The total irreversable inability of fallen nature

[The Biblicist]

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.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

I have challenged our Arminians friends to provide a Biblical definition of what the Fallen nature IS. None have provided any such definition to this point. They have told us about the consequences of sin and about the remedy for sin but not one have given a Biblical definition of what the fallen nature IS! Paul in Romans 8:7-8 defines what the fallen nature IS.

The Greek term translated "carnal" is elsewhere translated "fleshly." The word "mind" is not the usual word for mind which is "nous" but "phronema" and refers to the "mindset" or the disposition of the mind. This is the mind under the control of the law of sin as described just previously in Romans 7:18-20 or the fallen nature that loves sin and opposes God. It resides with the flesh (Rom. 7:14,18, 24) and is described in union with the flesh or "This body of death".

Note that Paul says it "IS enmity" not that it might "become" or has the "potential for" enmity as Arminian 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. That is what it IS and thus cannot be anything other than what it IS, which defines its nature.

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.

The whole Arminian view of fallen man denies what it IS by nature as they invent out of thin air some other kind of fallen nature which has only the potential to be hardened and as well as the potential to love and submit to God.

Paul's 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 (present tense continuous action verb) because at all times it "IS" at war with God by nature and IS resistant as that "IS" its 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.

Paul says this is an irreversable condition of total inability - "neither indeed can be." The word "can" refers to ability not to permission or potentiality. It is irreversable because of what it "IS" by nature - it is in a STATE OF WAR and it is RESISTANT to the revealed will of God. To cease being in a state of war and to cease being resistant to the will of God means to CEASE BEING WHAT IT IS.

Total inability is due to total depravity (enmity, not subject to). The fallen nature CANNOT (neither indeed can be) simply because it WILL NOT (enmity, not subject to) and it CANNOT because of what it "IS" by nature. Hence, Total depravity is the cause of total inability.

The fallen nature CAN NEVER BE SAVED. It remains the same BEFORE and AFTER the salvation of the elect (Rom 7:18) as salvation is God creating a NEW CREATURE/nature that loves righteousness and true holiness and hates sin:

Eph. 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Rom. 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

Eph. 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus...

2 Cor. 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

 

[Protestant]

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.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

I have challenged our Arminians friends to provide a Biblical definition of what the Fallen nature IS. None have provided any such definition to this point. They have told us about the consequences of sin and about the remedy for sin but not one have given a Biblical definition of what the fallen nature IS! Paul in Romans 8:7-8 defines what the fallen nature IS.

The Greek term translated "carnal" is elsewhere translated "fleshly." The word "mind" is not the usual word for mind which is "nous" but "phronema" and refers to the "mindset" or the disposition of the mind. This is the mind under the control of the law of sin as described just previously in Romans 7:18-20 or the fallen nature that loves sin and opposes God. It resides with the flesh (Rom. 7:14,18, 24) and is described in union with the flesh or "This body of death".

Note that Paul says it "IS enmity" not that it might "become" or has the "potential for" enmity as Arminian 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. That is what it IS and thus cannot be anything other than what it IS, which defines its nature.

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.

The whole Arminian view of fallen man denies what it IS by nature as they invent out of thin air some other kind of fallen nature which has only the potential to be hardened and as well as the potential to love and submit to God.

Paul's 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 (present tense continuous action verb) because at all times it "IS" at war with God by nature and IS resistant as that "IS" its 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.

Paul says this is an irreversable condition of total inability - "neither indeed can be." The word "can" refers to ability not to permission or potentiality. It is irreversable because of what it "IS" by nature - it is in a STATE OF WAR and it is RESISTANT to the revealed will of God. To cease being in a state of war and to cease being resistant to the will of God means to CEASE BEING WHAT IT IS.

Total inability is due to total depravity (enmity, not subject to). The fallen nature CANNOT (neither indeed can be) simply because it WILL NOT (enmity, not subject to) and it CANNOT because of what it "IS" by nature. Hence, Total depravity is the cause of total inability.

The fallen nature CAN NEVER BE SAVED. It remains the same BEFORE and AFTER the salvation of the elect (Rom 7:18) as salvation is God creating a NEW CREATURE/nature that loves righteousness and true holiness and hates sin:

Eph. 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Rom. 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

Eph. 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus...

2 Cor. 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Your exegesis could not be plainer and clearer……to those who will not close their eyes to eternal truth.

Man is born impotent and powerless (Gr: dunamai) to change his sinful state.

Moreover, he does not will holiness because it is antithetical to his sinful nature and desires.

Therefore, out of an unconditional love it pleased the Lord to save a remnant of helpless, hopeless sinners who hated Him.

To that end Christ was sent to redeem those specific sinners chosen/elected by the Father.

Today the Holy Spirit is sovereignly bestowing all the saving spiritual gifts purchased by Christ to those same specific sinners for whom Christ died.

The love and saving grace of God will not fail to save every last one of those elected by the Father.

The question remains: What is it about the election of grace that so disturbs and angers multitudes of professing Christians?

After all, the doctrines of grace are manifest from Genesis to Revelation.

I contend that if a man has truly been saved by God’s grace alone, he will not be contentious to the eternal truth that salvation is ALL of God, including the miraculous creation of his saving faith.......the seed of which did not and could not come from man.

 

[psalms109:31]

There is not one unbeliever that is chosen before the foundation of the world not one. They are chosen in Christ. In Christ we are eternally saved from the beginning til end.

I am so glad that there is more to learn from His word than what they believed in 1689.

The scripture teaches me that I am to encourage people to believe in Jesus and not turn away from Him. Only in Christ we become born again into the new creation chosen before the foundation of the world.

Jesus word is the Spirit and life we need to enable us if they do not listen and learn from Him they will not have Spiritual food to live the new life.

Just as our body needs food to live so we Spiritually need food to live.

If the don't drink His blood and eat His flesh they have no life. That is drinking in the life He lived and eating the words He spoke.

 

[Winman]

The problem with Biblicist's view is that there is MUCH scripture that easily refutes it.

Peter showed that unregenerated men could both repent and believe, and if they did, THEN they would receive the Spirit.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Romans 8:9 tells us a man without the "indwelling" Spirit is "in the flesh".

Therefore, these Jews in Acts 2 were all unregenerate. Yet Peter told them to both repent and believe on Jesus (because only believers are baptized) and AFTERWARD they would receive the Spirit.

This refutes Biblicist's interpretation of Romans 8.

Cornelius refutes Biblicist, he was not saved and he did not have the Holy Spirit, yet he was able to believe in God and do righteous works that were approved by God.

So, Biblicists interpretation of Romans 8 cannot be correct. It MUST mean something other than his interpretation.

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Paul's question here would be ridiculous if Biblicist's interpretation were correct. How could Paul expect someone without the Holy Spirit to believe?

Yet Paul's question demands that he believed a person without the Holy Spirit could believe on Jesus. This completely refutes Biblicist's interpretation of Romans 8.

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

Paul's question here would also be ridiculous if Biblicist's interpretation of Romans 8 is correct. If Biblicist is correct, it would be impossible for a man without the Holy Spirit to believe the gospel.

But Paul's question DEMANDS the answer that these Galatians indeed believed the gospel, and that afterward, as a result of believing, received the Spirit.

So, all of these scriptures contradict and easily refute Biblicist's view. It is obvious that men without the indwelling Holy Spirit can believe the gospel, and that after they believe they receive the Holy Spirit.

 

[BobRyan]

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.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

I have challenged our Arminians friends to provide a Biblical definition of what the Fallen nature IS. None have provided any such definition to this point.

I suppose there is no stopping your proclivity to simply "making stuff up" when it comes to wild claims like the above.

I personally keep posting that Romans 3 has the definition for the Sinful nature.

And I keep insisting that I am posting as an Arminian - not just "non-Cal".

They have told us about the consequences of sin and about the remedy for sin but not one have given a Biblical definition of what the fallen nature IS!

Turns out -- the sinful nature as defined in Romans 3 is a "consequence of fall".

Note that Paul says it "IS enmity" not that it might "become" or has the "potential for" enmity

And in Gen 3 God supernaturally puts "emnity" BETWEEN the fallen nature of man and the kingdom of Satan.

The term "enmity" means a STATE OF WAR.

