Why believers cannot resist sinful temptations? (continue conversation)

[Skandelon]

The evidence is that hardening is a process not instanteous.

Of course. I've argued that all along the way. And its not a condition from birth either. It is a process by which someone BECOMES unable to see, hear, understand and turn to God for healing, otherwise they might. That is the EXACT words of scripture...FACTS.

What is your definition of the nature of those hardened? I can't remember you ever drawing any distinction between the abilities of one hardened and one not yet hardened....did you?

The evidence is that hardening originates from the fallen nature not a regenerate or "spiritual" nature.

Of course.
But that doesn't even begin to address the NATURE of those hardened versus those who are not when confronted by the Holy Spirit's calling to be reconciled to God.

The evidence is that the fallen nature always responds negatively to light (Jn. 3:19-20).

We went over this, the passage actually indicates "Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

How does one come into the light? By being irresistibly brought into it despite your inability? NO. "whoever lives by the truth comes into the light SO THAT it may be seen plainly"

You think they have to see plainly so as to live by truth, just like you think you have to be brought to life to believe, when John says, "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."

And you quote from books like Ezekiel to prove men need a new heart but to the neglect of the texts which reads, "Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel?

and

"Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?"

and

"...if a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he will save his life."

How many times and in how many ways does it have to be said?

Which comes first?
Rid yourselves = get a new heart and spirit
Turn = and live
Turn away from wickedness = save his life

You continue to turn scripture on its head to make it fit your system.

 

[Skandelon]

No it does not! It does not say one syllable about HOW faith was obtain or WHY the Jews did not exercise faith.

We are talking about how righteousness is obtained and condemnation is avoided, remember? One way is not possible for attaining righteousness, one way is possible.

Now if you'd like to make a case for why its just as unattainable to fulfill all the demands of the law as it is to trust in Christ for help, I'd be happy to listen, but there is nothing here or anywhere else that teaches this presumption.

 

[The Biblicist]

We are talking about how righteousness is obtained and condemnation is avoided, remember?

No, that is not what we were talking about or are talking about. We are talking about ABILITY to believe whereas you are simply stating the obvious where no disagreement exists and that is righteous is obtained ony by faith.

 

[The Biblicist]

We went over this, the passage actually indicates "Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

Yes, we did and I pointed out that NO LOST MAN LIVES BY THE TRUTH (Rom. 3:9-12). If any man "lives" by the truth it is because of God's work in them as those in whom God works not only come to the light but walk (lives) in the light. The lost man LIVES IN SIN and DOES SIN so he is not that man who "lives" in the light or comes to the light. The inability is stated and the nature of the fallen man demands inability to do this in that state - Rom. 8:7

We are attempting to cover too much materials and ground and so nothing can every be accomplished.

 

[Skandelon]

Yes, we did and I pointed out that NO LOST MAN LIVES BY THE TRUTH (Rom. 3:9-12).

Its all about which you think comes first...cause and effect.

Just like the verses in Ezek, which illustrate this point that one must 'rid himself of filth' to receive the new heart/spirit...and in Paul where one must turn to Christ to have the veil removed...or where one must cleanse himself to be used by the potter for noble purposes...they are all the same order....the order your dogma reverses.

Here you do the same thing by suggesting that one must come into to the light and clearly see (be regenerated) in order to live by truth (respond to truth). But the verse is in the opposite order of your system once again.

 

[The Biblicist]

Its all about which you think comes first...cause and effect.

Just like the verses in Ezek, which illustrate this point that one must 'rid himself of filth' to receive the new heart/spirit...and in Paul where one must turn to Christ to have the veil removed...or where one must cleanse himself to be used by the potter for noble purposes...they are all the same order....the order your dogma reverses.

Each context you quote from also explains how this is done - not by you but by the power of God (2 Cor. 3:3-6; Ezek. 36:26-27).

Here you do the same thing by suggesting that one must come into to the light and clearly see (be regenerated) in order to live by truth (respond to truth). But the verse is in the opposite order of your system once again.[/QUOTE]

I "suggested" no such thing! Indeed, I said the very reverse. I said those who come in the light do so because it is God that worked in this in them first.

