Hello again Mark!
tartanarmy wrote:
Do you not believe that Christians can and do still sin?
A believer has two natures. An unbeliever has one.
The believer now having the new nature, the regenerate one, having the indwelling of the Spirit, which wars and ultimately shall conquer the fleshly nature. Do you believe this?
The unbeliever has one fleshly nature only, which is in slavery to itself. Do you believe that?
You have still not answered my original exegetical question. I'd still like an answer. Here I go!
It has been suggested that this passage: "when we were dead in trespasses, [He] made us alive together with Christ" means regeneration before we had any will or ability to respond because we were "dead".
Hi again Sean,
First of all, the passage is speaking about believers who were previously dead.
“Were dead”, meaning “without the Spirit of God”.
So here we have former unbelievers who are without spiritual life, living in the flesh, and in their sins.
Then we read that they “were made alive”.
Now if words mean anything, we have these persons who are described as being “dead” in their sins, and then they are “made alive”.
Being
made alive cannot in any sense involve the one who is dead, making themselves alive, for then the text could not say “who were made alive”.
This being “made alive” is an outside force actively operating upon a Non-active force. A force that is a Spiritually dead force, but active and very much alive in it's trespasses and sins.
Why is it a logical, exegetical conclusion that "dead" means inability to do anything in response to God (who is calling through the Gospel) such as believe when we know that:
1. Man is made in the image of God, knowing good and evil.
Yes, but bound by nature “only” to the evil. This was the consequence of sin and Satan's temptation, otherwise the Devil himself was guilty of nothing by telling them only half the truth.
Your view here seems to only tell half of the truth.
Do you deny that man is a slave to sin?
2. Being "dead", called a "slave", "controlled by the Spirit", etc are all terms and expressions used of both believers and unbelievers. For believers these terms are clearly limited in meaning.
It seems that if "dead" for a believer means their inclination to sin is less and their desire of righteousness toward God is strong, then the opposite can be said of the unbeliever.
No, the opposite does not follow at all.
Your analogy
from a reformed perspective would lead to all believers cannot sin.
For the analogy would be that unbelievers only seek evil, therefore believers only seek righteousness, which of course is not true.
Again, I hope I am saying something to the whole teaching previously mentioned regarding the two natures within the believer compared to the one nature in the unbeliever.
I do not see that you are taking all of that on board.
Dead means and inclination toward sin and a lack of desire for righteousness toward God. It cannot be proven from this that the unregenerate can never do good.
That is not the argument and misrepresenting it helps no one.
We do not say that man can do no good, we are speaking about the vertical relationship before God.
On the horizontal scale, men before men do good all the time, but before God, all our good as unbelievers are filthy rags in His sight, as they proceed from the dead flesh of the sinner.
On another important note, that is why as believers, our good acts are Christ's works, which cleanse any good works we have, which are never totally righteous apart from Him.
So, in Adam we all die, but all in Christ shall be made alive. It all fits together nicely. Rom 5.
Stating that the regenerate struggles with sin because they are still in the flesh, while true, proves nothing about the issue at hand: Can the unregenerate ever do good?
No, not before God and certainly no spiritual good can be done, for they are in the flesh and cannot please God.
That is scripture teaching and Arminians seem to either reject it or read it through some kind of non Biblical spectacles which not only turns certain passages on their head, but actually pits scripture against scripture.
Not a good thing to do!.
Seeing how these terms are used of believers, it appears the answer is yes. A "dead" man can do good sometimes, even if it is against his "grain".
Again, whatever good a believer does, is still tainted by sin.
In Christ, believers share in His goodness by imputation, just like unbelievers do in Adam by original sin, and then live in harmony with such a fallen disposition to sin.
Believers also shall walk in harmony with the Spirit in them, guiding them etc.
All of your errors here seem to be an incorrect understanding of the two natures of believers, the one nature of unbelievers and certain aspects of imputation seem to be present.
Jesus said: "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
Does that mean divorce is impossible? No. But God has joined them together, can man wrestle a married couple apart against what God has done? Yes
Relevancy?
You seem to greatly misunderstand the nature of man and the nature of God.
tartanarmy wrote:
"How can someone who is dead to the flesh still live in the flesh? His flesh ain't sick, it's dead! (Rom 6:6-7)
Who is the one taking an analogy too far!
I laughed at that one!
I was thinking of what you said here: "Man is not merely “sick” or even “seriously sick”. He is dead. Dead is dead, and a spiritually dead man can do nothing, let alone work up faith!"
If a spiritually dead man can do nothing, then why is it true a spiritual man who is dead to sin can still sin? I know, you say "spiritually dead" but that is not an answer.
It is an answer, you are just not grasping the distinction.
Think horizontal relationship with man, and vertical with God.
Spiritually dead refers to the vertical, whilst you are presenting the horizontal. They are two different things in scripture brother, and you need to grasp this important distinction.
