The Arminian Dilemma

[Winman]

What is the reason that no man has or ever will keep the commandments? The answer is spelled out in Romans 8:7 where scripture does say "IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF GOD AND NEITHER INDEED CAN BE" - that is the REASON given by Scriptures why no man has or no man ever will.

We have been through this. When a man is "carnally minded" he cannot obey the law of God. But scripture shows men can think spiritually.

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

Men are not always carnally minded. Here Jesus says the disciples were "willing" to be obedient in their spirit, but the flesh was weak.

Man is more than flesh, he is spirit, soul, and body. In his spirit man can be willing to be obedient. This is what Paul is describing in Romans chapter 7. Paul is speaking from the perspective of an unregenerate man because he says he is "sold under sin" and "captive to the law of sin". This describes an unsaved unregenerate man. He also never mentions the Spirit in this chapter, not once.

Yet, Paul repeatedly says it is his will to obey God in this chapter.

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.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Of course, you will never admit this is Paul speaking from the perspective of an unregenerate man because it absolutely refutes Calvinism.

 

[Winman]

Readers, look at the absolute false doctrines and irrationality embraced by Arminians when confronted with this dilemma!!!

1. They must embrace Justification by Works

2. They must deny previous condemnation as sinners

3. They must invalidate the need of justification and salvation altogether since they reject previous condemnation as sinners.

4. They must argue that to be condemned as sinners means immediate placement in hell.

This is the irrationality and false doctrines Arminians are forced to embrace due to this Biblical dilemma against their system.

Do not confuse me with Skan, I believe men are condemned the moment they commit their first sin. But I believe God does not impute sin to a man until he understands right from wrong before God (Age of Accountability).

But I disagree with you that men are UNABLE to obey God's laws. They are able, but that does not mean they will obey God's laws.

Again, I have never jumped off a ten story building, but that does not prove I am unable to do so.

Just because all men sin does not prove they are unable to obey the law.

 

[The Biblicist]

We have been through this.

You have no explanation why no man has or will keep the law. You pervert, distort and deny the Biblical reasons that perfectly explain why no man has or will keep the Law. Romans 8:7 speaks directly to this very point "NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW and NEITHER INDEED CAN BE" and Roman 8:8 explicltly states this is why all who are "in the flesh CANNOT please God." You must distort, pervert and deny what it explicitly states in clear language and what it means and what it is directly applied to in verse 8 as the explation why none "in the flesh can please God." Period! end of story!

 

[The Biblicist]

Do not confuse me with Skan, I believe men are condemned the moment they commit their first sin. .

You are both wrong because they are CONDEMNED ALREADY becuase they don't believe in Christ and NO HUMAN IS BORN A BELIEVER but ALL ARE BORN IN UNBELIEF and thus condemned already.

 

[Winman]

You have no explanation why no man has or will keep the law. You pervert, distort and deny the Biblical reasons that perfectly explain why no man has or will keep the Law. Romans 8:7 speaks directly to this very point "NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW and NEITHER INDEED CAN BE" and Roman 8:8 explicltly states this is why all who are "in the flesh CANNOT please God." You must distort, pervert and deny what it explicitly states in clear language and what it means and what it is directly applied to in verse 8 as the explation why none "in the flesh can please God." Period! end of story!

Actually, it is quite easy to explain why men sin. Men are born into a very sinful world with thousands of temptations. They also have the influence of sinners all around them.

When a baby is born, the baby must obey his fleshly lusts to survive. So he cries when he is hungry or needs sleep, or has a dirty diaper, etc...

Before a child is old enough to understand right and wrong, he has already spent several years satisfying his flesh whenever it had a desire. He has already formed a strong habit that will tug and pull him toward sin.

So, when you take all of these factors into consideration it is very easy to understand why all persons will sin. What is remarkable is that Jesus lived 33 years as a man in this world and never sinned.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Bible clearly and explicitly spells out in no uncertain terms that God demanded of men what He knew they were not able to perform and then justly condemned them. This not a matter of speculative philosphy what God "could" or "would" "might" or "may" do but what he actually DID and IS DOING right now. Eternal salation or damnation does not change this one iota but are evidential proofs that God has done this already as both are merely consequential to this indisputable fact.

