We don't WANT "Free-Will"

[Aaron]

But God does give us the ability to fulfill the law (through faith in Christ who fulfilled it in our stead)

This is saying God provided a substitute, not that a man has the ability to fulfill a commandment. Forgetting Paul's admonition, you insisted that the commandment presupposes the natural ability to fulfill it.

so how can you appeal to the law as your example for how God doesn't grant the ability to do that which he commands?

All I would have to say is "Thou shalt not covet . . ." and anyone who had ears to hear would know the commandment had just as well have been, "Grow wings and fly across the Grand Canyon.

Can you show us one thing that God commands that he also hasn't granted the ability to fulfill?

I'll give you two: "Love the Lord with all your heart," and "love your neighbor as yourself."

Tell me any time of the day you haven't missed the mark on either.

We're not talking about the substitute that was provided. Neither you nor Winman had that in mind when you were asserting that men by nature could do good works or fulfill even one commandment. A substitute does not imply ability, it necessarily implies an inability.

Again, you seem to think that because we can't attain righteousness by law through works that we also can't attain it by Grace through faith, but you have yet to provide proof for such a claim.

We are all growing tired of your disingenuous manners. It's time for some honesty. You define grace as the acceptance of filthy rags. That is not the Scriptural view and that is what we reject, and the proof is offered time and again.

So, because we are unable to obey the commandments. . .

So now the commandment doesn't "certainly imply ability?"

. . . you think we are equally unable to believe in the one fulfilled those commands for us? Doesn't follow.

Is belief in Christ good? Is it not commanded in the law? Do you not need a substitute even for that?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Originally Posted by Amy.G
You "chose" to give it to him because he did something that pleased you.

You are objecting to Skan's entire analogy wholesale because you are focussing on the one point at which the analogy breaks down (all analogies do)....But rather than "being nice to his sister"...What if we pretend that Skan's four year old son instead merely said to him:

"Dad, I want your i-pod, but I know I can't pay you for it. You have already paid for it dad, and I know that you love your children, so I humbly trust in your goodness to graciously bestow it upon me of your un-failing love."

At this point Skan is well-pleased and decides to give his son the i-pod free of charge: For his faith in his Dad's goodness alone...


Well :thumbsThat and presumably for having a remarkable vocabulary for a four-year old) :thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

This is saying God provided a substitute, not that a man has the ability to fulfill a commandment.

Of course. We couldn't obey the law so Christ did it in our stead and all we must do is place our faith in Him. The LAW wasn't ever given as a means for us to attain righteousness, but to teach us our need for Christ. IOW, it reveals our inability to attain righteousness through works but why would you assume that likewise means we're unable to attain righteousness through faith? It doesn't follow.

Forgetting Paul's admonition, you insisted that the commandment presupposes the natural ability to fulfill it.

How is agreeing with you and Paul that we cannot fulfill the law equal to 'forgetting Paul's admonition' in your mind. Do you even read my posts? I argued that God gave us the means to fulfill the law through faith even though it has always been impossible to do so through works. You make the mistake of equating faith with works by assuming man can't attain righteousness through either.

I'll give you two: "Love the Lord with all your heart," and "love your neighbor as yourself."

Fulfilled! When God looks at me he sees his Son, so that command has been fulfilled.

We are clothed in the righteousness of Christ through faith, so this command has been fulfilled for me and you. God granted the means to fulfill that which he commanded. Those means = FAITH IN CHRIST.

Tell me any time of the day you haven't missed the mark on either.

Again, its not me fulfilling it. It me trusting in Christ who fulfills it in my stead. It is like Piper wrote: "Faith in God’s promise obligates him to save the believer not because the quality of faith is meritorious, but because faith is the one human act which calls attention alone to God’s merit, honor and glory and his unswerving commitment to maintain that glory."

We're not talking about the substitute that was provided. Neither you nor Winman had that in mind when you were asserting that men by nature could do good works or fulfill even one commandment. A substitute does not imply ability, it necessarily implies an inability.

1. I have no idea what Winman believes...he speaks for himself

2. You can't read my mind (nor my posts apparently), because I've never changed in my view on this point. We can't attain righteousness and fulfill the demands of the Law through works, we can through faith in the substitute. You think BOTH are unable to be attained, which is unfounded biblically.

3. Yes, a substitute does imply inability, the inability to fulfill the law on our own. It does not imply inability to believe in him to fulfill it on our behalf. You read that into every text.

We are all growing tired of your disingenuous manners.

