What is "good" in God's sight?

[Skandelon]

I am surprised that as a former professed Calvinist that you don't understand the calvinistic position on regeneration and what it is??? It is a very simple thing to show that Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10 and Ephesians 2:10 are all interpreted by Calvinists as descriptive of regeneration as a creative work imparts righteousness in the form of a NEW INWARD MAN. That is so elementary of Calvinist interpretation it is utterly dumbfounding that you stumble at that point and even challenge it as a Calvinistic interpretation.

Here we go again. You choose to belittle me rather than simply stick to your views by suggesting there is complete uniformity on this matter with the Calvinistic ranks. This only serves to reveal your own lack of scholarship on the matter...

John Calvin

While Calvinists bear his name, most do not follow Calvin's ordo salutis. It may be accurate to say that Calvinistic ordo salutis endorses regeneration preceding faith, but it is not accurate to suggest that Calvin himself supports the Calvinistic ordo salutis. While Calvin states in his commentary on 1 John 5:1 that "no one can have faith, except he is born of God," he also begins his commentary on the passage saying that "God regenerates us by faith." 13

Calvin details his ordo salutis in his commentary on John 1:13. He writes:

The Evangelist says that those who believe are already born of God. Hence it follows, first, that faith does not proceed from ourselves, but is the fruit of spiritual regeneration; for the Evangelist affirms that no man can believe, unless he be begotten of God; and therefore faith is a heavenly gift. It follows, secondly, that faith is not bare or cold knowledge, since no man can believe who has not been renewed by the Spirit of God. 14​

One might conclude here that Calvin believes that regeneration precedes faith. Calvin makes the same observation, but his conclusion differs. He continues, "It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later." 15

Or how about Martin Luther?

Martin Luther

In his commentary on Galatians Luther wrote:

Paul as a true apostle of faith always has the word "faith" on the tip of his tongue. By faith, says he, we are the children of God. The Law cannot beget children of God. It cannot regenerate us. It can only remind us of the old birth by which we were born into the kingdom of the devil. The best the Law can do for us is to prepare us for a new birth through faith in Christ Jesus. Faith in Christ regenerates us into the children of God. St. John bears witness to this in his Gospel: 'As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." (John 1:12.).' 11

The Book of Concord, the 500 plus page statement of faith for all the historic Lutheran churches, affirms throughout that regeneration is by faith. In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article IV, Philip Melanchthon wrote:

This special faith, therefore, by which an individual believes that for Christ's sake his sins are remitted him, and that for Christ's sake God is reconciled and propitious, obtains remission of sins and justifies us. And because in repentance, i.e. in terrors, it comforts and encourages hearts, it regenerates us and brings the Holy Ghost that then we may be able to fulfil God's Law. 12

Now, go twist away and pretend this is not a confounding matter for even those within the camp... I really don't care anymore.

 

[The Biblicist]

"as in our system" = 'as supposed by our system'

Work with me bro...

I will work with HONESTY! However, you claimed that I had misread your posts and that you had not asked what I believed when in fact that was your very words "what do you beleive" and yet the words you kept on claiming to have said if I just "read on" or read post #91 would be found but can't be found just as I said. Now, you quote your words "as in our system" and then interpret it to mean "as supposed by our system." But even your interpretative additions fall far short of asking me to operate by your suppositional position. Come on, give me a break! Just be honest and admit you said no such thing and then start over by saying it right.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here we go again. You choose to belittle me rather than simply stick to your views by suggesting there is complete uniformity on this matter with the Calvinistic ranks.

Claiming I am surprised that you are unaware of this point is belittling you????? Wow! I will tell you what is belittling! If I had said "This only serves to reveal your own lack of scholarship" that would be belittling you? Oh, that is what you said about me isn't it?

This only serves to reveal your own lack of scholarship on the matter...

You operate by two different standards. One standard for you and another standard for me. What is that called when a person demands of another what they themselves do not abide by?????????

Or how about Martin Luther?

You know very well there are Baptist confessions of faith that I can quote that show multitdues of Baptists believe that repentance and faith are "fruits of regeneration"! So why play this hypocritical game with me? Moreover, neither quotations you provide say a single thing about the subject of our debate which is the difference between "imparted" and "imputed" faith.

Now, go twist away and pretend this is not a confounding matter for even those within the camp... I really don't care anymore.

Oooops here we go again violating the very thing you are accusing me of - speaking down, belittling language. What is it called when a person accuses another of the very same thing they do?????