True. So how is that working for you in Gen 3??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Skandelon]

"God bound all men over to disobedience (enmity) so as to show mercy to them all." Rom 11:32

 

[quantumfaith]

I suppose there is no stopping your proclivity to simply "making stuff up" when it comes to wild claims like the above.

I personally keep posting that Romans 3 has the definition for the Sinful nature.

And I keep insisting that I am posting as an Arminian - not just "non-Cal".



Turns out -- the sinful nature as defined in Romans 3 is a "consequence of fall".



And in Gen 3 God supernaturally puts "emnity" BETWEEN the fallen nature of man and the kingdom of Satan.



True. So how is that working for you in Gen 3??

in Christ,

Bob

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[The Biblicist]

r

The problem with Biblicist's view is that there is MUCH scripture that easily refutes it.

No, that is not the problem. I will tell you what the real problem is. The problem is how you deal with scripture. You know you can't overturn or point to any error in my exegetically based exposition of Romans 8:7-8. So, wisely you don't try as it would expose your errors. So you respond to every exegetical based exposition by RUNNING from that exegetical based exposition and JUMP onto a text in another context and then PIT it when in fact every text you RJP can be equally taken and when properly exegeted will force you to run from it as well and jump and pit.

So the problem is the way you handle God's Word. You proof text out of context and contrary to sound principles of exegesis and so it is a never ending circle of RJP with you.

 

[The Biblicist]

I suppose there is no stopping your proclivity to simply "making stuff up" when it comes to wild claims like the above.

I personally keep posting that Romans 3 has the definition for the Sinful nature.

And I keep insisting that I am posting as an Arminian - not just "non-Cal".

Claiming Romans 3 "has a definition" and explaining what you believe that defintion consists of is two very different things. The first is really avoiding the question and leaving it to guess what you believe while I am actually defining it in Romans 8:7 and doing so consistently with Romans 3:9-23.

Turns out -- the sinful nature as defined in Romans 3 is a "consequence of fall".

No one has denied that the sinful nature is the consequence of the fall. What I have challenged Arminians to do is to DEFINE what the fallen nature is.

And in Gen 3 God supernaturally puts "emnity" BETWEEN the fallen nature of man and the kingdom of Satan.

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

God is prophetically speaking of the enmity between God children's and Satan children. God's children will come through Christ as the promised seed of the REDEEMED woman (not of the male = virgin birth). The "enmity" is supernaturally put there by God due to the NEW NATURE found in the redeemed.

Gal. 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

 

[Skandelon]

FYI...the quotes above are not from me, but from BobRyan. You have me listed as the one making those statements.

 

[Yeshua1]

The problem with Biblicist's view is that there is MUCH scripture that easily refutes it.

Peter showed that unregenerated men could both repent and believe, and if they did, THEN they would receive the Spirit.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Romans 8:9 tells us a man without the "indwelling" Spirit is "in the flesh".

Therefore, these Jews in Acts 2 were all unregenerate. Yet Peter told them to both repent and believe on Jesus (because only believers are baptized) and AFTERWARD they would receive the Spirit.

This refutes Biblicist's interpretation of Romans 8.

Cornelius refutes Biblicist, he was not saved and he did not have the Holy Spirit, yet he was able to believe in God and do righteous works that were approved by God.

So, Biblicists interpretation of Romans 8 cannot be correct. It MUST mean something other than his interpretation.

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Paul's question here would be ridiculous if Biblicist's interpretation were correct. How could Paul expect someone without the Holy Spirit to believe?

Yet Paul's question demands that he believed a person without the Holy Spirit could believe on Jesus. This completely refutes Biblicist's interpretation of Romans 8.

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

Paul's question here would also be ridiculous if Biblicist's interpretation of Romans 8 is correct. If Biblicist is correct, it would be impossible for a man without the Holy Spirit to believe the gospel.

But Paul's question DEMANDS the answer that these Galatians indeed believed the gospel, and that afterward, as a result of believing, received the Spirit.

So, all of these scriptures contradict and easily refute Biblicist's view. It is obvious that men without the indwelling Holy Spirit can believe the gospel, and that after they believe they receive the Holy Spirit.

as Many has had been appointe dout beforehand by God to receive jesus did, at day of pentacost, as the LORD was adding them daily to the church!