Do you mean like accusing fellow Christians of not believing the gospel, but in a 'dung heap' all the while misrepresenting 90% of everything they say? Hmmmm

Is belief in Christ good?

Ask the believing demons.

 

[Winman]

Well, I believe even unregenerate men can do good works, but that does not mean they can merit salvation. If a man were to keep the whole law, but offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

But that is not saying everything a man does is evil. It is not evil when an unregenerate man tells the truth, otherwise God's commandments are nonsensical. It can't be evil to lie AND to tell the truth, that is a direct contradiction and utterly illogical. If when a man tells the truth it is a sin, then "thou shalt not bear false witness" is not only illogical, but completely unnecessary as well.

Luk 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Jesus himself said evil men can do good works. That does not mean man can merit salvation, a person would have to be 100% sinless to merit salvation. The only man who has ever lived a sinless life is Jesus.

Luk 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

Here, Jesus directly said that sinners do good. Yes, Jesus is absolutely making the point that it is nothing noteworthy to do good to those who do good to you, and that it is a greater good to do good to those who do evil to you, nevertheless, it is no sin to do good to those who do good to you. You SHOULD do good to those who do good to you.

Calvinism takes depravity too far. If man was utterly enslaved by his sin nature, then he would always do the most evil thing he could do. Even Calvinists know this is not the case. Even unregenerate men can do good, but no one can merit salvation through good works.

 

[Skandelon]

Well said Winman. It might behove Aaron to distinguish between that which is morally 'good' (in accordance with the law) and that which is salvifically meritorious.

 

[Aaron]

Well, I believe even unregenerate men can do good works, but that does not mean they can merit salvation. If a man were to keep the whole law, but offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

You don't understand the Scripture. To wit:

It is not evil when an unregenerate man tells the truth

Is he guilty of all, or isn't he? How can he be said to be covetous and truthful at the same time if to break the Tenth Commandment is to also break the Ninth?

Herein is Heaven and earth contrasted. According to Heaven, men are either good or evil, holy or profane, whole or corrupt. A man isn't doing mostly evil things and some good, all he does is evil. The "truth" that the unregenerated man tells is not whole. It is corrupt and vile, because God looks upon the evil heart. The tree is evil, the fruit thereof is also evil.

And that is what Christ is saying in Matt. 12:33. The tree is either evil or good. If it is evil, then its fruit is evil. All of it. If the tree is good, then its fruit is good. All of it.

 

[Aaron]

Well said Winman. It might behove Aaron to distinguish between that which is morally 'good' (in accordance with the law) and that which is salvifically meritorious.

You can't distinguish between Heaven and earth, the carnal and the spiritual, the whole or the corrupt. How can you judge good or evil?

 

[Skandelon]

Is he guilty of all, or isn't he? How can he be said to be covetous and truthful at the same time if to break the Tenth Commandment is to also break the Ninth?

Aaron, a sinful man can still speak truth or help someone in need. As the verses Winman quoted indicate, even evil men can do 'good' things. These things don't merit salvation nor do they cover their guilt for sin, but that doesn't change the fact that they can follow aspects of the law.

Think about when Jesus spoke to the Pharisees and said, "Luke 11:42:
"Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone."

He affirms what they did in giving but rebukes them for neglecting the 'weightier matters.' Point being that a person can be guilty of sin, going to hell and enemies with God but still say something that is true, or do a 'good' thing. His motive may be impure, but the act itself can still be in accordance with the law. A demon can believe in God. A false teacher can preach the gospel. A Pharisee can tithe, etc. etc. Not one of these things will merit their salvation or undo their guilt for sin, obviously.

You can't distinguish between Heaven and earth, the carnal and the spiritual, the whole or the corrupt. How can you judge good or evil?

In essence you are calling me a reprobate, Aaron, and frankly it reflects badly upon you. This is a discussion/debate forum for believers. If you can't act like one then I'd suggest you excuse yourself from the discussions.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

"Faith" is not, according to the Scriptures a "work" of righteousness, and is not Scripturally justified to be defined that way...

"Faith" is "COUNTED" to men as righteousness..


Rom 4:1 ¶ What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 ¶ But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

(Most of the book of James) but it ISN'T properly defined as righteousness. This is what Cal's need to understand....Faith is not a "work", never has been, never will be.

An inarguable contradistinction exists in this phrase, and this phrase alone from God's word:

worketh not, but believeth

Calvinism must rest upon the notion that "faith" can properly be defined as a "work" but this is simply not so....the Scriptures scream otherwise...

 

[Winman]

A man isn't doing mostly evil things and some good, all he does is evil.