Even though you deny it, God did demand that Israel obey His law knowing full well they had no ability to do so but nevertheless condemned them and that law has never been obeyed by either fallen or regenerated men according to how God defines obedence to it. This inability to obey the ten commandments is still the condition of fallen man when confronted with the gospel commands and you have nothing to disprove that.

 

[Skandelon]

Each context you quote from also explains how this is done - not by you but by the power of God (2 Cor. 3:3-6; Ezek. 36:26-27).

His enabling power or His supernatural "I will control your desires" 'zapping' power?

I "suggested" no such thing! Indeed, I said the very reverse. I said those who come in the light do so because it is God that worked in this in them first.

I agree with that...I just don't agree as to the effectual nature of that working. The point is that in the order of that verse you have the people living by truth BEFORE coming into the light. In other words, responding to the truth of God is first. But the truth being sent is still a gracious enabling work of the Holy Spirit, so I don't deny that God takes the initiative as some have suggested.

This inability to obey the ten commandments is still the condition of fallen man when confronted with the gospel commands and you have nothing to disprove that.

I believe an objective reader will clearly see the distinction between one's inability to fulfill the demands of the law and his ability to respond to God's powerful persuasive appeal to repent and be reconciled through Christ's atoning work of redemption on the cross.

Proving one's inability to attain righteousness by works is NOT proof of one's inability to attain righteousness by faith.

 

[BobRyan]

I was in a conversation with Biblicist when the thread closed (why that is necessary, I'm still not sure), but I ended with these conclusions about the Calvinistic system.

When a believer sins he does so because God, for His own secret purposes, has not granted him the ability to yield or resist that given sinful act in that given circumstance. Thus, the believer, without the needed amount of grace, is certain to fall back into his flesh and sin. On the other hand, if the believer does yield and resist the temptations, that is solely due to God's choice to grant him the necessary grace to do so.

Thus, in the Calvinistic system, God is not only effectually causing the choices of the lost to be saved through regeneration, but he is causing each individual choice of every believer as to whether they resist sin or not throughout their entire lives.

So, if I, as a believer, lie to everyone, it is ultimately due to my fleshly nature and God's unwillingness to grant me the grace by which I could resist telling such a fib?

Is this a correct assessment?

If that be the case for Calvinism then it cannot escape the charge of claiming that God is the cause of His own lament about sinners that refuse grace and saints that fail in their perseverance.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

Walter,

Listen, bro, I understand your argument. You don't have to keep restating it. I just disagree.

Do you remember the following post between you and I? Your responses are in red:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Biblicist
1. Would you agree God commanded Israel to keep the Law?

Yes. For the purpose of revealing our need for grace (which we know is applied through faith). See sig. line...


Quote:
2. Would you agree that obedience to the Law must be defined by God's standard rather than yours or mine? For example, James 2:10-11 sets forth God's standard for obedience and disobedience to the Law.

I believe so, if you mean it how I think you mean it...


Quote:
3. Would you agree that fallen man does not have ability to keep every point of the law? If not, then why do we need Jesus?

I believe we fall short in keeping the law and thus need a savior.

Quote:
4. Would you agree God is nevertheless just in condemning men for coming short of that standard?

Absolutely


Now compare this with your most recent response to the very same questions:

Originally Posted by The Biblicist
1. He does in fact command the fallen man to keep the Law.

yes.


Quote:
2. He does in fact condemn them for coming short

No. He didn't come to the world to condemn it, but to save it. He provided the means by which they may be saved, so no he doesn't condemn men for coming short. He condemns unbelievers for unbelief, while giving grace to the humble who trust in Him.

3. Quote:
He does in fact condemn them.

No. He provides means by which they might be saved through faith.

Notice that your answers in 3 and 4 in the first set directly contradicts your answers to the same questions in 2 and 3 in the second set.

In the first set of questions you said "absolutely" and that you "believe" the lost are condemned for coming short but in the second set of questions you said "no" and "no" to the very exact same questions concerning the very exact same thing.

 

[BobRyan]

AND it was also pointed out then and there - that the REASON God is just in condemning the lost who do not keep the Law of God - is because ALL are DRAWN - "I will DRAW ALL men unto me" John 12.32

And "even the Calvinists" will admit that the Drawing of God - ENABLES the choice to choose the Gospel.

