SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Gould we please settle this?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
BenWilliams
Member



Joined: 2006/12/11
Posts: 351
El Paso, Texas

 Re:

There is only one problem with this whole analogy,

Babies that are in the womb are neither dead, nor paralized.


_________________
Benjamin Williams

 2007/11/13 12:02Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
It is necessary for the new birth to be from God alone as we are dead in sin, and He must quicken, or give life to us.

Again, if someone has a new birth from God, then one is "born of God" by definition. If one is born of God, then he is one of God's which is the same as being saved and/or convertred; he has has eternal life.
Why are you making it mean something that it doesn't?

Furthermore, when/where is s this so called rebirth (being in limbo) in which one is an unsaved born again person?
1John 3:9, 1John 4:7, 1John 5:1, 1John 5:4, 1John 5:18.

Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
Now we know that we had nothing to do with our natural birth, and Scripture alludes to our Spiritual being the same.

Again I refer you all back to your natural birth, and how much control you had over it.

I have yet to see a corpse revive itself, or have a will to cooperate with those who are resuscitating it

You are taking the analogy of being dead in sin way to far because it puts a different meaning to what Paul meant when he wrote, “dead in your trespasses and sins”.
Using your theology, we could just as well conclude that those who are dead in their sins cannot think, breath, speak or hope, since dead people can’t do those things either.

Like all analogies, there are likenesses that can be drawn between physical and spiritual death, but, like all metaphors, there comes a point where similarities turn to dissimilarities. You are taking the term spiritually dead to far in what it is supposed to mean.
If "unregenerate man"(dead man) could do evil but doesn’t because of his conscience (this unregenerate man is restrained by himself, and not some outside force), then "unregenerate" man is making a moral decision by his own free will.

“dead in your trespasses and sins”( Col 2:13) means that unregenerate man has no relationship with God because of his sins and is void of spiritual life, That is all it is suposed to mean. Do not take it to far.
It does not mean that man is incapable of making a choice to repent, just as it obviously does not imply man’s inability to make any other choice, including moral choices.
Unregenerate people have the capacity to choose between doing what is right and or wrong and any moral choice.
Receiving Christ is a moral decision. People make choices all the time to obey or disobey their own God-given consciences (see Rom. 2:14-15). They are not so evil that they are incapable of choosing to obey, for example, one of God’s commandments. So what is the difference between any other moral choice that an unregenerate person makes and the moral choice to repent and follow Jesus?
It is obvious from many of scriptures that Paul did not believe that people who are “dead in their trespasses and sins” are incapable of submitting to God.

 2007/11/13 12:04Profile
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Quote:
Furthermore, when/where is s this so called rebirth (being in limbo) in which one is an unsaved born again person?
1John 3:9, 1John 4:7, 1John 5:1, 1John 5:4, 1John 5:18.



The rebirth may be unknown to us, or it may be. But the bottom line is that after we are given life, we will believe.

As I have said, and as Scripture verifies, our new birth is not based upon our faith or our repentance, but rather these are fruits or proofs of life.

Only a Christian struggles with sin, as the unbeliever cares less about their offense to God. It is a very good sign of life within if you struggle with sin, or desire godliness.

Quote:
Using your theology, we could just as well conclude that those who are dead in their sins cannot think, breath, speak or hope, since dead people can’t do those things either.



No brother, I fully understand that man can make moral decisions, and can think and breathe. However man is not able to have spiritual life, because he is cut of from God, and thus this is the death that we must be revived from.

Quote:
If "unregenerate man"(dead man) could do evil but doesn’t because of his conscience (this unregenerate man is restrained by himself, and not some outside force), then "unregenerate" man is making a moral decision by his own free will.



Not so, men are not as evil as they could be because God has given restraints. Whether they be conscience, laws, police, God has set in order ways to keep men from being as wicked as he could be.

Even a man who restrains himself because of conscience is only verifying the marred image of God he carries, and thus further condemns him,if he will not repent. And no he is not off the hook because he cannot on his own as he was born a debtor to God, and not one who should be rewarded.

Quote:
“dead in your trespasses and sins”( Col 2:13) means that unregenerate man has no relationship with God because of his sins and is void of spiritual life, That is all it is suposed to mean. Do not take it to far.
It does not mean that man is incapable of making a choice to repent, just as it obviously does not imply man’s inability to make any other choice, including moral choices.



Yes brother, man is spiritually dead, and cut off form God. Man is blinded, and cannot and will not come to God on his own.