This is total nonsense. It is not sin when an unregenerate person tells the truth. It is not sin when an unregenerate person returns a lost wallet, etc...

Jesus himself refutes you, I showed you scripture where Jesus directly said sinners do good.

If your view is correct, then all of God's laws are nonsensical and completely unnecessary. Why command men "thou shalt not bear false witness" if he is just as guilty for telling the truth? Absurd.

The point being made in James is not that men cannot do good, the point is that if he keeps the law he must keep the whole law. If he offends in one point, he is guilty of breaking the law and comes under condemnation.

This does not mean everything a man does is evil. God himself said men do righteous works.

Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

This verse is speaking of a lost person, a person who dies "in his sin". Nevertheless, God himself confirms that this man did righteousness.

It is not that all men cannot do righteous works, they can. But the moment a man sins, all his righteous works will not be mentioned, but he shall die in the sins he has committed. Our good works do not harm us, but the wages of our sin is death.

This is no different from man's laws. Lets say you lived your whole life doing good things (as man sees good). Then one day you shoot someone and kill them. Does the law let that man go because he lived a good life and did much good? No. Even though this may be the only "bad" thing you have ever done, you have broken the law and must pay the penalty for your crime. Your good works are not mentioned, you are condemned for this single crime you have committed. God's law works the same exact way.

This is about ability. Men can perform righteous works, but no man has ever lived a perfect life (except Jesus) that could merit salvation.

But God himself said men can do good works.

 

[Skandelon]

"Faith" is not, according to the Scriptures a "work" of righteousness, and is not Scripturally justified to be defined that way...

"Faith" is "COUNTED" to men as righteousness..


Rom 4:1 ¶ What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 ¶ But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

(Most of the book of James) but it ISN'T properly defined as righteousness. This is what Cal's need to understand....Faith is not a "work", never has been, never will be.

An inarguable contradistinction exists in this phrase, and this phrase alone from God's word:


Calvinism must rest upon the notion that "faith" can properly be defined as a "work" but this is simply not so....the Scriptures scream otherwise...

You are correct. Further, if faith is a work (even one effectually caused by God's regenerative grace) then a Calvinists must affirm that we are saved "by Grace through a work," which I doubt any of them would do.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Eze 18:31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn [yourselves], and live ye.

No Calvinist will answer or engage this passage that is quoted.....None of them. They will ignore it...They will do so by directing you to alternative passages which imply their theology...but they will not directly explain how a man might "make YOU" a new heart...I think they have no answer to this. They will also not engage this passage and explain how God has "NO" pleasure in the death of the wicked...this would include...by extension...God "glorifying himself" with his "justice" by their condemantion...if it is NO pleasure, it is NO pleasure...plain and simple.

 

[Aaron]

This is total nonsense. It is not sin when an unregenerate person tells the truth. It is not sin when an unregenerate person returns a lost wallet, etc...

Is the "righteousness" not as mentrous cloths? Vile, corrupt and repulsive?

Either make the tree good and his fruit good, or make the tree evil and his fruit evil. You don't get it both ways.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You are correct. Further, if faith is a work (even one effectually caused by God's regenerative grace) then a Calvinists must affirm that we are saved "by Grace through a work," which I doubt any of them would do.[/QUOTE]

YUP!!! :wavey:

Apparently...we are now saved "by grace...through works".....Calvinism has now boiled down to, salvation by works...PHHEEEWWW!!

At least I am pleading "grace" and not a salvation of works like "faith" is....for my salvation...Arminianism is, in fact, the "Doctines of Grace" after all!!!! :thumbsup: What a relief... I thought I was required to be one of the fortunate ones who were successfully "Pre-elected" to accomplish the "works" of "faith"....Thank Almighty God for Grace...and not the works of "Faith" demanded by Calvinism...the DoW..."Doctrine of Works"...

 

[Aaron]

A child can answer these:

Eze 18:31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Your assumption that the offer implies a natural ability on the part of the one to whom it is made is arbitrary and has no basis in Scripture. I answered this pages ago.

Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn [yourselves], and live ye.

There is nothing here to explain.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Is the "righteousness" not as mentrous cloths? Vile, corrupt and repulsive?

Either make the tree good and his fruit good, or make the tree evil and his fruit evil. You don't get it both ways.

