The mind set on the flesh

[zoidar]

Do we need to agree on that if we do not cause anyone to stumble nor otherwise disobey God or break His Word , and never teach anyone to break any commandment .....
btw, I have not an iota of what you think of why a person comes to the point of conviction - and whatever you think, and whatever I think, will soon be gone with the wind, a mere wisp here today for a moment, and gone soon forever.

Sorry, mistook you for someone else!

 

[zoidar]

Two things. One, are you sure he was talking about salvation? And two, if he was, how would he have known he was saved

Because Paul answers he will be saved by believing in Christ.

If you have been saved you know.

Well, if you always been a Christian it might be a bit different. I don't have that experience and neither did the jailer.

So not everyone is in the will of God to receive this godly sorrow. Okay.

Start with comparing its other uses.

And how do you know that?

Because only the Holy Spirit can give you a new heart.

I’m sure it can be said. But the text certainly doesn’t read that way. It’s not Schrödinger’s Cat.

It's not how you read it, but what it means that matters.

Then there’s no actual meaning to “elect”.

I don't get your reasoning.

How about godly sorrow?

Nah, I think I'll stick with conviction, because that is what it is. It nails the meaning. Even if the Bible doesn't normally use the word conviction for it. I could possibly go with contrition. But how do you say that? I got contritioned? Godly sorrow I think is too complicated to use.

Some page wrote: "What is contrition? If conviction is awareness of sin, then contrition is remorse for sin."

 

[Hammster]

Because Paul answers he will be saved by believing in Christ.

Okay. Let’s say that the jailer was actually asking about His salvation. Since the text doesn’t say when he was regenerated, on what basis (outside your own bias) do you conclude that it was after Paul’s response?

If you have been saved you know.

Well, if you always been a Christian it might be a bit different. I don't have that experience and neither did the jailer.

I have no idea when I was born again. I just know when I put my faith in Christ.

Because only the Holy Spirit can give you a new heart.

Of course. But you’re assuming that with your cold, dead heart that was opposed to God, you somehow decided to believe in Him.

It's not how you read it, but what it means that matters.

Right. So who was Isaiah writing to? The Babylonians?

I don't get your reasoning.

Nah, I think I'll stick with conviction, because that is what it is. It nails the meaning. Even if the Bible doesn't normally use the word conviction for it. I could possibly go with contrition. But how do you say that? I got contritioned? Godly sorrow I think is too complicated to use.

As long as you don’t use the biblical passages that mention conviction, I’m okay with the word.

Some page wrote: "What is contrition? If conviction is awareness of sin, then contrition is remorse for sin."

 

[zoidar]

Okay. Let’s say that the jailer was actually asking about His salvation. Since the text doesn’t say when he was regenerated, on what basis (outside your own bias) do you conclude that it was after Paul’s response?

I suppose it was before his baptism, if he got generated and baptized. All I'm saying is he wasn't regenerated when he asked Paul how he could be saved.

I have no idea when I was born again. I just know when I put my faith in Christ.

Ok!

Of course. But you’re assuming that with your cold, dead heart that was opposed to God, you somehow decided to believe in Him.

I think I'll leave it with what I have said about it.

Right. So who was Isaiah writing to? The Babylonians?

Isn't he writing to Israelites who had been straying away from God for generations?

As long as you don’t use the biblical passages that mention conviction, I’m okay with the word.

 

[Hammster]

I suppose it was before his baptism, if he got generated and baptized. All I'm saying is he wasn't regenerated when he asked Paul how he could be saved.

And I’m once again asking where in the text it says that.

Ok!

I think I'll leave it with what I have said about it.

Isn't he writing to Israelites who had been straying away from God for generations?

God’s chosen people? Yes. Assyrians? No.

 

[zoidar]

And I’m once again asking where in the text it says that.

I answered that in my two previous posts. If you are not happy with my answer I can't help you. You don't have to agree, it's fine with me.

God’s chosen people? Yes. Assyrians? No.

I don't understand your point so can't answer that.

 

[zoidar]

For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
— Romans 8:5-8

When it comes to regeneration, there are two arguments. Or at least two that I know of. One is that we believe, and then are regenerated, and the other is that we are regenerated and then believe. I think the above passage makes a clear argument that we cannot believe prior to be regenerated. The reason is that faith or belief is something that pleases God. Being obedient to Christ’s command is something that pleases God. I also think that believing the gospel and being obedient or things that must be done in the spirit and not in the flesh. And the reason is, as the above passage says, we cannot please God in the flesh.

If the only way to pleaseGod is to be in the Spirit, then the argument would be that one must be in the Spirit before he or she can be obedient to Christ’s command to believe and repent.

In Rom 8:5-8 I think Paul refers to the kind of sins he mentions in Romans 7 when he talks about that the mind of the flesh can't subject itself to the law of God. I'm not sure, but he might mean the fleshy mind can't subject itself to the Ten Commandments. In Romans 7 Paul says:

For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.
— Romans 7:14-15

It sounds like he is talking of practical sins, things he want to do but can't do. Instead he is doing the things he doesn't want to do. I don't see how repentance can be one of those things. Is he really wanting to repent in the flesh, but can't and is instead practicing unrepentance? How does that work?