Man's moral decisions are based upon his the state of his heart. If a man is bound by sin, he will only make sinful decisions, that is all he can do. He may make "moral" decisions that look good, and seem "Christian". But apart from the re-birth man will do all these things out of the sinful nature he carries, and as a means to produce self righteousness.

I fear for you if you only believe the Gospel is moral. Even Paul says that the Law is spiritual, and he goes on to say, "but I am carnal, sold under sin." The Gospel in its true form is not something a natural man can comprehend. Natural man does not understand that he has offended the One who has given him life,nor does he care.

When a man begins to fret and worry about his standing with God, it is because God is drawing him. Ultimately this man will come as God's grace always accomplishes what it sets out to do.

Because this life alone comes from God, God receives all glory, and man is humbled by the mercy of God. There is no room for man to think that he had something to do with his salvation.

Now compare this verse to the Titus passage you quoted-
James 1:18 Of [b]his own will begat he us[/b] with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Titus 3:5 [b]Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy[/b] he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Quote:
It is obvious from many of scriptures that Paul did not believe that people who are “dead in their trespasses and sins” are incapable of submitting to God.



It is more obvious that the verses you are speaking of usually are addressed to Christians who would be able, because they had been given life to do it.

Don't confuse exhortations to the Church with ability in natural man.

Consider if I say to you, "all men who wear blue pants are kind."

Am I not only making a statement? or do you see in this something of a command to men?

I think the majority of what you say is commands that natural man can keep are nothing more than statements God has made, but they do not imply ability. Consider, "if you will be perfect, go and sell all you have, and come follow me."

So by your thinking, I could sell my house, and my car, and all I own, and have righteousness before God. Not only that, I have the ability to do this, and I don't really need anyone to atone for my sin, because I am doing what is required of me morally.

What you fail to see is that if the heart is not changed, and born of God, they are not Christians. Why is this important? Because many people do this in the name of Buddha as a means to justify themselves. Morals will not save you.

You do not understand the depth of sin that needs to be done away with, and that is why you can say that man is moral, and can make a "decision" for Christ at any time he wishes.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2007/11/13 12:56Profile
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Quote:
There is only one problem with this whole analogy,

Babies that are in the womb are neither dead, nor paralized.



Well, God has seen fit to describe His giving life as the new birth.

If you look at other terms that are synonymous with re-birth, you will find they all point to things men cannot do.

Re-birth, re-creation, resurrection, adoption etc.

Now in the other forum, you had stated that the Five Points fall if regeneration is found untrue.

To this I must disagree. The Five Points fall if original sin is not true, and here is why.

If man is not dead in sin(cut off from God), then he is not totally unable to come to God, or unable to meet God's standards, or respond to God apart from the Holy Spirit. So that would do away with the "T".

And if man could use his own will to "choose" God, then election would not be unconditional, or not based on something in man, or something man does. But rather it would be "conditional" based upon a goodness within man, or his foreseen choice.
So there goes the "U".

Of course if all men everywhere were able to choose God at anytime they wished, then only those who chose would partake in the benefits of the atonement, which strangely would still limit it.
So, the "L" could stand.

But if man was almost omnipotent, or at least stronger in his will than God, man could resist God no matter what God did. Man if not dead in sin would have spiritual life which could refuse its Maker.
So no more "I"

Lastly, if man is not needing of life, and is only wounded, or misguided, then his choice ratifies God's choice of him, rather God has elected man because man chose Him. Well then man must continue to keep himself in this state, because it is all based on his actions, and not God's. Well then man must make himself persevere as God is really powerless to change his will or refine him into the image of Christ.
So no more "P".

So no, if sin does not cause all men to be in death spiritually from the womb, then and only then do the Five Points fall.

And again, you are stating nothing new, as the Arminians tried to argue the same, as did the Roman Catholic Church. Because both of these systems are Pelagian in thought, they deny man being dead spiritually, but rather wounded and able to raise himself up, you know like how Lazarus raised himself up by his decision in the tomb.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2007/11/13 13:16Profile
BenWilliams
Member



Joined: 2006/12/11
Posts: 351
El Paso, Texas

 Re:

roaringlamb wrote:

Quote:
Well, God has seen fit to describe His giving life as the new birth.



Yes, He has.

Quote:
If you look at other terms that are synonymous with re-birth, you will find they all point to things men cannot do.

Re-birth, re-creation, resurrection, adoption etc.



True, but we are not discussing the synonyms, we are discussing the issue of birth. My mother happens to be a midwife, so I do know a bit about births, and if you take the time to study birth, you would find it has far more similarities to the Christian walk, and being transformed into our spiritual bodies when we die or Christ comes than it does with what you are describing.