 

[Winman]

Again, you interpet the Law as did the Scribes and Pharisees - MERE EXTERNAL CONFORMATION or OUTWARD OBEDIENCE - which is not necessarily obedience in God's sight. You think speaking the truth with ones lips avoids lying just as avoiding actual literal physical fornication is obedience to the law "thou shalt not commit adultery. Obedience to the Law REQUIRES A RIGHT HEART/MOTIVES and God looks upon the heart to judge the external actions of the mouth and body.

Sin is "COMING SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD" and when words and actions are without the right heart motive which is "whatsoever ye say or do, DO ALL TO THE GLORY OF GOD" then such OUTWARD CONFORMATIONS are SIN/EVIL in God's sight.

So you are a pharisee when it comes to interpreting "good" by the Law of God - mere external conformation is your only criteria rather than BOTH inward and outward criteria - as only a RIGHT heart can produce RIGHT words and actions.

Again, you believe that "clean" can come forth from the "unclean" but Job, Jesus and Paul claim "not one" can do it. You claim a thistle bush can bring forth figs but Christ claims it is impossible. You claim that man can change his own heart and thus regeneration which is a CREATIVE ACT of God is not necessary as man can change his own heart.

Biblicist takes for granted that folks are ignorant. He can spew out anything he wants and he believes he cannot be refuted.

Sin is defined by the sciptures itself;

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

Biblicist does not like the scriptural definition of sin, it does not serve his fallacious teachings.

Sin is breaking God's law, it is that plain and simple. When you tell they truth, you have not sinned. When you return a lost wallet, you have not sinned. Do not be fooled by Biblicist's attempt to say that everything lost man does is sin. If everything a lost man does is sin, then God's laws have absolutely no meaning. You are just as sinful if you keep the law or break it, it would make no difference at all. This is the kind of nonsensical confusion Biblicist tries to pass off on people. He depends on people being ignorant and simple, Calvinism would collapse in two years if folks knew the scriptures.

When Eve looked at the forbidden tree she was tempted.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

When Eve saw the forbidden fruit, she got some wrong ideas. It looked good for food, it was beautiful and she admired it, and she desired it because it would make her wise.

Was this sin? NO. This was temptation, not sin. Sin is the actual transgression of the law. God told Adam and Eve that they could not EAT this fruit, not that they could not look at it and think about it.

Look what God asked Adam and Eve;

Gen 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

Was God concerned that Eve looked on the tree and desired it for food? NO. Was he concerned that it was beautiful to Eve? NO. Was he concerned she desired it to be wise? NO.

He was concerned whether she ATE the forbidden fruit. He was concerned whether she broke his commandment.

Biblicist is teaching pure falsehood. Yes, anyone who sins comes short of the glory of God, but that is not the definition of sin. Sin is the transgression of the law.

 

[The Biblicist]

Sin is defined by the sciptures itself;

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

Biblicist does not like the scriptural definition of sin, it does not serve his fallacious teachings.

Winman actually believes that "transgression of the law" is merely restricted to EXTERNAL violation of the Law just as did the Pharisees.

Of course sin is the transgression of the law but the law is SPIRITUAL (Rom. 7:14) and the transgression occurs FIRST in the heart before it does by word or action (Mt. 15). Second, a bad heart cannot produce good works as that is the precise doctrine of the Pharisees. They believed you could call "ETERNAL CONFIRMATION" to the law "good" and thus keeping the Law and that is precisely why Matthew 23 condemns them as HYPOCRITIES because EXTERNAL righteousness is UNRIGHTEOUSNESS in God's sight if the inside of the cup and grave is not also clean.

 

[The Biblicist]

Winman actually believes that "transgression of the law" is merely restricted to EXTERNAL violation of the Law just as did the Pharisees.

Of course sin is the transgression of the law but the law is SPIRITUAL (Rom. 7:14) and the transgression occurs FIRST in the heart before it does by word or action (Mt. 15). Second, a bad heart cannot produce good works as that is the precise doctrine of the Pharisees. They believed you could call "ETERNAL CONFIRMATION" to the law "good" and thus keeping the Law and that is precisely why Matthew 23 condemns them as HYPOCRITIES because EXTERNAL righteousness is UNRIGHTEOUSNESS in God's sight if the inside of the cup and grave is not also clean.

