The Arminian Dilemma

[preacher4truth]

Why? Because ALL are condem.ned already or you could not say "ALL are on their way to hell already." But you don't believe this so why pretend you do. Your reponse to Romans 1:18 and John 3:36 demonstrates you don't believe that

Exactly. It's all pretense on his part and a feeble attempt to reverse roles. He's been found out long ago.

 

[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.

Again, back on track. No one yet has provided any valid or reasonable evidence that a single point of the OP is not true.

Van, has been forced to embrace that Israel can be justified under the Old Covenant.

Winman has been forced to admit that none "in the flesh" can please God which contradicts all his interpretations of other scriptures that such can please God.

Skan has not been able to mount any sustainable argument. First he attempted to deny God DID do what the OP asserts plainly by Scripture He DID do and IS DOING right now. Then he attempted to argue form a Post-defacto salvation backward that God did not do what the Scriptures plainly state He did and is doing. Then he attempted to deny any kind of condemnation based upon post-defacto salvation. Then he agreed they have been condemned as sinners but not under wrath. Then he attempted to argue that only a select number were under wrath and not all mankind due to sin.

Bottom line, God looks upon the heart to determine sin or righteousness and defines everything you think, say or do either as sin or righteous depending upon your heart motive rather than external confirmation. By this standard "there IS none righteous" but "God" including infants to the most aged.

So the OP still stands totally and completely unscathed

 

[Skandelon]

Why? Because ALL are condem.ned already or you could not say "ALL are on their way to hell already." But you don't believe this

What????? What Christian on earth doesn't believe this? Why do you think I'm an evangelist and missionary? OF course I believe that apart from the grace of God all men are on their way to certain condemnation in hell.

Your reponse to Romans 1:18 and John 3:36 demonstrates you don't believe that

You are still not understanding my perspective, apparently. This is why I've repeatedly asked you to repeat back to me what you think I believe.

They remain 'under condemnation' (heading to hell) because they have not believed. But what about that suggests they can't believe and so be saved?

I understand what you are attempting to argue. You are saying that because mankind is unable to fulfill the demands of the law and God holds them culpable for the law, then God is equally just to demand that mankind believe and repent when confronted with the appeal of the gospel even though they don't have the ability to fulfill that appeal either.

And my rebuttal is that God doesn't hold us culpable for the law if we believe in the Son, who fulfilled the law for us, so your argument doesn't follow past that first point in our system, because in our system that provision is available to all. If God didn't send the Son to take the full wrath of God and fulfill the demands of the law then you point would be completely valid, but He did. He could have condemned everyone for breaking his law, but instead he offers mercy to all and only condemns those who reject the truth in their unbelief.

Men aren't finally condemned (sent to hell) because they sinned. If that were the case we'd all go to hell. Men perish (which maybe a clearer word than 'condemned) because they refuse to accept the truth so as to be saved.

 

[Skandelon]

Skan has not been able to mount any sustainable argument. First he attempted to deny God DID do what the OP asserts plainly by Scripture He DID do and IS DOING right now. Then he attempted to argue form a Post-defacto salvation backward that God did not do what the Scriptures plainly state He did and is doing. Then he attempted to deny any kind of condemnation based upon post-defacto salvation. Then he agreed they have been condemned as sinners but not under wrath. Then he attempted to argue that only a select number were under wrath and not all mankind due to sin.

Wow, you really have difficulty hearing people who disagree with your perspective, don't you? My view is the majority view of most scholars in the SBC and has countless commentators and scholars who teach what I believe and yet you act as if what I teach and believe is new and unique to me....or so utterly confounding that no one could even understand it, when in reality what I believe is much simpler than Calvinism

That or you have so engrained yourself in your system you can't see beyond it clearly enough to understand any other view (a form of hardening, no doubt). That combined with a insatiable desire to win a debate has made having a profitable discussion WITH you (as opposed to against you) virtually impossible.

Try meeting me half way. Try restating what I've said to gain clarity, like I do with you. Ask clarifying questions. But don't make silly statements like this because it only reveals your lack of objectivity and willingness to put any effort in understanding what is being said.