I realize that Skandelon will just keep repeating his denial as he has no other option, as admission to this Biblical principle simply destroys his whole system of intepretation.

Therefore, I will proceed to just prove this principle from God's Word:

1. God obligated Israel to keep His commandments

Le 20:8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.

Le 20:22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.


2. God knew full well they were unable to keep this obligation even when He first obligated them to do so

Deut. 5:29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!

Rom. 3:19 ¶ Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
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.

Jn. 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

Rom. 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.



3. This failure is condemned as sin under penalty of death

1 Jn. 3:4 ¶ Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

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

Rom. 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; .

Jn. 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Note: No one is born into this world as a believer and so all men are condemned already. To be condemned by the law is to be defined as SINNERS worthy of death.


Potential future salvation does not change or deny this principle. No Post-Salvation can overturn or deny that FALLEN MAN was obligated by God to do what He knew they were without ability to do and yet justly condemned. Fallen men still have the same inability to be subject to the law of God, neither indeed can they be and they are still condemned justly.

Rom. 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

The only interpretation of Romans 5:12-15 that can JUSTIFY God obligating FALLEN HUMANITY to do what He knows they are unable to do and condemn them as sinners deserving death is our interpretation. Skandelon's system cannot reconcile this principle with his system and so he is forced to deny it exists.

Not one has been able to prove any of the three major points above are wrong.

Instead, they have had to embrace justification by works, deny need of justification, deny that we were already "children of WRATH even as others" and "CONDEMNED ALREADY". Winman had to admit that no man has or will keep the law but can offer NO REASON why this is true except repudiate, distort and deny the Biblical reason that explicitly and directly and clearly addresses this very point:

"NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW and NEITHER INDEED CAN BE" - Rom. 8:7

He refuses to acknowlege this is the CONDITION of all "in the flesh" and is Paul's explanation WHY all "in the flesh CANNOT please God."

In other words, the only escape from the OP dilemma is repudiate, twist, deny and distort the clear and explicit precepts of God's Word

 

[Winman]

You are both wrong because they are CONDEMNED ALREADY becuase they don't believe in Christ and NO HUMAN IS BORN A BELIEVER but ALL ARE BORN IN UNBELIEF and thus condemned already.

No, you have to be guilty of sin. Faith in Jesus saves you from SIN.

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

We know from Rom 9:11 that babies have not sinned. They are not lost;

Mat 11:13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.

Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

If Jacob and Esau had died in the womb, they would not have been sinners. They never went astray, and they would not need repentance.

But all men will surely sin when they come of age and understand right from wrong.

But that is not the issue, the issue is ABILITY. No where do the scriptures ever teach that a man cannot obey any commandments. Just because all men sin does not prove inability. These are two altogether different issues, you seem unable to comprehend that.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not one has been able to prove any of the three major points above are wrong.

Instead, they have had to embrace justification by works, deny need of justification, deny that we were already "children of WRATH even as others" and "CONDEMNED ALREADY". Winman had to admit that no man has or will keep the law but can offer NO REASON why this is true except repudiate, distort and deny the Biblical reason that explicitly and directly and clearly addresses this very point:

"NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW and NEITHER INDEED CAN BE" - Rom. 8:7

He refuses to acknowlege this is the CONDITION of all "in the flesh" and is Paul's explanation WHY all "in the flesh CANNOT please God."


In other words, the only escape from the OP dilemma is repudiate, twist, deny and distort the clear and explicit precepts of God's Word

Winman, Skan and Van can any of you deny that Paul is giving Romans 8:7 as the EXPLANATION for why all those "IN THE FLESH cannot please God"????

Can any of you deny that the phrase "in the flesh" is descriptive of those whom Paul claims in Romans 8:9 to be "none of his."? Can you at least admit from Pentecost on this is Paul's explanation of why ALL IN THE FLESH = lost mankind "cannot please God"????