Wiman, Skandelon and Van do not comprehend that sin BEGINS in the heart and is SPRIRITUAL not with external words and actions. Therefore, if the heart is sinful the actions can be nothing other than sinful because the actions are derived from the heart. Likewise, if the heart is good, then all actions derived fromn the good heart are equally good.

It is this fundemental understanding of sin they are rejecting. Only by holding to the Phariseeical definition of sin can they defend their Arminianism. If they admit the external actions are defined morally by the condition of the heart behind those actions then no matter how WHITED (good works) the external actions may appear to men they are SIN in God's sight because he weighs and defines external action by the CONDITION of the heart and if the heart is "unclean" nothing "clean" can come out of it. The fallen man's heart is "unclean" indeed, it is desperately wicked and everything coming forth from that kind of heart is EVIL no matter how "good" it looks to men.

 

[Winman]

Wiman, Skandelon and Van do not comprehend that sin BEGINS in the heart and is SPRIRITUAL not with external words and actions. Therefore, if the heart is sinful the actions can be nothing other than sinful because the actions are derived from the heart. Likewise, if the heart is good, then all actions derived fromn the good heart are equally good.

It is this fundemental understanding of sin they are rejecting. Only by holding to the Phariseeical definition of sin can they defend their Arminianism. If they admit the external actions are defined morally by the condition of the heart behind those actions then no matter how WHITED (good works) the external actions may appear to men they are SIN in God's sight because he weighs and defines external action by the CONDITION of the heart and if the heart is "unclean" nothing "clean" can come out of it. The fallen man's heart is "unclean" indeed, it is desperately wicked and everything coming forth from that kind of heart is EVIL no matter how "good" it looks to men.

Over and over again Biblicist tries to redefine sin. The scriptures clearly tell us that sin is the transgression of the law.

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

The Pharisees were not hypocrites because they kept the law as Biblicist falsely tries to represent, they were hypocrites because they did not keep the law.

Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Jesus told his hearers to listen to the Pharisees, and do what they tell you to do. But Jesus said not to do their works, for they say to obey the law, but they themselves do not keep it.

So, Biblicist distorts what we are told about the Pharisees in scripture. Biblicist tries to paint them as persons who were obedient to the law, but because they had wicked hearts God saw them as evil. This is not what the scriptures teach. The scriptures teach that the Pharisees taught to do well, and should be obeyed, but they themselves did not keep the law.

So again, Biblicist piles one falsehood on top of another to attempt to prop up his fallacious teachings.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Sin is breaking God's law, it is that plain and simple. When you tell they truth, you have not sinned. When you return a lost wallet, you have not sinned.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Do not be fooled by Biblicist's attempt to say that everything lost man does is sin. If everything a lost man does is sin, then God's laws have absolutely no meaning. You are just as sinful if you keep the law or break it, it would make no difference at all.

Correct, and now the law is essentially powerless to convict of sin. Because it has that power precisely because we have BROKEN IT!

Given Biblicist's re-definition....it means absolutely nothing to show people that they have broken God's law, because keeping it is equally as evil.

He depends on people being ignorant and simple,

I agree.

I believe that is why his posts tend to be so long...because he can hide assumptions in them that people don't catch, such that once he reaches his conclusion....people are fooled by them. (I'm not saying he is TRYING to be deceitful or disingenuous with some evil intent....not at all.)
It's often hard to find the "needle in the haystack" and often the genuinely debateable presumption is hidden in the middle of 50,000 words of rambling. Usually accompanied by quoting tons of irrelevant Bible passages which no one is debating.

But, again....as we were saying earlier....some people are fooled by these types of tactics. And that is why I hate it. It deceives people.

 

[The Biblicist]

Wiman, Skandelon and Van do not comprehend that sin BEGINS in the heart and is SPRIRITUAL not with external words and actions. Therefore, if the heart is sinful the actions can be nothing other than sinful because the actions are derived from the heart. Likewise, if the heart is good, then all actions derived fromn the good heart are equally good.

It is this fundemental understanding of sin they are rejecting. Only by holding to the Phariseeical definition of sin can they defend their Arminianism. If they admit the external actions are defined morally by the condition of the heart behind those actions then no matter how WHITED (good works) the external actions may appear to men they are SIN in God's sight because he weighs and defines external action by the CONDITION of the heart and if the heart is "unclean" nothing "clean" can come out of it. The fallen man's heart is "unclean" indeed, it is desperately wicked and everything coming forth from that kind of heart is EVIL no matter how "good" it looks to men.