When I was an unfortunate attendee of Florida Public Education (48th over-all in my day) I still learned how to distinguish between "simile" and "metaphor". To state that something is "like" or "as" in this language we call "English" is still to merely imply a relational idea...yes, indeed, man's "righteous" acts are relationally "AS" a "filthy rag"...In relation to the perfection of a perfectly HOLY GOD...but, as a mere matter of fulfillment of legal requirement..it is not inherently "filthy" for a "bad" man to do a "good" thing, in reference to his HOLY LAW. It is still "good" when a man does a "good" thing....you are in danger of blurring the distinction between acts of "good" and "evil".
At some point soon, Aaron...you will come dangerously close to calling that which is "good" evil, and that which is "evil" good. You are starting to clearly blur the lines between right and wrong...This is dangerous.

 

[Winman]

Is the "righteousness" not as mentrous cloths? Vile, corrupt and repulsive?

Either make the tree good and his fruit good, or make the tree evil and his fruit evil. You don't get it both ways.

You don't get it, the scripture says if a man OFFENDS in one point, he is guilty of breaking the whole law. It does not say if he does GOOD he is guilty of breaking the law.

Telling the truth is not an offense, telling a lie is an offense. When a man tells the truth, whether he is regenerate or unregenerate he has not committed an offense. You are redefining terms.

I tell you, I have never seen a belief like Calvinism that totally redefines words and uses such illogical arguments. You have to throw away your common sense to believe this stuff.

And whether you like it or not, Jesus himself said to either (showing option) make (showing ability) the tree good and it's fruit good, or else (option) make (ability) the tree corrupt and it's fruit corrupt. You cannot explain away this verse.

Jesus in this verse shows men have both the option and ability to make themselves either good or bad. Man can believe in Jesus Christ and have their sins forgiven and receive a new heart, or men can reject Jesus and remain evil.

 

[Winman]

Is the "righteousness" not as mentrous cloths? Vile, corrupt and repulsive?

Either make the tree good and his fruit good, or make the tree evil and his fruit evil. You don't get it both ways.

You don't get it, the scripture says if a man OFFENDS in one point, he is guilty of breaking the whole law. It does not say if he does GOOD he is guilty of breaking the law.

Telling the truth is not an offense, telling a lie is an offense. When a man tells the truth, whether he is regenerate or unregenerate he has not committed an offense. You are redefining terms.

I tell you, I have never seen a belief like Calvinism that totally redefines words and uses such illogical arguments. You have to throw away your common sense to believe this stuff.

And whether you like it or not, Jesus himself said to either (showing option) make (showing ability) the tree good and it's fruit good, or else (option) make (ability) the tree corrupt and it's fruit corrupt. You cannot explain away this verse.

Jesus in this verse shows men have both the option and ability to make themselves either good or bad. Man can believe in Jesus Christ and have their sins forgiven and receive a new heart. Or, men can reject Jesus and remain evil.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

A child can answer these:

Please introduce me then to aforementioned "child"...he does not, to my knowledge exist....and this child of yours has not done so...neither have you.

Your assumption that the offer implies a natural ability on the part of the one to whom it is made is arbitrary and has no basis in Scripture. I answered this pages ago.[/COLOR]
There is nothing here to explain.

My question does not EVEN assume said "natural abilty" to do so....I do not even HAVE to appeal to that notion to demand that you interract with that passage specifically.. Confessional Arminians hold no such illusions either..."inherent abilitly" is not even necessary to appeal to in order to defeat Calvinism. Forget your mis-direction of "inherent ability"... I have already called you out..You will NOT interract with THAT passage itself...except to either:

1.) Ignore it...(this is your strategy)
2.) Explain by re-direction to alternative passages which seem to imply a Calvinist perspective...

Answer the Post...interract with the passage itself...or walk away....in defeat. Tell us all, how God did not mean (in this passage) what God meant.

 

[Aaron]

When I was an unfortunate attendee of Florida Public Education (48th over-all in my day) I still learned how to distinguish between "simile" and "metaphor". To state that something is "like" or "as" in this language we call "English" is still to merely imply a relational idea...yes, indeed, man's "righteous" acts are relationally "AS" a "filthy rag"...In relation to the perfection of a perfectly HOLY GOD...but, as a mere matter of fulfillment of legal requirement..it is not inherently "filthy" for a "bad" man to do a "good" thing, in reference to his HOLY LAW.

Did you learn anything about run-on sentences?

Anyway: Simile, yes. God's judgment of your "righteous" deeds is similar to your judgment of mentrous rags. They're vile, unclean and destined for the fire.

It is still "good" when a man does a "good" thing....you are in danger of blurring the distinction between acts of "good" and "evil".
At some point soon, Aaron...you will come dangerously close to calling that which is "good" evil, and that which is "evil" good. You are starting to clearly blur the lines between right and wrong...This is dangerous.

I'd say you're the one treading that line.