Thus ALL that are condemned as Paul says in Romans 1 are "Without excuse".

This was pointed out before - and you found these Bible "details" perhaps too difficult to address in making your point above.

But the "point remains" anyway.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Skandelon]

Do you remember the following post between you and I?
Quote:
4. Would you agree God is nevertheless just in condemning men for coming short of that standard?

Absolutely


Now compare this with your most recent response to the very same questions:

Originally Posted by The Biblicist
1. He does in fact command the fallen man to keep the Law.

yes.


Quote:
2. He does in fact condemn them for coming short

No. He didn't come to the world to condemn it, but to save it. He provided the means by which they may be saved, so no he doesn't condemn men for coming short. He condemns unbelievers for unbelief, while giving grace to the humble who trust in Him.

3. Quote:
He does in fact condemn them.

No. He provides means by which they might be saved through faith.

Notice that your answers in 3 and 4 in the first set directly contradicts your answers to the same questions in 2 and 3 in the second set.

In the first set of questions you said "absolutely" and that you "believe" the lost are condemned for coming short but in the second set of questions you said "no" and "no" to the very exact same questions concerning the very exact same thing.

In the first set you asked if God is JUST in condemning men for falling short, and He is, but in the second you specifically asked if that is what God did, and I said, no. It would be JUST for God to condemn all men, but that is not what He chose to do. As I explained to you before, it is not a matter of what God could do if he wanted to. I've said over and over again that he would be perfectly JUST in condemning all mankind to hell for being lawbreakers, I just don't believe that is the CHOICE of God. Instead he provided atonement...he provided a way to pass the course, so to speak.

I understand how that answer confused you, as I didn't specify in that answer that God would be JUST in condemning mankind, but that he doesn't choose to do that, but in my defense I have specified that to you numerous times since then...and I think I did so back in that same conversation (if I'm remembering correctly). We talked about what God COULD do and HAS done. That is a very important to the distinction I'm pointing out here.

 

[Skandelon]

Biblicist, I pulled up the original conversation that you referenced and here is the following line of that same post:

Quote:
4. Would you agree God is nevertheless just in condemning men for coming short of that standard?
Absolutely

Quote:
A major argument presented by Arminians is that God cannot justldy condemn men for what they are unable to do.
That is incorrect according to my understanding. Some might believe that God "would not" condemn men for what they cannot control, but I think most would agree that God can do whatever He wants. We are debating what we believe scripture reveals about God's choices, his justice and his gracious provisions in light of what condemns a man.

See, I was addressing what God was JUST in doing because you were attempting to say that we didn't believe it would be JUST for God to condemn mankind for falling short...which isn't true. I was attempting to say that God would be just to condemn all men for breaking his law, but that wasn't His choice. He chose instead mercy.

"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." -Rom 11:32

Do you now understand what I was attempting to explain? Again, I'm not asking for agreement. I'm seeking that you understand.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

1. Do you believe you live without/above sin - 1 Jn. 1:8-10?

Totally irrelevant. Nothing implies this "conclusion." As an aside to a wasted post, no, I don't.

2. Do you believe sin is coming short of the glory of God or His sinless holiness - Rom. 3:23/James 2:10

Again irrelevant. Your assumption that "instant sanctification" renders us sinless is ludicrous and unbiblical. But again, to honor the wasted post, yes, I do.

3. Do you believe all that you think and do from any other motive than for the glory of God is sin?

Again irrelevant. Same reasons as above, and again, to the wasted post, yes.

4. Do you make a distinction between personal sanctification and positional sanctification?

Ah! Finally! A relevant question!

Personal sanctification was accomplished when Christ provided salvation and redemption for us through His work on the cross it set every believer apart unto God as His own possession.

Hebrews 13, NASB
12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate.​

Note, the writer says "the people," making it a corporate sanctification for all who believe. Believe, be in Christ. Be sanctified, instantly.

What you and I call "progressive sanctification" is personal sanctification. The nature of progressive sanctification is the present work of the Holy Spirit, whereby the believer is progressively being set apart from sin, and brought toward personal perfection. In contrast to positional sanctification which is a once for all setting apart as a child of God, Progressive sanctification is an experiential progress whereby one is being set apart from sinful ways, and re-characterized by the Holy Spirit through the Word, to make the child of God fit to be His own possession.