Readers, Wiman and Jarvis are simply advertising their complete ignorance concerning the Biblical doctrine of sin. Anyone who limits the Biblical definition of sin to mere EXTERNAL actions does not know what they are talking about. Anyone who limits sin to mere words void of actions does not know what they are talking about. That certainly is the sin of hypocrisy but to limit the Biblical definition of sin to external words and actions or external words contrary to actions is a complete distortion of the Biblical doctrine of sin. Winman and Jarvis have embraced the Phariseeical definition of sin.

The Law is "spiritual" (Mt. 15) and judges the intents of the heart and thoughts of the mind. Sin BEGINS in the heart and is only made manifest externally by words and actions. This is so fundemental and elementary to the Biblical doctrine of sin it is utterly amazing that anyone who claims to be a Bible student could deny it with a straight face.

Jesus explicitly denies that it is EXTERNAL things that defile a man or EXTERNAL sources that defile a man:

Mt. 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

It is the hypocritical Pharisees that limited the definition of sin to EXTERNALS and thus believed that if the EXTERNALS words and/or actions conformed to the Law that this was obedience or "good" in God's sight. Jesus rebukes this false SUPERFICIAL definition of sin:

Mt. 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

This is exactly the superficial hypocritical definition of sin embraced and defended by Winman and Jarvis.

God looks upon the heart IN ORDER TO JUDGE the external words and actions. If the HEART is evil then no matter how WHITE the external words and actions are to men they are EVIL in God's sight. ONLY a good heart can bring forth good words and actions. If the heart is evil so are the words and actions and the fallen man has a wicked and deceitful heart and thus nothing "clean" can come out of such an "unclean" heart:

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Job. 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

 

[The Biblicist]

Readers, Wiman and Jarvis are simply advertising their complete ignorance concerning the Biblical doctrine of sin. Anyone who limits the Biblical definition of sin to mere EXTERNAL actions does not know what they are talking about. Anyone who limits sin to mere words void of actions does not know what they are talking about. That certainly is the sin of hypocrisy but to limit the Biblical definition of sin to external words and actions or external words contrary to actions is a complete distortion of the Biblical doctrine of sin. Winman and Jarvis have embraced the Phariseeical definition of sin.

The Law is "spiritual" (Mt. 15) and judges the intents of the heart and thoughts of the mind. Sin BEGINS in the heart and is only made manifest externally by words and actions. This is so fundemental and elementary to the Biblical doctrine of sin it is utterly amazing that anyone who claims to be a Bible student could deny it with a straight face.

Jesus explicitly denies that it is EXTERNAL things that defile a man or EXTERNAL sources that defile a man:

Mt. 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

It is the hypocritical Pharisees that limited the definition of sin to EXTERNALS and thus believed that if the EXTERNALS words and/or actions conformed to the Law that this was obedience or "good" in God's sight. Jesus rebukes this false SUPERFICIAL definition of sin:

Mt. 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

This is exactly the superficial hypocritical definition of sin embraced and defended by Winman and Jarvis.

God looks upon the heart IN ORDER TO JUDGE the external words and actions. If the HEART is evil then no matter how WHITE the external words and actions are to men they are EVIL in God's sight. ONLY a good heart can bring forth good words and actions. If the heart is evil so are the words and actions and the fallen man has a wicked and deceitful heart and thus nothing "clean" can come out of such an "unclean" heart:

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Job. 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Jer. 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

 

[Skandelon]

I will work with HONESTY! However, you claimed that I had misread your posts and that you had not asked what I believed when in fact that was your very words "what do you beleive" and yet the words you kept on claiming to have said if I just "read on" or read post #91 would be found but can't be found just as I said. Now, you quote your words "as in our system" and then interpret it to mean "as supposed by our system." But even your interpretative additions fall far short of asking me to operate by your suppositional position. Come on, give me a break! Just be honest and admit you said no such thing and then start over by saying it right.

I will admit that at times I think people know more than they do regarding debate terms and practices as I debated professionally for years back in school. A 'supposition' is commonly referenced as one side requests the others to 'suppose' X is true for the sake of an argument (i.e. if my suppositions are true then...). I was simply asking you to suppose our system's claims regarding free will true for the sake of an argument so as to demonstrate that even when you accept the claims of my 'system' there is NO VALID reason to accept the notion of 'meritorious works' or 'earned salvation.'

But it isn't worth all this...so never mind...

 

[Winman]

Mt. 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Again, Biblicist misrepresents what Jesus was saying here. Are murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, and blasphemies transgression of the law? YES.

Jesus had just told the Pharisees that they break God's laws with their tradition.

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Jesus was condemning the Pharisees because they were not obeying the law.

Biblicist wants to convince you that the Pharisees were keeping the law, but because they were evil, their good works were evil. This is not what the scriptures are teaching here at all. The Pharisees were not keeping the commandments.

It is the hypocritical Pharisees that limited the definition of sin to EXTERNALS and thus believed that if the EXTERNALS words and/or actions conformed to the Law that this was obedience or "good" in God's sight. Jesus rebukes this false SUPERFICIAL definition of sin:

Mt. 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

Again, Biblicist misrepresents what Jesus was saying. Yes, the Pharisees did put on an outward show of piety, but the problem was they were breaking God's laws.

Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Again, Jesus told his hearers to listen to the Pharisees and do what they say (so much for inability). But do not DO as the Pharisees do, for they say, but DO NOT. The Pharisees did not obey God's commands.

So, scripture is not teaching that the Pharisees were obeying the commandments "externally" as Biblicist says, they were NOT obeying the commandments, and this is why it was sin. Sin is transgression of the law.

As for a tree being good or corrupt, again, Jesus showed that a man can determine whether he is a good tree that produces good fruit, or a corrupt tree that produces corrupt fruit.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Biblicist will tell you over and over that a evil tree can only produce evil fruit, but he will not tell you that Jesus showed that a man determines whether he is a good tree or a corrupt tree.

Jesus clearly shows that a man can "either make" himself a good tree that produces good fruit, "or else" he could make himself a corrupt tree that produces corrupt fruit.

Biblicist will skip over this scripture because it destroys his view.

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, Biblicist misrepresents what Jesus was saying here. Are murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, and blasphemies transgression of the law? YES.

Jesus had just told the Pharisees that they break God's laws with their tradition.

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Jesus was condemning the Pharisees because they were not obeying the law.

Biblicist wants to convince you that the Pharisees were keeping the law, but because they were evil, their good works were evil. This is not what the scriptures are teaching here at all. The Pharisees were not keeping the commandments.

Again, Biblicist misrepresents what Jesus was saying.

Winman is intentionaly confusing texts in order to justify his false doctrine. Matthew 15:3-6 refers to a violation of a SPECIFIC Law of God. However, Matthew 15:8 introduces another subject than that specific law, but to the nature of hypocrisy which gives proper lip service that is contradictory to their HEART. It is in this context of hypocrisy between EXTERNALS (lip and actions) and INTERNAL (heart) that Matthew 15:17-18 falls under. I am using this text exactly as Christ intended it - to demonstrate that sin BEGINS IN THE HEART rather than with words and actions. No misrepresentation at all, but a complete failure by Winman to rightly interpret the context as he confuses one thing with another thing.

So, scripture is not teaching that the Pharisees were obeying the commandments "externally" as Biblicist says, they were NOT obeying the commandments, and this is why it was sin. Sin is transgression of the law.

The Scriptures in Matthew 15:1-6 is teaching they broke a SPECIFIC law of God but Matthew 15:8-17 changes the subject to the difference between EXERNAL and INTERNAL obedience. Externally LIP service - or a RIGHT PROFESSION does not mean that lip service represents the true condition of the heart. Sin originates IN THE HEART in spite of the seemingly right LIP service. Read the context!!

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, Biblicist misrepresents what Jesus was saying. Yes, the Pharisees did put on an outward show of piety, but the problem was they were breaking God's laws.

Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.:jesus:

Again, Winman totally disregards the text I did quote and the context in which it is found. Winman goes up to a completely different contextual subject in verse 3 while what I quoted was in verses 23-27 and winman completely ignores this context which speaks of INTERNAL versus EXTERNAL righteousnesses:

23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

Winman is intentionally jerking Matthew 23:23 out of its immediate context and trying to stuff it back with verse 3.