Plus, this 'post-defacto' stuff was YOUR words, not mine. I still have no idea what your talking about when you refer to a post-defacto salvation or 'escape' like you said the first time you used this phrase. I corrected you the first time and I'll say it again. The law was never given as a means of escape or salvation. There has always been only one way and there will only ever be one way to escape hell, and that is by grace through faith, which is attainable!

 

[The Biblicist]

I understand what you are attempting to argue. You are saying that because mankind is unable to fulfill the demands of the law and God holds them culpable for the law, then God is equally just to demand that mankind believe and repent when confronted with the appeal of the gospel even though they don't have the ability to fulfill that appeal either.

And my rebuttal is that God doesn't hold us culpable for the law if

It is at this precise point your defense breaks down with the "if." Why? Because the very nature of FALLEN MAN has already been proven under law to be totally incapable of subjection to the law of God. Hence, NO CHANGE OF NATURAL INABILITY has occurred up to this "if." However, it is that facet of fallen human nature that makes your "if" impossible as the fallen nature has no more ability to be subect to the Law of God before salvation any more than after salvation. Hence, salvation must have reference to creation of somthing radically different that what is found in fallen human nature - a new creation, a new heart which by the very nature of being a "creative" act removes it from the possibility of dependence upon ability found in the fallen nature of man.

 

[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.

It is irrational to argue from Post-defacto divine intervention that fallen human nature has ability to submit to the law of God when in fact the Scripture has already proven it does not. However, this is exactly the logic being used by the Arminians on this forum.

 

[Skandelon]

It is at this precise point your defense breaks down with the "if." Why? Because the very nature of FALLEN MAN has already been proven under law to be totally incapable of subjection to the law of God. Hence, NO CHANGE OF NATURAL INABILITY has occurred up to this "if." However, it is that facet of fallen human nature that makes your "if" impossible as the fallen nature has no more ability to be subect to the Law of God before salvation any more than after salvation. Hence, salvation must have reference to creation of somthing radically different that what is found in fallen human nature - a new creation, a new heart which by the very nature of being a "creative" act removes it from the possibility of dependence upon ability found in the fallen nature of man.

So, you believe the nature of the light (revelation) is equal in both cases too? The light of law is equal in purpose/intent as the light of the gospel? The message of law carries the same enabling power as the message of grace...or lack there of?

God's appeal to be reconciled, which is believed (at least by us) to be sent for the PURPOSE of enabling a response of repentance and faith, is clearly distinct from the purpose of the law. And yet because the law is met with inability, you ASSUME that the message of grace is too. You do this on the basis that man's nature has changed, but that view misses two important points, one involves the progressive change of MAN'S NATURE and thus abilities, and the second relates to REVELATIONS NATURE and PURPOSE:

1. Man's nature doesn't start calloused, it progressively becomes calloused after years of rebellion, 'otherwise one might see, hear, understand and repent.' <---scripture, not my opinion

2. The nature and purpose of the REVELATION is different in each case. The nature/purpose of law was NEVER meant to enable, it was meant to reveal inability and need. The nature/purpose of the Gospel is meant to make an appeal to all creatures to come and be reconciled through Christ, who atoned for the breaking of law.

So, Walter, it's not just the nature of what's being acted upon (man's depraved nature), but the nature/purpose of what is doing the acting. Its about the nature of the clay, but more importantly its about the nature/power/purpose of the LIGHT! Understand?

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Not even remotely true.

The Calvinist "unreasonable unjust God" scenario simply does not find support in scripture.

Romans 8:6-8 points out how mankind is able to keep the Law of God - by accepting Christ, being born-again and walking by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Thus as Paul says of the wicked in Romans 1 "they are without excuse".

God says He "draws ALL men unto Him" John 12:32.

The reasonable and just requirements of God - are applicable and the lost are then "without excuse".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

"God so loved the WORLD that HE gave.." Calvinism says "well...not really the WORLD".

by contrast to Calvinism's unreasonable God doctrine we have God's "lament".


