refuse to acknowledge that the new birth is restricted to the "spirit" of man (Jn. 3:6) and that his "flesh" is still under the power of sin and disease and physical death prove it. Paul explicitly defines what aspect is at war with God in Romans 7:18 and that aspect IS still "sold under sin" and the consequences prove it.

But in his flesh he desires to do evil, he desires to please the flesh.

Now, Paul cannot be speaking from the perspective of a saved man in Romans 7, because no saved person is "sold under sin", and no saved person is brought "into captivity to the law of sin" as Paul says in Romans 7. Note also that Paul NEVER mentions the Holy Spirit even once in Romans 7.

He does not say "saved man" but says "MY FLESH" and he contrasts "MY FLESH" with His "inward man" which delights in the law of God but that is not possible with a lost man who "is enmity with God" and as a result "is not subject to the law of God."

You rewrite scripture to suit your doctrine and then reject scripture that contradicts your doctrine and then you play the RUN, JUMP and PIT routine to support your assumptions when the scriptures you PIT are treated exactly the same way by ignoring their context, and so it is an endless merri-go-round with you.

Deal with my exposition of Romans 8:7-8 line by line and fact by fact IF YOU ARE CAPABLE of doing that in an intellectually honest and objective manner.

 

[Protestant]

Protestant wrote: "14. All the glory of man’s spiritual sight and salvation resides in God, not man."

Not so

As I have stated time and again, Arminians have a single, united purpose: to share the honor and glory for their salvation with the Most High God.

Can you think of an infamous biblical antagonist who also wishes to be like the Most High God?

Can you think of Scriptures in which the Lord emphatically states He will not share His glory with another?

 

[Winman]

Protestant wrote: "14. All the glory of man’s spiritual sight and salvation resides in God, not man."

As I have stated time and again, Arminians have a single, united purpose: to share the honor and glory for their salvation with the Most High God.

Can you think of an infamous biblical antagonist who also wishes to be like the Most High God?

Can you think of Scriptures in which the Lord emphatically states He will not share His glory with another?

God provides the light (knowledge) that enables every man to believe, but the man must open his eyes and see.

Mat 13:5 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.


Jesus said these persons had "closed their eyes lest they should see".

These men were ABLE to see, but they were UNWILLING to see.

A truly blind person is unable to see, but a person who shuts his eyes is not unable, but unwilling.

It is not unlike the Jews who "stopped" their ears when Stephen preached;

Acts 7:57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,

A person who covers their ears is not unable to hear, but unwilling.

And you are a perfect example, I am showing you from scripture that "total inability' is false doctrine, but you are closing your eyes so that you cannot see, and stopping your ears so that you cannot hear.

Some things never change.