 

[Hammster]

I answered that in my two previous posts. If you are not happy with my answer I can't help you. It's fine with me.

No, you haven’t. And I know you haven’t because it never says.

I don't understand your point so can't answer that.

It was addressing Israel. Not Assyria. Not Babylon. That context changes how to look at it.

 

[Hammster]

In Rom 8:5-8 I think Paul refers to the kind of sins he mentions in Romans 7 when he talks about that the mind of the flesh can't subject itself to the law of God. I'm not sure, but he might mean the fleshy mind can't subject itself to the Ten Commandments. In Romans 7 Paul says:

For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.
— Romans 7:14-15

It sounds like he is talking of practical sins, things he want to do but can't do. Instead he is doing the things he doesn't want to do. I don't see how repentance can be one of those things. Is he really wanting to repent in the flesh, but can't and is instead practicing unrepentance? How does that work?

So now we have to discuss another passage that’s is not Romans 8?

 

[zoidar]

No, you haven’t. And I know you haven’t because it never says.

It never says he got generated. The dialogue with Paul shows he wasn't generated at that time they spoke in the prison. Like I said, a born again believer, sealed with the Holy Spirit with the promise of inheritance of God's kingdom, does not ask how he can be saved. Sorry, but no!

It was addressing Israel. Not Assyria. Not Babylon. That context changes how to look at it.

You have not given any argument, so nothing for me to respond to.

 

[zoidar]

So now we have to discuss another passage that’s is not Romans 8?

You do know the Greek manuscripts don't got chapters? Anyhow, a good rule to understand a passage is to read the passage before and after (sometimes even the whole chapter before and after). If you want to understand Rom 8, you have to read chapter 7 as well. They are connected.

 

[Hammster]

It never says he got generated. The dialogue with Paul shows he wasn't generated at that time they spoke in the prison. Like I said, a born again believer, sealed with the Holy Spirit with the promise of inheritance of God's kingdom, does not ask how he can be saved. Sorry, but no!

So it doesn’t say so in the text. You are just reading it through the lens of your theology.

You have not given any argument, so nothing for me to respond to.

Okay.

 

[Hammster]

You do know the Greek manuscripts don't got chapters? Anyhow, a good rule to understand a passage is to read the passage before and after (sometimes even the whole chapter before and after). If you want to understand Rom 8, you have to read chapter 7 as well. They are connected.

Let’s not stop there, then. Let’s go to chapter 6.

knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died has been justified from sin.
— Romans 6:6-7

Those crucified with Christ (and He was only crucified once) are no longer slaves to sin. If this is true, those not crucified with Him will continue to be slaves.

 

[zoidar]

So it doesn’t say so in the text. You are just reading it through the lens of your theology.

The text doesn't explicitly say the jailer was already a believer or regenerated at the time of the conversation. The context and his question "What must I do to be saved?" strongly suggest he was not understanding the gospel or believing the gospel. This is a straightforward reading of the passage. Therefore it would be inconsistent to say he was regenerated at this time.

 

[zoidar]

Let’s not stop there, then. Let’s go to chapter 6.

knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died has been justified from sin.
— Romans 6:6-7

Those crucified with Christ (and He was only crucified once) are no longer slaves to sin. If this is true, those not crucified with Him will continue to be slaves.

I agree with this. This doesn't contradict what I have been saying. It's in line with with what I have said about Romans 7 and 8.

 

[Hammster]

The text doesn't explicitly say the jailer was already a believer or regenerated at the time of the conversation.

I know. That’s why I’m not using it for an argument. In most cases, unless the information is specifically provided, all we have is what happened. We are provided with the why and how.

The context and his question "What must I do to be saved?" strongly suggest he was not understanding the gospel or believing the gospel. This is a straightforward reading of the passage. Therefore it would be inconsistent to say he was regenerated at this time.

It only strongly suggests that because of your presuppositions.

 

[Hammster]

I agree with this. This doesn't contradict what I have been saying. It's in line with with what I have said about Romans 7 and 8.

So you now agree that some weren’t crucified with Christ?

 

[zoidar]

I know. That’s why I’m not using it for an argument. In most cases, unless the information is specifically provided, all we have is what happened. We are provided with the why and how.

It only strongly suggests that because of your presuppositions.

At this time I think you are actually hanging on to straws.

Is it a presupposition to believe a person asking how to be saved does not yet understand the gospel? How so? If he knew the gospel why would he ask?

 

[zoidar]

So you now agree that some weren’t crucified with Christ?

Yes, unbelievers have not been crucified with Christ. You have been crucified with Christ first when you have faith.

 

[Hammster]

At this time I think you are actually hanging on to straws.

Is it a presupposition to believe a person asking how to be saved does not yet understand the gospel? How so? If he knew the gospel why would he ask?

I will concede for sake of argument that he was actually talking of salvation. Let’s presuppose that God gives him a new heart. That new heart doesn’t give him all knowledge of the gospel. So asking how one gets saved is a reasonable question.