As for a tree being good or corrupt, again, Jesus showed that a man can determine whether he is a good tree that produces good fruit, or a corrupt tree that produces corrupt fruit.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Where in this text does it ever say that the tree can make itself good? Where in nature can you find a tree that makes itself good? I have asked this repeatedly and Winman cannot answer. If what Winman says was correct then Jesus would have said "let the tree make itself good" but no tree has ever "made" itself ANYTHING! Winman rewrites the scripture to suit his theology but canot deal with what the text actually says. It does not say the tree made itself good. In Matthew 7 Jesus claims this is IMPOSSIBLE for a thistle bush which produces thistles to change itself and produce figs or a thorn bush that produces thorns to change itself to produce grapes BUT THIS IS THE ABSOLUTE NONSENSE WINMAN IS READING INTO BOTH TEXTS.

 

[The Biblicist]

I will admit that at times I think people know more than they do regarding debate terms and practices as I debated professionally for years back in school. A 'supposition' is commonly referenced as one side requests the others to 'suppose' X is true for the sake of an argument (i.e. if my suppositions are true then...). I was simply asking you to suppose our system's claims regarding free will true for the sake of an argument so as to demonstrate that even when you accept the claims of my 'system' there is NO VALID reason to accept the notion of 'meritorious works' or 'earned salvation.'

But it isn't worth all this...so never mind...

Why keep telling untruths! YOU DID NOT ASK ME TO SUPPOSE ANYTHING -period and you know it! Your words in the initial post asked "what do you believe" and that is the post I responded as asked. YOu are showing yourself to be a very unprofessional debater as you are simply lying.

 

[Winman]

Again, Winman totally disregards the text I did quote and the context in which it is found. Winman goes up to a completely different contextual subject in verse 3 while what I quoted was in verses 23-27 and winman completely ignores this context which speaks of INTERNAL versus EXTERNAL righteousnesses:

23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

Winman is intentionally jerking Matthew 23:23 out of its immediate context and trying to stuff it back with verse 3.


Where in this text does it ever say that the tree can make itself good? Where in nature can you find a tree that makes itself good? I have asked this repeatedly and Winman cannot answer. If what Winman says was correct then Jesus would have said "let the tree make itself good" but no tree has ever "made" itself ANYTHING! Winman rewrites the scripture to suit his theology but canot deal with what the text actually says. It does not say the tree made itself good. In Matthew 7 Jesus claims this is IMPOSSIBLE for a thistle bush which produces thistles to change itself and produce figs or a thorn bush that produces thorns to change itself to produce grapes BUT THIS IS THE ABSOLUTE NONSENSE WINMAN IS READING INTO BOTH TEXTS.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

So, that's your argument? That you cannot see how Matthew 12:33 argues that Jesus taught a man can determine what kind of tree he is, "either" a good tree that produces good fruit, "or else" a corrupt tree that produces corrupt fruit?

And you cannot see that Jesus used the word "make" to show man's ability to determine which kind of tree he is?

You are seriously going to offer this as your argument?

Good luck selling this one. :laugh:

 

[Inspector Javert]

Anyone who limits the Biblical definition of sin to mere EXTERNAL actions does not know what they are talking about.

We don't do that though....That's a "straw-man". It is way more than that.

That certainly is the sin of hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is to preach one thing and do another. You are mis-defining "hypocrisy".

The Law is "spiritual" (Mt. 15) and judges the intents of the heart and thoughts of the mind.

Yes, we know.......you are pretending we deny that. That makes your debate methods dishonest.

Sin BEGINS in the heart and is only made manifest externally by words and actions.

Another thing no one here denies... :sleeping_2:

This is so fundemental and elementary to the Biblical doctrine of sin it is utterly amazing that anyone who claims to be a Bible student could deny it with a straight face.

We don't...but, this is that verbose fluff you lace almost all your posts in in order to confuse and distort.

This is exactly the superficial hypocritical definition of sin embraced and defended by Winman and Jarvis.

That's not true....you've now simply confused yourself.
You don't understand a THING about what your debate opponents believe....
Not a thing.

 

[Protestant]

Here we go again. You choose to belittle me rather than simply stick to your views by suggesting there is complete uniformity on this matter with the Calvinistic ranks. This only serves to reveal your own lack of scholarship on the matter...