You are limiting the meaning of being born again to the idea of coming out of the womb.

I don't like talking about real births, because frankly, the subject is very wierd to me.

But have you considered that salvation is not the preverbial coming out of the womb, but that it is the conception, and then the pregnancy is the life of the believer, and the coming out of the womb is the changing of our corruptible fleshly bodies, into ressurected bodies?

There is far more to that subject than you are giving it, and the intricacies and depths of wisdom and knowledge in the comparrisson are extremely genius in what they are.

Yet, with all that you have said, the fact that the child is alive in the womb, proves that your comparrison is faulty at best. While similar, it is not similar enough to be an exact representation.

If you study the issue from the angle of salvation and birth being representative of from conception on like I have described, you will find the similarities between those two to be staggeringly clear.

Quote:
Now in the other forum, you had stated that the Five Points fall if regeneration is found untrue.

To this I must disagree. The Five Points fall if original sin is not true, and here is why.



No, what I said is that if regeneration takes place before faith, then the five points fall. Reason being that the scriptures teach plainly that faith comes before salvation, not salvation before faith.

Now follow the thought, if someone is saved after they believe, then the implications of the "T" in TULIP are not true, therefore point one of five falls, and so goes the rest, except for maybe "L" as you mentioned.

Each of the five points do not stand completely on their own, "T" makes a statement, "U" relies on that statement to be true so that it itself is true. So if "T" is not true, "U" is not true, and then all you have is a lot of "LIP", lol :-P just kidding, I thought you would find that joke funny.

My point in that statement is that the implications of original sin that you believe in fail to be true if a person is saved after they believe.
------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
If man is not dead in sin(cut off from God), then he is not totally unable to come to God, or unable to meet God's standards, or respond to God apart from the Holy Spirit. So that would do away with the "T".



Right, and as we know, the barrier between God and man was broken by the death of Christ, the reality of this is the veil of the temple being torn in two.

As we know, Christ was crucified before the foundation of the world, so that even though the barrier was destined to take place, it was removed by this act of God.

Quote:
And if man could use his own will to "choose" God, then election would not be unconditional, or not based on something in man, or something man does. But rather it would be "conditional" based upon a goodness within man, or his foreseen choice.
So there goes the "U".



Again, U only stands upon T, so without the U, the T does not even exist.

Quote:
Of course if all men everywhere were able to choose God at anytime they wished, then only those who chose would partake in the benefits of the atonement, which strangely would still limit it.
So, the "L" could stand.



While this point may appear valid, the scripture says that Christ tasted death for all men.

The atonement is not limited at all, salvation is limited. Salvation is limited to those that believe. The atonement is universal.

Quote:
But if man was almost omnipotent, or at least stronger in his will than God, man could resist God no matter what God did. Man if not dead in sin would have spiritual life which could refuse its Maker.
So no more "I"



How is it that they have resisted His will for them to repent, as I have shown already, and proven by many illustrations?

Quote:
Lastly, if man is not needing of life, and is only wounded, or misguided, then his choice ratifies God's choice of him, rather God has elected man because man chose Him. Well then man must continue to keep himself in this state, because it is all based on his actions, and not God's. Well then man must make himself persevere as God is really powerless to change his will or refine him into the image of Christ.
So no more "P".



If God perseveres for us, then why should we?

I know your response, God causes us to persevere because He has changed us, or something along those lines.

Yet, it is obvious to me that you have not studied covenants, nor the practice of them, and also of God's continuous use of them throughout scripture.

If you look up a man in the audio preaching section named Milton Green, I think in the first few pages of sermons, he does some teaching on covenants, one major part of a covenant is that it is between two people, and if one of them breaks the covenant vows, the covenant is over, and the covenant is conditional upon discussed terms beforehand.

The two parties will state their part in the covenant, they will pronounce blessings over each other if the other keeps the covenant, and they will pronounce curses over the other one if they break the covenant, then a sacrifice of pure blood must be given to seal the covenant.

If you study the cross, and it's implications, and the words of Christ concerning salvation, damnation, and judgment in the light of covenants, which Paul says salvation is, then you can discern the truth about the issue of perseverance.

When Christ makes a statement like "I will never leave you nor forsake you." that is a covenant pronouncement of His part in the covenant, and it is based upon the joining together of two people to be one people, not just marriage mind you. It is conditioned upon the agreement of the covenant between the two.