And Cornilius was a pagan who knew of God, feared Him, and heard of jesus, but STILL needed the Spirit to make Him receive jesus!

 

[Yeshua1]

The problem with Biblicist's view is that there is MUCH scripture that easily refutes it.

Peter showed that unregenerated men could both repent and believe, and if they did, THEN they would receive the Spirit.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Romans 8:9 tells us a man without the "indwelling" Spirit is "in the flesh".

Therefore, these Jews in Acts 2 were all unregenerate. Yet Peter told them to both repent and believe on Jesus (because only believers are baptized) and AFTERWARD they would receive the Spirit.

This refutes Biblicist's interpretation of Romans 8.

Cornelius refutes Biblicist, he was not saved and he did not have the Holy Spirit, yet he was able to believe in God and do righteous works that were approved by God.

So, Biblicists interpretation of Romans 8 cannot be correct. It MUST mean something other than his interpretation.

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Paul's question here would be ridiculous if Biblicist's interpretation were correct. How could Paul expect someone without the Holy Spirit to believe?

Yet Paul's question demands that he believed a person without the Holy Spirit could believe on Jesus. This completely refutes Biblicist's interpretation of Romans 8.

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

Paul's question here would also be ridiculous if Biblicist's interpretation of Romans 8 is correct. If Biblicist is correct, it would be impossible for a man without the Holy Spirit to believe the gospel.

But Paul's question DEMANDS the answer that these Galatians indeed believed the gospel, and that afterward, as a result of believing, received the Spirit.

So, all of these scriptures contradict and easily refute Biblicist's view. It is obvious that men without the indwelling Holy Spirit can believe the gospel, and that after they believe they receive the Holy Spirit.

Unless the lord grants you ears to hear, eyes to see, you will remain in darkness, you MSUT have HIm enable you to respond and be saved!

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by The Biblicist
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.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

I have challenged our Arminians friends to provide a Biblical definition of what the Fallen nature IS. None have provided any such definition to this point.

I suppose there is no stopping your proclivity to simply "making stuff up" when it comes to wild claims like the above.

I personally keep posting that Romans 3 has the definition for the Sinful nature.

And I keep insisting that I am posting as an Arminian - not just "non-Cal".



Turns out -- the sinful nature as defined in Romans 3 is a "consequence of fall".



And in Gen 3 God supernaturally puts "emnity" BETWEEN the fallen nature of man and the kingdom of Satan.

The term "enmity" means a STATE OF WAR.

True. So how is that working for you in Gen 3??

Claiming Romans 3 "has a definition" and explaining what you believe that defintion consists of is two very different things. The first is really avoiding the question and leaving it to guess what you believe while I am actually defining it in Romans 8:7 and doing so consistently with Romans 3:9-23.

I don't mind stating the Romans 3:9-23 is a pretty good description of the sinful nature - apart from the drawing of God, apart from the new creation, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, apart from the emnity (war as you admit) that God places in us against sin.

But God "draws ALL unto Him" John 12:32 so that even the LOST are enabled to choose the Gospel.

No one has denied that the sinful nature is the consequence of the fall. What I have challenged Arminians to do is to DEFINE what the fallen nature is.

Back to Romans 3 again?



15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; l.

God is prophetically speaking of the enmity between God children's and Satan children.

God is literally speaking about the war He placed between fallen man and Satan right then and there.

The war culminates between the Christ and Satan - a future event. But the war in the human nature itself between our nature and Satan's kingdom was supernaturally placed in mankind - then and there.

God's children will come through Christ as the promised seed of the REDEEMED woman (not of the male = virgin birth). The "enmity" is supernaturally put there by God due to the NEW NATURE found in the redeemed.

Gal. 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

No question that the war that is within our nature - between our nature and Satan's kingdom - has an external form in those who choose Satan's work vs those who choose to follow the Lord and are born-again as in the case of OT saints.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The problem with Biblicist's view is that there is MUCH scripture that easily refutes it.

Peter showed that unregenerated men could both repent and believe, and if they did, THEN they would receive the Spirit.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Romans 8:9 tells us a man without the "indwelling" Spirit is "in the flesh".