James 1
23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror;
24 for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.
25 But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.​

There is a third sanctification, the perfect, which is accomplished when we enter heaven in our glorified bodies.

5. Do you acknowledge that "sanctify" means to be "set apart" and is applied to inanimate things (e.g. temple, altar; moutain, etc.) which have no capability of moral responses?

I gave you the examples in both the Old and the New Testaments whereby you should know I believe this. So you're back to "irrelevant."

 

[The Biblicist]

See, I was addressing what God was JUST in doing because you were attempting to say that we didn't believe it would be JUST for God to condemn mankind for falling short...which isn't true.

Nice try but wrong! I was trying to prove is wrong what you confess you believe. You believe that God does not demand of anyone what they are not able to do! However, the Biblical evidence is abundantly clear that God did demand Israel to keep the law knowing fully well they were not able to do that (Deut. 5:29/Jam 2:10) and yet JUSTLY condemned them as sinners - violaters of the law under just penalization. That is a fact that is repeatedly made clear throughout the scriptures.

1. They were obligated to keep what God knew they could not keep - Deut. 5:29; Rom. 3:19-20

2. They were condemned for failing to keep what God knew no man could keep. - James 2:10

Hence, your belief that God does not demand what man cannot do is wrong. He most certainly did and makes it abundantly clear He did.

Now, that fact cannot be disputed if you are a honest interpreter of scripture. So the question arises, how can God be just and demand of men what He knows they cannot do and yet condemn them? The only possible just basis for this is that all mankind existed and consisted in one human nature acting in unison in ONE MAN (Rom. 5:12) whereby they freely and willfully forfeited their STATE OF ABILITY TO LIVE SINLESS and fell from it by sin into a STATE OF INABILITY TO LIVE SINLESS.

Now, I have talked to you sufficiently to realize you will never admit that God did demand of Israel what He knew not one of them was able to perform but nevertheless condemned them "under sin" unto death .

What I claimed was that your belief that God will never demand what man is not able to perform is false as this is exactly what God DID with Israel and the Law. You attempt to confuse readers by asking what was the purpose of the Law while completely ignoring it immediate and stated purpose to reveal and prove you are a sinner which without the extended purpose (to lead them to Christ for justification) would have no relevance whatsoever.

 

[The Biblicist]

Totally irrelevant. Nothing implies this "conclusion." As an aside to a wasted post, no, I don't.

Again irrelevant. Your assumption that "instant sanctification" renders us sinless is ludicrous and unbiblical. But again, to honor the wasted post, yes, I do.

Again irrelevant. Same reasons as above, and again, to the wasted post, yes.

These questions are revelant to the purpose I asked them. They define what you do or don't believe so I can understand where you are theologically. There are those who do believe they can live above sin. There are those who do define sin differently. I don't know you and so these questions allow me to see exactly where you are coming from.

Ah! Finally! A relevant question!

Personal sanctification was accomplished when Christ provided salvation and redemption for us through His work on the cross.......making it a corporate sanctification for all who believe. Believe, be in Christ. Be sanctified, instantly.

What you and I call "progressive sanctification" is personal sanctification. The nature of progressive sanctification is the present work of the Holy Spirit, whereby the believer is progressively being set apart from sin, and brought toward personal perfection. In contrast to positional sanctification which is a once for all setting apart as a child of God, Progressive sanctification is an experiential progress whereby one is being set apart from sinful ways, and re-characterized by the Holy Spirit through the Word, to make the child of God fit to be His own possession.

So your corporate sanctification is one and the same with positional sanctification and progressive sanctification is personal indivdiual spiritual growth under the power and leadership of the Spirit. If I have properly understood your position, then we have no disagreement in regard to positional versus personal sanctification.

 

[The Biblicist]

These questions are revelant to the purpose I asked them. They define what you do or don't believe so I can understand where you are theologically. There are those who do believe they can live above sin. There are those who do define sin differently. I don't know you and so these questions allow me to see exactly where you are coming from.