God's "Appeal" and Lament

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ezek 18[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]30“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct,” declares the Lord GOD. “Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]31“Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]32“For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord GOD. “Therefore, repent and LIVE!" [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2Cor 5: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2 Peter 3[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“He CAME to HIS OWN and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]His OWN received Him not[/FONT][FONT=&quot]” John 1[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Matt 23[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]38“Behold, your house is being left to you desolate![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Luke 7[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]28 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]29 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Is 5:4[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Response: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Well the Calvinist would have an answer for God on that one. An answer contrived via “extreme inference” in places like Deut 5:29. Calvinism would inform the world – and God Himself of just what God did to cause the lamentable result that God is complaining about. If the result is wrong then Calvinism argues He did wrong - sabotaging His own plans or at the very least - being forgetful to "do the necessary" as the saying goes in India.[/FONT]

 

[The Biblicist]

So, you believe the nature of the light (revelation) is equal in both cases too? The light of law is equal in purpose/intent as the light of the gospel? The message of law carries the same enabling power as the message of grace...or lack there of?

Amazing how you twist my words to say what you want me to say rather than what I said. I said spiritual light is by revelation from God and is absolute regardless if it is the Law of God or the gospel of Christ. Whereas moral light of conscience is RELATIVE and mutable from one person to another and from one culture to another. I NEVER said that law has the same purpose as the gospel, but nice try!

 

[Skandelon]

Amazing how you twist my words to say what you want me to say rather than what I said.

Questions, questions, questions. AGain, questions serve to either reveal something about your system you'd rather not admit to OR to allow you the opportunity to explain your view more clearly. This is what 'vetting' and debate is all about. I twisted nothing, I simply asked questions based on the implications of what I understand about your view. All you need to do is answer or appeal to mystery.

I said spiritual light is by revelation from God and is absolute regardless if it is the Law of God or the gospel of Christ.

So, do you believe that revelation from God, regardless of its purpose, carries with it the same enabling power, or lack thereof?

Whereas moral light of conscience is RELATIVE and mutable from one person to another and from one culture to another. I NEVER said that law has the same purpose as the gospel, but nice try!

Ok, now we are getting somewhere...I think. You acknowledge the revelation of law carries a different purpose than the revelation of gospel.

Can you agree with me that the purpose of the law is too reveal our inability to attain righteousness by law through works?

Can you also agree with me that purpose of the gospel is too call all people to attain righteousness by grace through faith?

Can you also agree with me that what God purposes he will accomplish? That His word doesn't return void, but accomplishes the purposes for which it was sent?

So, can we agree that acknowledging the purpose of the REVELATION could be a significant point in regard to what it may be able to accomplish?

 

[The Biblicist]

So, do you believe that revelation from God, regardless of its purpose, carries with it the same enabling power, or lack thereof?

I don't ever recall claiming that enablement is found in any kind of light. I believe I have claimed that enablement was found only in God. I beleive what I have claimed from the very beginning that the gosple is the power of God to salvation not that the "power of men" but "of God." It is empowered by God's word of command - 2 Cor. 4:6

Ok, now we are getting somewhere...I think. You acknowledge the revelation of law carries a different purpose than the revelation of gospel.

Have I ever said anything at anytime to the contrary?

Can you agree with me that the purpose of the law is too reveal our inability to attain righteousness by law through works?

It reveals our inablity to be righteous regardless of what is in view. Neither the law or the gospel can enable the fallen nature to attain righteousness because the fallen nature is no more righteous after salvation than it was before (Rom. 7:14-25; Rom. 8:7). Salvation refers to something CREATED in addition to our fallen nature - the new creation.

Can you also agree with me that purpose of the gospel is too call all people to attain righteousness by grace through faith?

Call yes, enable no, as the gospel has no power in and of itself to enable immutable sinful nature to be holy.

Can you also agree with me that what God purposes he will accomplish? That His word doesn't return void, but accomplishes the purposes for which it was sent?

If you mean by "His word" or what comes directly from His Person, yes. But if you mean "His word" the scriptures - no, because the scriptures are resisted and thwarted by men every day. In salvation it is God Himself that speaks through the gospel as His creative word of command which never comes back to Him void.

So, can we agree that acknowledging the purpose of the REVELATION could be a significant point in regard to what it may be able to accomplish?

If you mean "revelation" as in written, then no, we cannot agree. If you mean "revelation" as in direct from God within the heart that removes the darkness effectually, then yes.

 

[BobRyan]

It is irrational to argue from Post-defacto divine intervention that fallen human nature has ability to submit to the law of God .

No need to make that argument when opposing Calvinism's "unreasonable God" argument.


The Calvinist "unreasonable unjust God" scenario simply does not find support in scripture.

Romans 8:6-8 points out how mankind is able to keep the Law of God - by accepting Christ, being born-again and walking by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Thus as Paul says of the wicked in Romans 1 "they are without excuse".

God says He "draws ALL men unto Him" John 12:32.

The reasonable and just requirements of God - are applicable and the lost are then "without excuse".

God's "Lament" and "Appeal" as seen in the following is based on the "REASONABLE GOD" argument of actual scripture.

==========================


"God so loved the WORLD that HE gave.." Calvinism says "well...not really the WORLD".

by contrast to Calvinism's unreasonable God doctrine we have God's "lament".


God's "Appeal" and Lament

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ezek 18[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]30“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct,” declares the Lord GOD. “Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]31“Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]32“For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord GOD. “Therefore, repent and LIVE!" [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2Cor 5: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2 Peter 3[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“He CAME to HIS OWN and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]His OWN received Him not[/FONT][FONT=&quot]” John 1[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Matt 23[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]38“Behold, your house is being left to you desolate![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Luke 7[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]28 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]29 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Is 5:4[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

God is not making the "unreasonable God" argument here - that Calvinism so desperately "needs".

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

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.

God says he "overlooks the sins" commited in ignorance. "To him that knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin". God takes the burden upon himself to cover the sins of those who are ignorant through no fault of their own (not ignorant due to blind determination not to be informed on a given doctrine in scripture).

So the "unreasonable God" story does not work there - Christ is the "Atoning sacrifice for OUR sin and not for our SINS only but for the SINS of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2:2.

Their sins are covered and they are 'withtout excuse' precisely because of that "Drawing of ALL mankind to Me" John 12:32.

Without the "unreasonable God" argument there is no Calvinist paradigm for God being the saboteur of His own Gospel appeal and the cause of His own lament.

in Christ,



Bob[/FONT]

 

[The Biblicist]

No need to make that argument when opposing Calvinism's "unreasonable God" argument.


The Calvinist "unreasonable unjust God" scenario simply does not find support in scripture.

Romans 8:6-8 points out how mankind is able to keep the Law of God - by accepting Christ, being born-again and walking by the power of the Holy Spirit.

You guys seem to have a mental block! You cannot argue from a post-defacto potential of salvation to deny something that is already a completed action. God has already demanded fallen man keeps the law and man in his fallen state is incapable of keeping the law and the verdict has already come in - condemned as sinners unable to keep the law - that is the fallen state. No future potential redemption can deny what has already occurred. Indeed, salvation is admission that it has occurred already or there would be no need for salvation BY GOD.

 

[Skandelon]

Biblicist, can you define what you mean by "post-defacto" way of escape?

According to most scholars, both Cal and Arm types, there has always been only one way of salvation, which is by grace through faith.

Please explain what you mean.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, can you define what you mean by "post-defacto" way of escape?

According to most scholars, both Cal and Arm types, there has always been only one way of salvation, which is by grace through faith.

Please explain what you mean.

What I mean is that total inability by the fallen nature to be subject to the law of God has already been established by sin and is still unchanged by salvation. Later Salvation cannot deny that as an establsihed fact. Indeed, later salvation is the admission it has been established. Although later salvation can LEGALLY give you a position of SINLESSNESS it cannot and does not deny your had been proven to have been sinful and that even now you are sinful and the fallen nature is still incapable of submitting to the law/commands of God. Hence, salvation does not alter the fallen nature one little bit but rather provides a NEW CREATION in connection with the indwelling Holy Spirit to OVERPOWER it but not change it.

 

[Skandelon]

What I mean is that total inability by the fallen nature to be subject to the law of God has already been established by sin and is still unchanged by salvation. Later Salvation cannot deny that as an establsihed fact.

The fact they are sinners in need of a savior and hell bound is a given fact, yes. Its a given fact that God is perfectly just to condemn all men for breaking the law, yes.

BUT, here is the million dollar question.

DOES GOD CHOOSE TO FINALLY CONDEMN ALL MEN TO ETERNAL HELL AND SEPARATION FOR BREAKING HIS LAW, OR DOES HE CHOOSE TO SHOW ALL MEN MERCY INSTEAD?

Calvinists believe that God binds all men over to disobedience in order to show mercy to a preselect few. We agree with Paul who taught that God bound all men over to disobedience in order to show mercy to ALL MEN. See Rom 11:32

Titus 2:11:
For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men

And NO, that is not universalism. It's provisional atonement, just like all of God's gracious provisions throughout the OT.

He lifted the snake on the pole...provisional atonement (provided to those who 'looked to it in faith for healing')...the Passover...provision atonement (provide to those with blood covering the door) etc, etc

 

[The Biblicist]

The fact they are sinners in need of a savior and hell bound is a given fact, yes. Its a given fact that God is perfectly just to condemn all men for breaking the law, yes.

BUT, here is the million dollar question.

DOES GOD CHOOSE TO FINALLY CONDEMN ALL MEN TO ETERNAL HELL AND SEPARATION FOR BREAKING HIS LAW, OR DOES HE CHOOSE TO SHOW ALL MEN MERCY INSTEAD?

Your question is not consistent with itself as it is an unequal comparison. If it were an equal comparison you would have to say:

"Does God choose to finally condemn all men to eternal hell and separation for breaking his law, or does he choose to show all men eternal mercy instead of eternal hell"

However, you carefully avoided that because it would teach universal salvation. So you made an unequal contrast.

Second, the fact is that not all men are shown mercy because many NEVER hear of the gospel and die in their sins, judgement justified by disobeying the light they do have. Many others that do hear reject it and your position has no logical or Biblical explanation why any fallen man would receive it since the very same fallen nature response by those who reject the light is the very same fallen nature found in those who do receive mercy willingly.

You have no answer for how the proven inability to be subject to the law/commands of God, (which must be inherent to their fallen nature, rather than external) can be something different to another command of God (repent and beleive). You have no answer to why the same fallen nature contineus unchanged within the redeemed man and works by "the law of sin."

 

[Skandelon]

Your question is not consistent with itself as it is an unequal comparison. If it were an equal comparison you would have to say:

"Does God choose to finally condemn all men to eternal hell and separation for breaking his law, or does he choose to show all men eternal mercy instead of eternal hell"

Not if you believe in provisional atonement, as explained above. Showing one mercy does not equal certain salvation in a system that doesn't presume irresistible grace.

Second, the fact is that not all men are shown mercy because many NEVER hear of the gospel and die in their sins

As discussed before, even those without that revelation are without excuse according to Paul. Don't give them their excuse back by suggesting that the revelation they received isn't sufficient to acknowledge God as God or to accept the level of truth revealed so as to gain more.

, judgement justified by disobeying the light they do have.

Actually their judgement is justified just by being born under Adam. Their response to the light is a matter of whether they will perish or not. If they choose to trade the truth in for lies they will perish.

Many others that do hear reject it and your position has no logical or Biblical explanation why any fallen man would receive it since the very same fallen nature response by those who reject the light is the very same fallen nature found in those who do receive mercy willingly.

That is what "human responsibility" is all about. You either accept it or you don't.

You have no answer for how the proven inability to be subject to the law/commands of God, (which must be inherent to their fallen nature, rather than external) can be something different to another command of God (repent and beleive).

PURPOSE.

The purpose of the law is different from the purpose of the gospel. The law was never able to be fulfilled by man and was never sent for the purpose of attaining righteousness. The gospel WAS sent for the purpose of attaining righteousness and there is no reason set forth in scripture to suggest this divine truth and invitation of God cannot be responded to by responsible creatures, especially given the fact that Jesus says these are the words that will finally judge them on the last day (Jn 12).

 

[Skandelon]

Calvinists believe that God binds all men over to disobedience in order to show mercy to a preselect few. We agree with Paul who taught that God bound all men over to disobedience in order to show mercy to ALL MEN. See Rom 11:32

Titus 2:11:
For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men

And NO, that is not universalism. It's provisional atonement, just like all of God's gracious provisions throughout the OT.

He lifted the snake on the pole...provisional atonement (provided to those who 'looked to it in faith for healing')...the Passover...provision atonement (provide to those with blood covering the door) etc, etc

The strength of one's argument is not typically reflected in the part addressed, but the part ignored...

I'd like you to address the comments above, please.