You are asserting that spiritually dead means an inability to ever do good but a spiritual man who is dead to sin can still sin. This seems like you are pressing the meaning of "dead" for the unregenerate to meet your presuppositions. Comparing scripture with scripture it seems that "spiritually dead" means something less extreme than you are asserting.
No it is as plain as day, and only by pressing your presuppositions does such an extreme rendering of otherwise plain teachings end up nullifying scripture.
If you follow the distinctions, you will see that a believer sinning compared to an unbeliever sinning has no relevance to the point of escaping the being “dead” and “made alive” monergism of scripture in any way, shape or form.
tartanarmy wrote:
I tried to tell you plainly, that being “dead”, relates to being “spiritually” dead, meaning in and of itself, the flesh can do “nothing” spiritually good or pleasing toward God.
You keep saying that but an exegetical study of how the term "dead" is used seems to show something other than "total inability". It does seem to mean that it's against ones normal activity.
Address the text?
What does “cannot” mean?
tartanarmy wrote:
This is true of “all” unbelievers, and true of Christians who displease the Lord by their works of the flesh, namely any work done that is not motivated by the glory of God and thankfulness for His goodness, truth and mercy.
It cannot be any simpler to grasp.
You can state this is so, but again you are carrying the use of "flesh" to the extreme for the unbeliever. I have already shown a biblical example of someone who pleased God before they were regenerated (Acts 10-11).
No you did not. Maybe you could spell it out for me and then harmonise it with the apostle Paul in other scriptures, the Psalms, Proverbs and numerous passages.
tartanarmy wrote:
If you read me rightly, which you are not, as I mentioned “if” the Spirit accompanies the preaching.
Of course not everyone is convicted, nor regenerated.
Being cut to the heart does not automatically = regeneration. Context dictates exactly what is meant by being cut to the heart, so your other scriptures are irrelevant to this point.
Let me spell it out even more plainly for you.
Faithful Preaching may lead to conviction (whilst necessarily being attended by the Holy Spirit) leads to regeneration on whom the “Wind” blowing “wherever” it wishes, which then leads to conversion which includes faith and repentance.
So you agree in synergism? Faithful Preaching+the Holy Spirit
Sorry, I had to ask that.
That is not synergism!
As hopefully, you well know the Monergism v Synergism argument deals with regeneration.
And if you think that a dead sinner co-operates with grace, then you are mistaken and perhaps at risk of giving to man what only God deserves, namely, all the glory! Amen.
tartanarmy wrote:
-This “heart” work is the prior work of the Spirit.
-This work produces an effect upon all for whom receive it.
-This work leads to regeneration, which is the New Birth.
-The new birth, leads immediately to repentance and faith, which leads to justification and conversion.
It is a logical concurrence, but may last just a few seconds.
I hear you brother, but like I said: You saying that is how it works and the bible teaching that order of events seem to be different, at least as I can tell.
Well, I appreciate your honesty and sincerity, even if wrong!
It seems that there are many passages that teach belief comes before the new birth.
With all due respects, the argument between us is not a matter of numerics, but harmonisation and interpretation of scripture, but be that as it may, the reformed side certainly has the numeric argument well and truly covered brother.
As best I can tell, you've affirmed the Reformed order of salvation but haven't shown me any clear cut passages that give this order.
There can only be a few reasons for this situation in “light of the passages I have thus far provided”.
I make no judgement as to what may or may not be the answer. I lean to 1 and 2.
1/ God has not revealed this to you, as I freely confess I have no ability even as a believer to convince you of my argument. My faith is in His faithfulness, and not my ability nor even your full comprehension of the arguments being discussed. That is the first point.
2/ You are sincere but sincerely wrong in your understanding and have not really thought all this stuff out yet.
3/ You are wilfully suppressing the truth in defence of human autonomy. This is almost the most dangerous position to hold. (any other position is not worthy of even discussing between brothers)
John 3 specifically mentions believing first.
To the contrary brother! But feel free to lay out your exegesis.
tartanarmy wrote:
What you demonstrate is not what you think the text is really saying. You have some assumptions under-girding what is happening there with Cornelius.
Assumptions
1/ Cornelius has libertarian free will.
2/ There is no “Monergistic” work that precedes his profession of faith, even though it is explicitly taught all through the Bible except here in this one verse.
3/ Ignoring the support from context to the reformed position.
Interesting. I show you a text of a man who pleases God before he's saved (which includes regeneration in Titus 3) and you state that the problem with my understanding the text is my presuppositions?
Yes, I stand by that and let the evidence already presented stand on it's own merits.
You assume that “Monergistic” salvation is all throughout the Bible, yet all I've seen is "wind blowing" taken to mean regeneration before belief (which is refuted in the context of John 3)
By all means, feel free to lay it out for me. Assertion is by no means refutation!
and "dead" meaning total inability (which is refuted by comparing how the terms apply to the regenerate i.e. Romans 6).