 

[Winman]

= l

Winman, Skan and Van can any of you deny that Paul is giving Romans 8:7 as the EXPLANATION for why all those "IN THE FLESH cannot please God"????

Can any of you deny that the phrase "in the flesh" is descriptive of those whom Paul claims in Romans 8:9 to be "none of his."? Can you at least admit from Pentecost on this is Paul's explanation of why ALL IN THE FLESH = lost mankind "cannot please God"???? Th

I agree with you, that while a man is carnally minded he cannot please God, it is impossible.

But men are not always carnally minded. Cornelius was not saved, nor did he have the Spirit, and yet the scriptures call him "a devout man".

The 3000 men/women saved at Pentacost were also called "devout". They were not rebellious, they traveled from many different countries to come worship God in Jerusalem.

Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven

These Jews weren't saved, Peter said they were guilty of killing Jesus with wicked hands. Yet, at this moment they were devout, they came to worship God.

Their sins were not yet forgiven, and they had not received the Spirit either at this point.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, you have to be guilty of sin.

Sin ultimately is traced to the wrong motive for living, attitudes, words and actions - 1 Cor. 10:31. The glory of God is the ONLY right motive behind words, attitudes and actions and where that motive is missing it is sin.

Infants come forth from the womb manfiestly with SELFISH, SELF-CENTERED motives behind EVERYTHING that characterizes their attitudes, actions and words when they learn to speak.

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree with you, .

No you don't and you don't agree with Paul's EXPLANATION why ALL IN THE FLESH "cannot" please God. You deny it! You must make Pauls' words in Romans 8:8 "in the flesh" means only those who already have sinned rather than Paul's explanation why they "cannot" please God.

To be "in the flesh" requires only to be "born of the flesh" and to be "in the Spirit" requires only to be "born of the Spirit.

 

[The Biblicist]

No you don't and you don't agree with Paul's EXPLANATION why ALL IN THE FLESH "cannot" please God. You deny it! You must make Pauls' words in Romans 8:8 "in the flesh" means only those who already have sinned rather than Paul's explanation why they "cannot" please God.

To be "in the flesh" requires only to be "born of the flesh" and to be "in the Spirit" requires only to be "born of the Spirit.

Winman's views do not change the fact that the law CANNOT be kept by unredeemd or redeemed mankind because the standard for keeping is SINLESS and there is NO MAN sinless - period.

 

[Winman]

No you don't and you don't agree with Paul's EXPLANATION why ALL IN THE FLESH "cannot" please God. You deny it! You must make Pauls' words in Romans 8:8 "in the flesh" means only those who already have sinned rather than Paul's explanation why they "cannot" please God.

To be "in the flesh" requires only to be "born of the flesh" and to be "in the Spirit" requires only to be "born of the Spirit.

Cornelius was in the flesh according to Romans 8:9. He did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit, yet he was able to believe in God and do good works.

This shows your interpretation cannot be correct.

You can't pull out a single verse in scripture and completely isolate it from all other scripture and then teach doctrine from that one verse.

That is what you CONSTANTLY do. You focus on one verse you like, and ignore the many other scriptures that refute your personal interpretation of scripture.

 

[Skandelon]

Skan, you are talking about a different issue altogether. I do not deny that all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God, that is what Romans 11:32 is saying.

No, I am talking about ABILITY. The scripture no where says man is unable to keep the commandments. Yes, the scriptures are very clear that no man has or ever will keep the commandments, but that is a different issue altogether.

There is no commandment that a man cannot keep. I have lied hundreds, perhaps many thousands of times, but I could have ALWAYS told the truth. I was ABLE to tell the truth if I had chosen to do so.

Biblicist is trying to teach that it is just for God to condemn men for what they are unable to do. That is absolutely false, God condemns men JUSTLY when they fail to do what they are able to do.

He does not have one word of scripture that says a man is unable to keep a commandment.

But if you break any law then you have failed at every point of the law and thus stand condemned if you remain under that law and refuse to accept the truth. He thinks that is proof that God can and DOES justly condemn men for their inability to believe. He is equating man's inability to fulfill the full demands of the law with his dogma that men are unable to trust in Christ, who fulfilled that law for us.

What biblicist doesn't seem to understand is that because of Christ's atoning work, no man perishes for lack of atonement, but only their own unwillingness to believe and accept God's gracious provision.

 

[The Biblicist]

Cornelius was in the flesh according to Romans 8:9. He did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit, yet he was able to believe in God and do good works.

This shows your interpretation cannot be correct.

lol! No, it shows that your interpetation of Corneilus cannot possibly be correct because Paul plainly and explicity and clearly says those "in the flesh CANNOT please God" but yet God was well pleased with Corneilius and what he doing and God received his offering as pleasing. You just shot your own foot.

 

[Skandelon]

One has to deny that Christ provides atonement for all men in order to maintain the view being propagated in the OP.

 

[The Biblicist]

One has to deny that Christ provides atonement for all men in order to maintain the view being propagated in the OP.

No, the very reverse is true! You have to deny salvation altogether to deny the PRECEDING FACT of universal condemnation (Rom. 3:9-20,23) as sinners. You are denying the very heart of the gospel and repudiating the very necessity of the cross by your denial of the OP. Where there is no condemnation by sin there is no need of a Savior, an Atonement, the Cross or savlation.

 

[Winman]

lol! No, it shows that your interpetation of Corneilus cannot possibly be correct because Paul plainly and explicity and clearly says those "in the flesh CANNOT please God" but yet God was please with Corneilius and what he doing and offering to God. You just shot your own foot.

Cornelius did not have the indwelling Spirit until he heard Peter preach the gospel and believed it.

There are many accounts of OT saints who did not have the Spirit, and yet they were able to obey the commandments.

Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
7 And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.

The scriptures show John the Baptist's parents, Zacharias and Elisabeth both kept the commandments of God.

This was before Jesus was even born, yet we are told believers would not receive the Spirit until Jesus was glorified after his crucifixion (Jhn 7:39).

The difference between me and you is that I can show a multitude of scriptures to support my view, where you must isolate a single verse to teach your view.

 

[The Biblicist]

Cornelius did not have the indwelling Spirit until he heard Peter preach the gospel and believed it. .

You are interpreting a NARRATIVE and basing your doctrine on YOUR INTERPRETATION of a NARRATIVE.

I am basing my doctrine on a PRECEPT which you admit is explanatory why all "in the flesh CANNOT please God" and those "in flesh" are by precept "none of his."

In contrast YOUR NARRATIVE BASED doctrine contradicts the PRECEPT BASED DOCTRINE as Corneilus according to your NARRATIVE BASED INTERPRETATION was "in the flesh" and "none of his" but yet not only could but did "please God."

So the option is very simple. Either PERCEPT BASED DOCTRINE which you acknowlegde to be true is TRUE and YOUR NARRATIVE INTERPRETATION based doctrine is false or the PRECEPT BASED DOCTRINE is false and your interpretational based doctrine is true. Doctrine is to be established upon PRECEPTS!

Your interpetation of Romans 8:7-8 is in direct contradiction to your interpretation of Acts 10-11

 

[Winman]

You are interpreting a NARRATIVE and basing your doctrine on YOUR INTERPRETATION of a NARRATIVE.

I am basing my doctrine on a PRECEPT which you admit is explanatory why all "in the flesh CANNOT please God" and those "in flesh" are by precept "none of his."

In contrast YOUR NARRATIVE BASED doctrine contradicts the PRECEPT BASED DOCTRINE as Corneilus according to your NARRATIVE BASED INTERPRETATION was "in the flesh" and "none of his" but yet not only could but did "please God."

So the option is very simple. Either PERCEPT BASED DOCTRINE which you acknowlegde to be true is TRUE and YOUR NARRATIVE INTERPRETATION based doctrine is false or the PRECEPT BASED DOCTRINE is false and your interpretational based doctrine is true. Doctrine is to be established upon PRECEPTS!

Your interpetation of Romans 8:7-8 is in direct contradiction to your interpretation of Acts 10-11

Oh brother.