Therefore, these Jews in Acts 2 were all unregenerate. Yet Peter told them to both repent and believe on Jesus (because only believers are baptized) and AFTERWARD they would receive the Spirit.

This refutes Biblicist's interpretation of Romans 8.

Cornelius refutes Biblicist, he was not saved and he did not have the Holy Spirit, yet he was able to believe in God and do righteous works that were approved by God.

So, Biblicists interpretation of Romans 8 cannot be correct. It MUST mean something other than his interpretation.

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Paul's question here would be ridiculous if Biblicist's interpretation were correct. How could Paul expect someone without the Holy Spirit to believe?

Yet Paul's question demands that he believed a person without the Holy Spirit could believe on Jesus. This completely refutes Biblicist's interpretation of Romans 8.

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

Paul's question here would also be ridiculous if Biblicist's interpretation of Romans 8 is correct. If Biblicist is correct, it would be impossible for a man without the Holy Spirit to believe the gospel.

But Paul's question DEMANDS the answer that these Galatians indeed believed the gospel, and that afterward, as a result of believing, received the Spirit.

So, all of these scriptures contradict and easily refute Biblicist's view. It is obvious that men without the indwelling Holy Spirit can believe the gospel, and that after they believe they receive the Holy Spirit.

That is true.

But there is a difference between the born-again person who is filled with the Spirit - and the lost person who is subject to the Appeals of the Holy Spirit "We BEG you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God". The Holy Spirit convicts the fallen "World" of mankind of sin and righteousness and judgment.

All the lost are enabled to accept the Gospel by the power of God. Otherwise Satan would simply hold them as unwilling slaves.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

r

No, that is not the problem. I will tell you what the real problem is. The problem is how you deal with scripture. You know you can't overturn or point to any error in my exegetically based exposition of Romans 8:7-8. So, wisely you don't try as it would expose your errors. So you respond to every exegetical based exposition by RUNNING from that exegetical based exposition and JUMP onto a text in another context and then PIT it when in fact every text you RJP can be equally taken and when properly exegeted will force you to run from it as well and jump and pit.

So the problem is the way you handle God's Word. You proof text out of context and contrary to sound principles of exegesis and so it is a never ending circle of RJP with you.

Boy you got him dead to rights :laugh::thumbsup:

 

[Winman]

r

No, that is not the problem. I will tell you what the real problem is. The problem is how you deal with scripture. You know you can't overturn or point to any error in my exegetically based exposition of Romans 8:7-8. So, wisely you don't try as it would expose your errors. So you respond to every exegetical based exposition by RUNNING from that exegetical based exposition and JUMP onto a text in another context and then PIT it when in fact every text you RJP can be equally taken and when properly exegeted will force you to run from it as well and jump and pit.

So the problem is the way you handle God's Word. You proof text out of context and contrary to sound principles of exegesis and so it is a never ending circle of RJP with you.

No the problem is that you do not understand that scripture cannot contradict itself. Yes, I showed many unregenerate persons believing the gospel and receiving the Holy Spirit AFTER they believed. This completely refutes your view and interpretation of scripture.

You like to take difficult ambiguous scripture and interpret it to agree with your presuppositions.

I take very simple, very straightforward scripture that is not at all ambiguous and show that your views are error.

You don't like this, so you rant and rave, call folks liars, everything is out of context, blah, blah, blah...

You simply do not understand that scripture cannot contradict itself. Your views cannot be correct because many very simple, easily understood scriptures refute your view.

It is you that does not understand how to properly interpret scripture. You don't take difficult and ambiguous scripture to overrule very simple and straightforward scripture. The exact reverse is the proper way to interpret scripture.

 

[quantumfaith]

Boy you got him dead to rights :laugh::thumbsup:

Originally Posted by The Biblicist View Post
r

No, that is not the problem. I will tell you what the real problem is. The problem is how you deal with scripture. You know you can't overturn or point to any error in my exegetically based exposition of Romans 8:7-8. So, wisely you don't try as it would expose your errors. So you respond to every exegetical based exposition by RUNNING from that exegetical based exposition and JUMP onto a text in another context and then PIT it when in fact every text you RJP can be equally taken and when properly exegeted will force you to run from it as well and jump and pit.