See previous comments above and last post concerning two natures etc
tartanarmy wrote:
Even here, your commitment to libertarian free will causes you not only to misinterpret scripture, but causes all Arminians to misinterpret or misrepresent reformed theology.
It only becomes deliberate misrepresentation when correction has been offered to no avail.
A person who may be labouring under conviction has nothing to do with changing ones mind.
So does God resist the ??? and give grace to the proud (unregenerate)?
You are all over the map and it seems quite obvious, at least to me, that you are rather selective when quoting scripture.
You lack cohesion and systematic theology from scripture.
Was Paul
humble when on the road to Damascus to kill Christians when he was suddenly knocked off his horse and blinded in order for God to save the man?
Your above misunderstanding (being that of “prescriptive” or “descriptive” aspects of how God deals with people) totally breaks down in light of this one obvious example.
The same is true all through the scriptures and Christian history!
Does not one have to humble himself (change his mind) because God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble?
Your argument by default begs the question of this whole argument!
Do the Reformed teach that God gives grace to the proud and regenerates them, making them humble?
And then “causes” you to misrepresent the reformed and biblical teaching!
Grace is given "freely" on "whomever" God desires to give it.
Grace is undeserved mercy, not grace to the "proud", although many proud sinners are converted and made humble.
tartanarmy wrote:
I don't have a problem with these texts at all. If God has granted repentance to the Gentiles (and Israel) then the people already have the God given empowerment to repent.
Where and how and on what basis do you conclude with such a statement!
Why on earth grant what they already have?
Such is the power of a commitment to Libertarian free will sadly.
I didn't mean to say they already had it.
Yes, I caught you out there, but that is fine!
I'm saying that if a requirement prior to salvation is that God grant repentance,
A better way of putting it, as I do like preciseness where possible, is,
“I'm saying that if a requirement prior to
“conversion/justification” is that God grant repentance,
those verses say that God has granted repentance to both Israel and the Gentiles. Being granted something is not the same thing as being given an obligation. Someone can be granted repentance and still refuse it. Grant is to give permission/allow. It seems that Jews and Gentiles have been given permission/allowed to repent.
It seems you need to twist scripture for your argument to hold “any” water.
In context, these passages are not addressing some kind of “yet again” inherent libertarian free will that man supposedly possesses, as if offering man something in the same way we are offered the chance to upsize our meal at McDonalds. No!
The passages cited are dealing with “what God is doing”
Think of verbs and doing words.
Thing of actions being accomplished and all such notions of “allowing” etc will vanish before your eyes.
Please note, that at “every turn” what you are defending is not the text at all, but your libertarian free will assumptions.
I once asked a poster at my board what the greatest gift to mankind was, and I was given the answer, “free will”!
I then corrected this nonsense, and the poster felt rather silly, and agreed that Christ given to believers was the greatest gift.
Not that I am accusing you of being such a man, but such would be consistent with what you are defending here in these discussions!
Think about what you are “actually” defending in every post.
tartanarmy wrote:
Quote:
It's still their choice, just as those who stoned Steven even when cut to the heart still resisted the Holy Spirit, people today can reject the God given ability to repent.
Go back and realise your previous error about conviction equalling regeneration.
You will not find me anywhere saying that conviction = regeneration.
Scripture teaches that all men resist the Holy Spirit, but some are enabled to be conquered by Christ, by free grace and mercy to some.
I didn't say it did, I'm just trying to pin down each scripture you use to try and get you to point out exactly when regeneration is said to occur. I'd like to see it stated they way you believe it.
You did say this:
tartanarmy wrote:
He does not convict the regenerated!
He convicts all kinds of sinners from every Tribe, Tongue and Nation who are dead in trespasses and sins from among the whole wide world, and those whom are convicted of their sin, God’s righteousness and the judgement to come shall be regenerated = born anew = repent and believe.
So if one is convicted, they will be regenerated and if one is not convicted, they will not be regenerated. Is that correct?
Is that not what scripture teaches, or are you going to “yet again” argue something about man being able to resist the Holy Spirit's conviction if the man so chooses?
Will you dare to suggest that when God decides to convict a man of sin, righteousness and judgement, then the man has the power and ability to resist God?
Is that what you really want to present in order to have libertarian free will?
Do you know what Spurgeon said about such a view as this? I had better not repeat it here!
tartanarmy wrote:
Coming to your senses happens after regeneration not before. Same as repentance.
Mark
Why would Paul exhort man to do something that cannot be done by man?
Because that is what scripture teaches Sean.
God told His Prophet to preach to the dead bones brother, and guess what? They lived, and yet had zero ability in and of themselves to respond.
Just like Lazarus when he obeyed the command to come out of the grave, and you know what, he did!
Mark
