Two major objections against Non-Calvinists answered

[The Biblicist]

dang...I don't have an hour and half to reply to that...

I'll give you my definition of 'fallen' and leave it at that for now. I believe we are separated from God and in need of reconciliation. I believe the gospel is God's appeal for man to be reconciled from that fallen condition. We all know God holds mankind responsible for their response to that appeal, thus I don't believe there is any reason biblically or otherwise to suggest mankind is not able to respond to His appeal.

Think about it. Why make an appeal to be reconciled from a fallen condition if that very condition prohibits you from responding to that appeal?

There is NO BIBLICAL teaching which even comes close to suggesting that the gospel appeal is insufficient to enable those who hear it to respond.

Good night.

I read this twice and still see no definiton of what you believe a fallen nature is.

Second there is no "appeal" as repentance and faith are commands. Look at the grammar! The imperative mode of command is used for both. Again, we are commanded to be perfect even as God is perfect and yet we are WITHOUT ABILITY to do so but nevertheless RESPONSIBLE because the inability is our fault not God's.

 

[The Biblicist]

I have just one more in me...
No, I am fully willing to accept the headship of Adam. I am asking you WHO, if not God, decided the just consequences of the fall would be total inability?

The nature of sin and death determine that. Spiritual death is "SEPARATION" form God and that is separation from "spiritual life." Spiritual ability does not exist apart from spiritual life. It IS what it IS.

 

[Skandelon]

I read this twice and still see no definiton of what you believe a fallen nature is.

"we are separated from God and in need of reconciliation"

Second there is no "appeal" as repentance and faith are commands. Look at the grammar! The imperative mode of command is used for both. Again, we are commanded to be perfect even as God is perfect and yet we are WITHOUT ABILITY to do so but nevertheless RESPONSIBLE because the inability is our fault not God's.

I'm talking about the gospel appeal to reconciliation.

 

[Skandelon]

The nature of sin and death determine that.

And that nature is determined by whom?

 

[Skandelon]

we are commanded to be perfect even as God is perfect and yet we are WITHOUT ABILITY to do so

But we are able to be perfect (righteous) through faith in Christ, as we are clothed in HIS righteousness. That is exactly what my signature line is addressing. You think inability to attain perfection through works equates to inability to attain it by faith.....or at least you apply verses speaking about man's inability to fulfill the law to support your doctrine of total inability to believe.

 

[The Biblicist]

"we are separated from God and in need of reconciliation"

That is no definition of a fallen nature. You are only defining the problem between God and man. You are not defining the fallen nature of man.

I'm talking about the gospel appeal to reconciliation.

"be ye reconciled" is in the 2nd Aorist imperative mode which is a COMMAND not an "appeal."

 

[The Biblicist]

And that nature is determined by whom?

I answered this in the other half of the post which you ignored. This IS what it IS by nature. Sin IS rebellion against God and death IS separation from the SPIRITUAL LIFE of God. There can be no SPIRITUAL ABILITY where there is no SPIRITUAL LIFE just as there can be no PHYSICAL ABILITY where there is no PHYSCIAL LIFE. This IS its nature. Total spiritual inability IS Spiritual death and sin SEPARATES from God. It is not a question of WHO determined it, but a question of WHAT it IS by nature.

 

[The Biblicist]

That is no definition of a fallen nature. You are only defining the problem between God and man. You are not defining the fallen nature of man.

Since you will not provide a definition of the fallen nature in regard to what it IS but only provide a description of the consequences or problem that needs to be resolved, I will provide a definiton of the fallen nature for you.

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

It is the "carnal" condition of man. The term "carnal" translates a Greek term that is elsewhere translated "fleshly" and refers to more than the physical composition of the human body.

For the present, I will not defend that Romans 7:14-25 describes the regenerated man operating by the "fleshly" nature although I believe the evidence is overwhelming.

For the present, I will simply define "fleshly" by Romans 7:14-25 with particular emphasis upon Romans 7:18 where the human will is totally IMPOTENT under the dominance of the indwelling law of sin:

Rom. 7:18 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.

Indeed, for the regenerated man the only solution for this probelm is Philippians 2:13 or the potency of the indwelling Spirit of God so that it is God who provides this "how to perform" as it is "God that worketh in you both TO WILL and TO DO of His good pleasure." That is why "to will is present with me" refers to the regenerated condition in man in addition to his fallen nature.