So the problem is the way you handle God's Word. You proof text out of context and contrary to sound principles of exegesis and so it is a never ending circle of RJP with you.


Ignoring for a moment any disagreement regarding theology, do you not see clearly the hubris exhibited here? We ALL know that there are many scriptural warnings against pride and hubris.

Proverbs 16:5

 

[The Biblicist]

Originally Posted by The Biblicist View Post
r

No, that is not the problem. I will tell you what the real problem is. The problem is how you deal with scripture. You know you can't overturn or point to any error in my exegetically based exposition of Romans 8:7-8. So, wisely you don't try as it would expose your errors. So you respond to every exegetical based exposition by RUNNING from that exegetical based exposition and JUMP onto a text in another context and then PIT it when in fact every text you RJP can be equally taken and when properly exegeted will force you to run from it as well and jump and pit.

So the problem is the way you handle God's Word. You proof text out of context and contrary to sound principles of exegesis and so it is a never ending circle of RJP with you.


Ignoring for a moment any disagreement regarding theology, do you not see clearly the hubris exhibited here? We ALL know that there are many scriptural warnings against pride and hubris.

Proverbs 16:5

There is quite a difference in egotism and just plain factual truth. I stated the plain factual truth and those who do not like it respond as you do with egotistical jabs, distractions, JRP's, personal insults, etc.

 

[The Biblicist]

No the problem is that you do not understand that scripture cannot contradict itself. Yes, I showed many unregenerate persons believing the gospel and receiving the Holy Spirit AFTER they believed. This completely refutes your view and interpretation of scripture.

You like to take difficult ambiguous scripture and interpret it to agree with your presuppositions.

I take very simple, very straightforward scripture that is not at all ambiguous and show that your views are error.

You don't like this, so you rant and rave, call folks liars, everything is out of context, blah, blah, blah...

You simply do not understand that scripture cannot contradict itself. Your views cannot be correct because many very simple, easily understood scriptures refute your view.

It is you that does not understand how to properly interpret scripture. You don't take difficult and ambiguous scripture to overrule very simple and straightforward scripture. The exact reverse is the proper way to interpret scripture.

You respond the same way every single time. I provide exegetical based exposition and you RUN as fast as you can from THAT CONTEXT and from THE CONTEXTUAL BASED ARGUMENTS and JUMP to another completely different context and a completely different text and then PIT it. When I jump with you and do the same thing in that context YOU SIMPLY REPEAT YOUR PREVIOUS PLAN OF ATTACK and so it is a never ending circle becuase you either have no ability or no regard for contextual based evidence.

 

[Winman]

You respond the same way every single time. I provide exegetical based exposition and you RUN as fast as you can from THAT CONTEXT and from THE CONTEXTUAL BASED ARGUMENTS and JUMP to another completely different context and a completely different text and then PIT it. When I jump with you and do the same thing in that context YOU SIMPLY REPEAT YOUR PREVIOUS PLAN OF ATTACK and so it is a never ending circle becuase you either have no ability or no regard for contextual based evidence.

Again, you seem unable to understand that scripture cannot contradict itself. You can't take difficult and ambiguous scripture and form doctrine from it, you must consider all scripture that pertains to that issue.

Romans 8 does say the "carnal mind" is enmity with God. But is an unsaved person always in a "carnal mind"? The scriptures argue against this. We know for a FACT that Cornelius was not saved, and he did not have the Holy Spirit. We know this because the scriptures directly tell us these facts. Yet he was able to fear and believe God, he was not rebellious whatsoever, he prayed always, and he did righteous works that were acceptable to God.

So obviously the unregenerate man can attend to spiritual matters to a degree.

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

I showed where Jesus himself said the disciples were "indeed willing" in their spirit to obey Jesus, but in their flesh they were weak. So obviously men are more than just flesh, men are also spirit, and a man can choose to be spiritually minded, although this scripture argues that the flesh wars against man's spirit and gives him great difficulty in attending to spiritual matters. Nevertheless, man can attend to spiritual matters as Cornelius proves.

And MUCH scripture shows men without the Holy Spirit can believe the gospel. This alone shows your interpretation of Romans 8 is error.

You can't pull out certain select scriptures and create doctrine with it, ignoring many other scriptures that refute your view.

That is what YOU are doing.