So your corporate sanctification is one and the same with positional sanctification and progressive sanctification is personal indivdiual spiritual growth under the power and leadership of the Spirit. If I have properly understood your position, then we have no disagreement in regard to positional versus personal sanctification.

Now, the completion of progressive sanctification is glorification which is a sinless condition. Resurrected glorified saints are sinless in spirit soul and body. Progressive sanctified saints are not sinless or they would not be in a progress of sanctification or in a progress of being set aside unto holiness.

God in His purpose of salvation did not choose to bypass progressive sanctification and just immediately glorify us upon conversion. However, none can deny that God's grace is sufficient to do that if He had so chosen to do that. So it is not a matter of insufficient grace but a matter of the measure of grace He chooses to apply to us now versus then.

So my point was this - Since God could if He chose, He could immediately glorify us upon conversion and remove all possibility of sin in our life but chose not to. Does that make him the author of our sins because he did not choose to instantly glorify us and thereby remove all possibility we could sin? My answer is no! Mere insufficient grace to live sinlessly does not make God the author of our sins and neither is God obligated to give us sufficient grace to live above sin.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

These questions are revelant to the purpose I asked them. They define what you do or don't believe so I can understand where you are theologically. There are those who do believe they can live above sin. There are those who do define sin differently. I don't know you and so these questions allow me to see exactly where you are coming from.

You could have asked in a more conversational way. Then perhaps I wouldn't have been so snippy -- which was uncalled for, regardless. Please accept my apology, and my seeking forgiveness.

QUOTE=The Biblicist;2063384]So your corporate sanctification is one and the same with positional sanctification and progressive sanctification is personal indivdiual spiritual growth under the power and leadership of the Spirit. If I have properly understood your position, then we have no disagreement in regard to positional versus personal sanctification.[/QUOTE]No, apparently not. I'm still not sure where you stand on the concept of (for lack of a better term) "instant" sanctification granted at the moment of salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

Then perhaps I wouldn't have been so snippy -- which was uncalled for, regardless. Please accept my apology, and my seeking forgiveness..

Apology accepted

 

[Skandelon]

Nice try but wrong! I was trying to prove is wrong what you confess you believe. You believe that God does not demand of anyone what they are not able to do! However, the Biblical evidence is abundantly clear that God did demand Israel to keep the law knowing fully well they were not able to do that (Deut. 5:29/Jam 2:10) and yet JUSTLY condemned them as sinners - violaters of the law under just penalization. That is a fact that is repeatedly made clear throughout the scriptures.

1. They were obligated to keep what God knew they could not keep - Deut. 5:29; Rom. 3:19-20

2. They were condemned for failing to keep what God knew no man could keep. - James 2:10

Hence, your belief that God does not demand what man cannot do is wrong.

Walter, you don't have to keep restating your case. I get it. I disagree with you.

Really, your argument begs the question because your argument is only true if your system is true. In other words, it is only true that God condemns men for something they cannot escape or control if Calvinism is true. If what I believe is true then no one has that excuse (as Paul says in Romans 1). If my system is correct, and ANYONE and ANYTIME throughout history could have been justified by grace through faith then God would not be condemning men for something they can't control...in other words, if what Paul says is true in Rom 1, then no man has the excuse, "I didn't have any control."

So the question arises, how can God be just and demand of men what He knows they cannot do and yet condemn them?

Again, let me remind you that I'm not questioning what is JUST of God to do, as I've made it abundantly clear that it IS perfectly just for God to condemn all lawbreakers. I just don't believe that God CHOSE to condemn all lawbreakers, but instead chose to show them mercy. That is the real point of our contention and where our focus SHOULD be, but instead we are on the merry-go-round of saying the exact same things over and over again because one of us won't move to discuss our point of contention.

 

[Skandelon]

Put another way... If Calvinism is true then God has bound all men over to disobedience and shows effectual grace only to a select few. Thus, in that system, God is indeed condemning some people for something they have no control over.

If my system is true and God is merciful toward all mankind by providing salvation by grace through faith, then God is NOT condemning anyone for something they have no control over. They only perish because they refused to accept the truth as as to be saved.

So, your point is valid in a Calvinistic worldview, but to presume your worldview is the correct worldview is nothing more than a game of question begging. Understand?