However, for the present the "fleshy mind" is the mind under the power of the law of indwelling sin which can never please God:

So they that are IN THE FLESH cannot please God" - Rom. 8:7

The word "cannot" refers to ABILITY and is therefore a delcaration of total inability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

 

[Reformed]

But we are able to be perfect (righteous) through faith in Christ, as we are clothed in HIS righteousness. That is exactly what my signature line is addressing. You think inability to attain perfection through works equates to inability to attain it by faith.....or at least you apply verses speaking about man's inability to fulfill the law to support your doctrine of total inability to believe.

Skan, with respect, I know you and Biblicist are having a lengthy discourse, but may I venture a word?

You know that I, too, believe in total depravity and total inability. I have used Romans 8:7 to defend total inability. I would like to focus on the part of one sentence in the above quote:

...you apply verses speaking about man's inability to fulfill the law to support your doctrine of total inability to believe.

Without accusing (just asking), is it your contention that νόμος (nomos=law) in Romans 8:7 is referring to the Mosaic Law, i.e. the Law? If so, I believe that interpretation to be erroneous.

In Romans 8:2 Paul speaks of the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" and also the "law of sin and of death". These two laws are not the Law. In verse 3 Paul does refer to the Law. He does so again in verse 4. When Paul gets to verse 7, and uses the word "law", it is not the Law he is writing about. Here are some reasons why:

1. Romans 8:7 states "the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so". If this reference to the "law of God" was actually a reference to the Law, it would be inaccurate. The Law existed in commandments that were able to be obeyed. Faith was not required to be considered in compliance as a covenant-keeping Jew. We know that, because of indwelling sin, no man could keep the Law completely and at all times. But it was possible for a Jew to obey specific part of the Law at times. What he could not do was subject himself (ὑποτάσσεται) to the Law of God. He could do the deeds of the Law, but not out of true heart obedience, apart from being regenerated.

2. The phrase "law of God" in verse 8 would be an inconsistent reference to the Law in verses 3 and 4. In those verses the Mosaic Law was clearly called "the" Law using the definite article. Not so with the reference to the "law of God" in verse 7. Which should lead us to the question, "What is the law of God?" We have hints of it in verse 2 in "the law of the Spirit of Life". I believe the "law of God" is the command to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. After all, Paul calls it "the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus."

So then, if the "law of God" in Romans 8:7 is not referring to the Law, what law is it that the mind set on the flesh "it is not even able to do"? It cannot subject itself to the "the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus". The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus is the Gospel; the call to repentance from sin and faith in Christ. That is why I believe Romans 8:7 speaks to the inability of those that are "according the flesh" to believe on their own without being divinely called.

Okay. Just some thoughts to add to the discussion.

 

[Skandelon]

Reformed, am I understanding you correctly then to say that Paul's teaching in Romans 8 regarding man's inability to fulfill the law themselves is equal to their inability to trust in someone else who fulfilled the law for them? And you base this upon an interpretation of the word 'law' which would not be the Mosaic Law, but the 'command to believe.'

Is that accurate?

 

[The Biblicist]

But we are able to be perfect (righteous) through faith in Christ, as we are clothed in HIS righteousness. That is exactly what my signature line is addressing. You think inability to attain perfection through works equates to inability to attain it by faith.....or at least you apply verses speaking about man's inability to fulfill the law to support your doctrine of total inability to believe.

Peter says the same thing to those already clothed in Christ's righteousness - "Be ye holy EVEN AS I am holy" so he is not talking about imputed righteousness but personal righteousness. We don't have to strive to be perfect or holy because that is a gift but what Paul strives after is personal holiness or perfection (Philip. 2:10-14).

 

[Skandelon]

Rom. 7:18 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.

Is it 'good' (meaning meritorious) to believe? Even the demons believe. It is meritorious to ask for forgiveness? In other words, does God forgive us because we deserve forgiveness when we ask for it?

The Prodigal Son didn't deserve to be accepted back as a son and thrown a party on the basis that he came home in his humiliation. He deserved to be punished and sent away...he got grace. Grace is NOT given on the basis of our merit. People who ask for forgiveness still deserve punishment. So, I agree, there is NOTHING good in us, nothing meritorious that earns or deserves God's grace. The only thing we bring to our salvation is our humiliation. God give grace to the humble, not because the humble earn it by their humility, but because He is gracious.