John Calvin

While Calvinists bear his name, most do not follow Calvin's ordo salutis. It may be accurate to say that Calvinistic ordo salutis endorses regeneration preceding faith, but it is not accurate to suggest that Calvin himself supports the Calvinistic ordo salutis. While Calvin states in his commentary on 1 John 5:1 that "no one can have faith, except he is born of God," he also begins his commentary on the passage saying that "God regenerates us by faith." 13

Calvin details his ordo salutis in his commentary on John 1:13. He writes:

The Evangelist says that those who believe are already born of God. Hence it follows, first, that faith does not proceed from ourselves, but is the fruit of spiritual regeneration; for the Evangelist affirms that no man can believe, unless he be begotten of God; and therefore faith is a heavenly gift. It follows, secondly, that faith is not bare or cold knowledge, since no man can believe who has not been renewed by the Spirit of God. 14
One might conclude here that Calvin believes that regeneration precedes faith. Calvin makes the same observation, but his conclusion differs. He continues, "It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later." 15

Once again, Skandelon uses sound bite quotes which he has lifted from anti-Calvinist sources to ‘prove’ his Arminian ordo salutis.

I quote from Richard Muller’s Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation.

“Although it is certainly suitable to speak cautiously about the development toward a conception of the order of salvation, or ordo salutis, among the Reformers and their successors in the Reformed tradition, it would be a significant historiographical mistake to speak of Calvin’s or Vermigli’s or Beza’s, Perkins’, Ames’, or indeed Turretin’s doctrine of ordo salutis inasmuch as the term had not yet come into use in its later technical or dogmatic sense.”

http://books.google.com/books?id=jU...8#v=onepage&q=Calvin's ordo salvation&f=false

 

[Inspector Javert]

Once again, Skandelon uses sound bite quotes which he has lifted from anti-Calvinist sources to ‘prove’ his Arminian ordo salutis.

I quote from Richard Muller’s Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation.

“Although it is certainly suitable to speak cautiously about the development toward a conception of the order of salvation, or ordo salutis, among the Reformers and their successors in the Reformed tradition, it would be a significant historiographical mistake to speak of Calvin’s or Vermigli’s or Beza’s, Perkins’, Ames’, or indeed Turretin’s doctrine of ordo salutis inasmuch as the term had not yet come into use in its later technical or dogmatic sense.”

http://books.google.com/books?id=jU...8#v=onepage&q=Calvin's ordo salvation&f=false

You are reading without comprehension...

The key argument respecting "Ordo Salutis" is simply whether regeneration precedes faith.....
That's all that matters, that's it.

Nothing else does.

Now let's make this REEEAAALLLY simple for you:

One key argument of Arminians is that the Bible teaches that Faith precedes re-generation (as opposed to re-generation preceding faith).

Skandelon has demonstrated that BOTH Calvin and Luther CLEARLY taught that Faith precedes re-generation (as did C.H. Spurgeon whom all Baptists admire).

Now...the commonly taught "New Calvinism" or the present-day form of avant-garde Calvinism extant must insist that re-generation precedes faith.
That's not Scriptural.

Your quote only says this:

inasmuch as the term had not yet come into use in its later technical or dogmatic sense

Duh....

What Skan has already proven, is that whether the sexy two-dollar word "Ordo-Salutis" (<---if that's what makes Theologians feel smart ) exists or not...the principle has been vetted and debated long before we conjured up a stupid and unnecessary Latin term for it centuries after Latin was a dead language anyway.

You just quoted a guy saying that since that the Old Reformers didn't use the obnoxiously unnecessary Latin term "Ordo Salutis"....(he's right) and you subsequently concluded that neither Calvin nor Luther could possibly have an articulated and sophisticated Theology of the necessary processes for salvation...

That's simply stupid...
I don't agree with their well-articulated and quite sophisticated Theology of Salvation...
But you take this to mean that

Since the pretentious term "Ordo-Salutis" hadn't been conjured up yet, that Luther and Calvin didn't have one....
That's among the stupidest things I've ever read on this board.

Here's a hint:

There'd BE no such thing as a sophisticated Theology of an "Ordo-Salutis" if it weren't for men like Calvin and Luther.

Congratulations....
You've just quoted someone who demonstrated simply that a robust Terminology like "Ordo-Salutis" wasn't commonly used, and concluded for yourself that therefore, since the term "gravity" wasn't developed until Newton....
Then presumably, no Scientist before him ever noticed that things fell downward from three-story buildings.

 

[psalms109:31]

2 Timothy 2:19-21
New International Version (NIV)
19 Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”

20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. 21 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

Hebrews 3:3
Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself.

I believe regeneration before faith is ridiculous until we accept Jesus Christ into our heart and let Him destroy who we once was and rebuild us into the new creation ,we can do no good. It is not the house that ever gets the glory and praise but the builder