So if you go through the scripture and examine everything about the covenant of salvation, in the light of what a covenant is, and how it works according to the order that God established with Abraham, these issues are not the same as how you view them.

Your perspective is held back by a set of doctrinal statements that do not take into account these things that are clearly visible throughout scripture.

Quote:
So no, if sin does not cause all men to be in death spiritually from the womb, then and only then do the Five Points fall.



There are a number of things that cause it to fail, but my statement, I believe targets the heart of the issue, and addresses what you have said very directly, because the logical conclusion of my statement, if true, is exactly that the implications of sin you hold to are not accurate, and therefore begins at the base of the five points and disassembles the whole structure.

Quote:
And again, you are stating nothing new, as the Arminians tried to argue the same, as did the Roman Catholic Church. Because both of these systems are Pelagian in thought, they deny man being dead spiritually, but rather wounded and able to raise himself up, you know like how Lazarus raised himself up by his decision in the tomb.



My goal is not to state anything so new necessarily, although I would love to find a piece of hidden truth that clears this whole discussion, and seperation of churches, that is not my pursuit, but just because it has been brought up previously, does not mean that it is discounted somehow. It maintains whatever truth is in it, because truth is unchanging, and eternal. If what you believe is true, then it will be proveably true, and if it is not proveable, then it is not true.

By the way, Lazurus was not spiritually dead, he was physically dead, and him being raised from the dead was not a demonstration of how spiritually dead men are, it was a demonstration to the Jews specifically that Jesus was God, if you know about Jewish culture, they did not believe a man was really dead until he had been dead for three days. That is why Christ did not rush to heal him, but rather as He says it was done for a sign. Because He himself was to be dead for three days, and it was for the direct purpose of causing the Jews to know and believe that He was truly God, and that both He and Lazurus were truly dead before they were raised from the dead.

There are no similarities, implications, or references to Lazurus being symbolic of a man dead in His sins.


_________________
Benjamin Williams

 2007/11/13 14:57Profile
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Loved the "LIP" joke.

Quote:
The two parties will state their part in the covenant, they will pronounce blessings over each other if the other keeps the covenant, and they will pronounce curses over the other one if they break the covenant, then a sacrifice of pure blood must be given to seal the covenant.



But the Covenant of redemption is not with us. It is between God and Christ. We benefit from it if we were "chosen in Him". That is why Paul could write that "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us", and not when we made the right decision, or that "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)" (Ephesians 2:5)



_________________
patrick heaviside

 2007/11/13 15:17Profile









 Re: Gould we please settle this?

Quote:

Logic wrote:
One always referes to the first part of John 3 when they talk about this so called regeneration
John 3 has nothing to do with regeneration/rebirth, John 3 talks about being "born from above", they are two totally different words.

Furthermore, "born from above" is γεννηθη ἄνωθεν.
"Born again" is actualy αναγεννάω, which is different from the word "regeneration" (παλιγγενεσία).

So, you have three words:
παλιγγενεσία = rebirth/Regeneration
γεννηθη ἄνωθεν = Born from above.
αναγεννάω = Born again

[b]Titus 3:5[/b] [color=990000]not by works in righteousness which we had done, but according to His mercy, He saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,[/color]
In other words: Not by good works, but according to His mercy, being rebirthed(new again) by the washing from sin with the Holy Spirits renovation, that is how we are saved.

[b]1 Peter 1:23[/b] [color=990000]Being born again(begotten again), not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abides for ever.[/color]
In other words: We have eternal life(born again) by incorruptible Seed(God as our Father).

The word "seed" is Greek "spora": a sowing, that is by implication, a descent from parents.
If one is "born again", one has God as his own Father now, and therefore, already save.

John 3 is saying one must be "born [b]from above[/b]" he cannot see the kingdom of God.

So, which word is that so called rebirth (being in limbo) in which one is an unsaved born again person?

To get back to the original question, I agree with Ccchhhrrriiisss, it's "all of the above".

These different words describe different aspects of the same thing. One word isn't nearly enough to describe such a wonderful thing that a person who is "dead in sins" (however we interpret the meaning of the phrase) should be made "alive in Christ".

It's a good thing to analyse words and see how they differ. Especially I thank Bro Lamb for the analysis of the Greek tenses etc. However, let's not get bogged down in meanings and differences, when all are describing this great salvation.

The analogy of childbirth is interesting, however.

The birth isn't because of anything that either baby or mother actually do of their own will, decision or deliberate action. The whole process is involuntary, although the mother can probably help or delay it a little (e.g. by whether she pushes at the right moments?)