So they that are IN THE FLESH cannot please God" - Rom. 8:7

The word "cannot" refers to ABILITY and is therefore a delcaration of total inability.

This can be taken two ways. We both agree that as long as one stays in the flesh he cannot please God. We both agree it takes a work of the Spirit to bring us from the flesh and into the spirit. The question is whether that work is irresistible or not. If God enables us to respond to His appeal to be reconciled and we resist his provision and trade the truth in for lies then we remain in the flesh and in that condition we will never be pleasing to God.

That would be like a parent saying to their child, "You will never please me as long as you are disobedient." Does that suggest that the child cannot choose to obey? Or just that the parent will remained unpleased as long as that is where the child chooses to remain?

You are reading this text from your perspective by presuming it to mean that men have to responsibility as to whether or not they act by the flesh or by the spirit, even when the Spirit is enabling them to respond.

 

[Skandelon]

Peter says the same thing to those already clothed in Christ's righteousness - "Be ye holy EVEN AS I am holy" so he is not talking about imputed righteousness but personal righteousness. We don't have to strive to be perfect or holy because that is a gift but what Paul strives after is personal holiness or perfection (Philip. 2:10-14).

Right. And?

You state that as if I would disagree?

 

[The Biblicist]

Right. And?

You state that as if I would disagree?

Have you forgotten the argument this soon? Let me refresh you. We were arguing whether God could hold accountable fallen mankind to do something they were incapable of doing (repent and believe). I argued that God was not responsibile for this inability but they were responsibile because they acted together in unison as one common human nature in Adam. I gave Matthew 5:46 as an example of a command by God that we were without ability to obey and yet JUSTLY accountable to obey.

You responded that Christ obeyed it in our behalf as imputed righteousness and thus were were able to obey it by substitution. However, I pointed oout the very same exact command was given by Peter to those already in possession of imputed righteousness and that this same goal was in view by Paul's comments in Philippians 3:10-14 AFTER he spoke of having already obtained imputed righteousness (Philip. 3:7) and therefore your argument is not valid. We are still commanded to be "holy EVEN AS God is holy" as Christians and yet are without abiity in this present life to obey that. Paul is striving after that goal IN ADDITION TO IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS and thus proving it is our responsibility irregardless of personal inability to achieve it in this life at all.

 

[The Biblicist]

Since you will not provide a definition of the fallen nature in regard to what it IS but only provide a description of the consequences or problem that needs to be resolved, I will provide a definiton of the fallen nature for you.

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

It is the "carnal" condition of man. The term "carnal" translates a Greek term that is elsewhere translated "fleshly" and refers to more than the physical composition of the human body.

For the present, I will not defend that Romans 7:14-25 describes the regenerated man operating by the "fleshly" nature although I believe the evidence is overwhelming.

For the present, I will simply define "fleshly" by Romans 7:14-25 with particular emphasis upon Romans 7:18 where the human will is totally IMPOTENT under the dominance of the indwelling law of sin:

Rom. 7:18 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.

Indeed, for the regenerated man the only solution for this probelm is Philippians 2:13 or the potency of the indwelling Spirit of God so that it is God who provides this "how to perform" as it is "God that worketh in you both TO WILL and TO DO of His good pleasure." That is why "to will is present with me" refers to the regenerated condition in man in addition to his fallen nature.

However, for the present the "fleshy mind" is the mind under the power of the law of indwelling sin which can never please God:

So they that are IN THE FLESH cannot please God" - Rom. 8:7

The word "cannot" refers to ABILITY and is therefore a delcaration of total inability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Skandelon, you are not dealing straightfoward with the evidence I presented in the above in your posts. You are ignoring the evidence. Please deal with it line by line directly and straightforwardly.

 

[The Biblicist]

Is it 'good' (meaning meritorious) to believe? Even the demons believe. It is meritorious to ask for forgiveness? In other words, does God forgive us because we deserve forgiveness when we ask for it?

The Prodigal Son didn't deserve to be accepted back as a son and thrown a party on the basis that he came home in his humiliation. He deserved to be punished and sent away...he got grace. Grace is NOT given on the basis of our merit. People who ask for forgiveness still deserve punishment. So, I agree, there is NOTHING good in us, nothing meritorious that earns or deserves God's grace. The only thing we bring to our salvation is our humiliation. God give grace to the humble, not because the humble earn it by their humility, but because He is gracious.

I have no clue what you are talking about and how it relates to the several points of contextual evidence I spelled out in my post. My post presented the grammatical evidence of Romans 8:7 in defining the fallen nature. I pointed to the STATE OF BEING verbs. I pointed to the meaning of "carnal" and I pointed to the verbs that demand the issue is ability and I pointed to the negative particles that demand TOTAL INABILITY when interpreted by the terms "enmity" as a STATE OF WAR and the STATE OF RESISTANCE in the words "is not subject to the law of God." Your responses are off the wall, indirect and as far as I can see a rabbit trail wholly unrelated.

This can be taken two ways. We both agree that as long as one stays in the flesh he cannot please God. We both agree it takes a work of the Spirit to bring us from the flesh and into the spirit. The question is whether that work is irresistible or not.

I am not going to jump ship with you! We must first establish what the fallen nature is and what it is not. We must first establish whether the fallen nature is by nature TOTALLY DEPRAVED and TOTALLY WITHOUT ABILITY before we jump ship and talk about Spiritual enablement. I have proven your definition of the fallen nature is false and you simply want to jump ship, change the subject to the nature of spiritual enablement.

 

[The Biblicist]

Is it 'good' (meaning meritorious) to believe? Even the demons believe. It is meritorious to ask for forgiveness? In other words, does God forgive us because we deserve forgiveness when we ask for it?

The Prodigal Son didn't deserve to be accepted back as a son and thrown a party on the basis that he came home in his humiliation. He deserved to be punished and sent away...he got grace. Grace is NOT given on the basis of our merit. People who ask for forgiveness still deserve punishment. So, I agree, there is NOTHING good in us, nothing meritorious that earns or deserves God's grace. The only thing we bring to our salvation is our humiliation. God give grace to the humble, not because the humble earn it by their humility, but because He is gracious.

Total inability of the will is being set forth here. True, it is in the context of a regenerated person as ability to "perform" is described in Philip. 2:13 which is totally lacking when the child of God operates in the flesh.

However, the lost man has no such alternative nature nor does he have the indwelling Spirit as the very definition of being a child of God is to be indwelt by the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:9).

The lost man's will IS enmity against God and IS not subject to the law of God and thus IS TOTALLY DEPRAVED by nature which necessarily results in TOTAL INABILITY by nature. I have proven this in a previous post which you ignored.

 

[Skandelon]

This IS what it IS by nature. Sin IS rebellion against God and death IS separation from the SPIRITUAL LIFE of God. There can be no SPIRITUAL ABILITY where there is no SPIRITUAL LIFE

Not even with an enabling, life giving, Word inspired by the Holy Spirit is clearly proclaimed?

"The truth will set you free"... Unless you trade it in for lies.

"The word came in power."

"The very words that I spoke to you are spirit and life." -Jesus

You seem to ASSUME that people can't respond to a life-giving message unless they have first being given life, but I'm not sure that is actually taught in the text.

"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:21

 

[webdog]

Not even with an enabling, life giving, Word inspired by the Holy Spirit is clearly proclaimed?

"The truth will set you free"... Unless you trade it in for lies.

"The word came in power."

"The very words that I spoke to you are spirit and life." -Jesus

You seem to ASSUME that people can't respond to a life-giving message unless they have first being given life, but I'm not sure that is actually taught in the text.

"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:21

John 20:31

 

[Skandelon]

Have you forgotten the argument this soon? Let me refresh you. We were arguing whether God could hold accountable fallen mankind to do something they were incapable of doing (repent and believe). I argued that God was not responsibile for this inability but they were responsibile because they acted together in unison as one common human nature in Adam. I gave Matthew 5:46 as an example of a command by God that we were without ability to obey and yet JUSTLY accountable to obey.

I'm not following. What do you mean by 'accountable to obey' ? Do you think that one loses their righteousness and thus eternal life if they are not as perfectly holy as God is? I'm not understanding how this supports your argument that God holds us responsible for something we are unable to respond to. No believer in Christ is under law and condemnation for their sin anymore, so how exactly does this support your contention that He is going to punish us for something we can't control?

If I don't respond to every point you make its only because you make too many at a time...and many of them are contingent on the other. So, I'm attempting to get back the the main point and stick with it first... I will respond to other points as I have time.