So both views have a point. The New Birth isn't because of anything we can do of ourselves, our own will (as it says in John 1), yet there is life before birth, the baby moves and does all sorts of things even before it's born. And the mother's body also acts to nurture the unborn baby and to bring the birth about.

In personal experience it was, as it happened, very similar to a birth - the sense of intense pressure, being "squeezed" by a longing that became unbearable, so that I cried out to God. And then, suddenly out into the light and life and air of His presence!

in Him

Jeannette

 2007/11/13 16:18
BenWilliams
Member



Joined: 2006/12/11
Posts: 351
El Paso, Texas

 Re:

roaringlamb wrote:

Quote:
But the Covenant of redemption is not with us. It is between God and Christ. We benefit from it if we were "chosen in Him". That is why Paul could write that "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us", and not when we made the right decision, or that "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)" (Ephesians 2:5)



I am afraid that you are mistaken in this point, both the old covenant, and the new covenant are between men and God.

[b][color=FF0000]Romans 11:27

For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.[/color][/b]

See here, God, "to them", man and God.

[b][color=FF0000]Hebrews 8:6

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.[/color][/b]

Christ here is the mediator of this covenant, not the participator, outside of the fact that He is God, so the covenant is from Him to us.

[b][color=FF0000]Hebrews 8:8

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:[/color][/b]

Comparrison of both covenants being between God and man.

[b][color=FF0000]Hebrews 12:24

And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.[/color][/b]

Again Jesus named as the mediator, or ambassador for both parties, man and God.


There is no question that the covenant is between man and God, just read the whole book of Hebrews, as it's writer dedicates himself to the issues of the covenant.


_________________
Benjamin Williams

 2007/11/13 16:22Profile
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Quote:
There is no question that the covenant is between man and God, just read the whole book of Hebrews, as it's writer dedicates himself to the issues of the covenant.



Ok, but what is man's requirement to fulfill the Covenant? Is it not faith?

Jesus did say, "this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many."

The covenant of works was broken by the first Adam, and the covenant of grace was ratified by the last Adam- Jesus Christ.

Now mediator means-
μεσίτης
mesitēs
mes-ee'-tace
From G3319; a go between, that is, (simply) an internunciator, or (by implication) a reconciler (intercessor): - mediator.

Christ is the reconciler because He alone fulfills all that is required for a man to be saved. Faith is the entrance into this work. This is why it is so offensive to God to put any stock into our own works as a means of righteousness.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2007/11/13 16:52Profile
BenWilliams
Member



Joined: 2006/12/11
Posts: 351
El Paso, Texas

 Re:

roaringlamb wrote:

Quote:
Ok, but what is man's requirement to fulfill the Covenant? Is it not faith?



Yes, he must believe, or he cannot partake in the promises of the covenant.

That said, each person in a covenant must fulfill their part of the covenant, neither party can fulfill the other person's requirement or promise, because that would constitute the breaking of the covenant. For each person has not fulfilled their part, and are guilty now of the curses that the covenant carries with it.

Quote:
Jesus did say, "this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many."

The covenant of works was broken by the first Adam, and the covenant of grace was ratified by the last Adam- Jesus Christ.

Now mediator means-
???????
mesit?s
mes-ee'-tace
From G3319; a go between, that is, (simply) an internunciator, or (by implication) a reconciler (intercessor): - mediator.

Christ is the reconciler because He alone fulfills all that is required for a man to be saved. Faith is the entrance into this work. This is why it is so offensive to God to put any stock into our own works as a means of righteousness.



Now hold on a second, you passed over the two first meanings of the word there, and dove straight for the third meaning. (Which I might add is by implication only, and not by direct definition according to what you quoted.)

The definition of a mediator, as shown by the first two definitions, and also the third, is this:

A mediator is someone who speaks for both parties, that means, Jesus represents God to us, and He represents us to God.

There is no need to read further into the definition, the reason it says a reconciler by implication, is because a mediator works to bring both parties together, but that term again I say is only by implication, and not direct definition.

One last thing, you are making one major theological error here in this statement:

Quote:
This is why it is so offensive to God to put any stock into our own works as a means of righteousness.



Faith, according to the scriptures is the opposite of works, they cannot be compared as even similar.

So if a man believes, or has faith as a requirement of the covenant, it is not an issue of works at all, because works are unacceptable to God.

You are attempting to say that if a man believes and has faith, he is excercising a fleshly work to get into heaven, this is an impossibility according to all accounts of scripture.


_________________
Benjamin Williams

 2007/11/13 17:28Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy