Poll on salvation. Eternal security (osas) vs. works and grace are both required.

FreeGrace2 said:

And they wouldn't be relevant to unbelievers, either, because they don't have the power source (Holy Spirit) in them to make the right choice.

Click to expand...

Which is precisely what Paul says about himself:

For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

Paul says he doesn't have the power to do what he knows he should do! If he had the Holy Spirit, which he would have if he was speaking of himself in real time rather than being in a past, unconverted position trying to live by the law.

Doug

TibiasDad said:

Which is precisely what Paul says about himself:

For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

Paul says he doesn't have the power to do what he knows he should do! If he had the Holy Spirit, which he would have if he was speaking of himself in real time rather than being in a past, unconverted position trying to live by the law.

Doug

Click to expand...

That was the perfect phrase..."in real time".
I personally realize Paul is speaking from a prior perspective in much of Rom 7, a perspective of his past life in sin while failing to adhere to the Law.
Paul does add "clues" about his changing perspectives with verse 5..."When we were in the flesh..."
and verse 18..."For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh)...".
Especially good clues in light of Rom 6's past description of the death of the flesh.
And Rom 8:2's description of Paul's relief from the "law of sin in his members" which beset him in Rom 7:23.

"Real time".
I will remember that, thanx.

TibiasDad said:

No, I do not, and fishing for reasons to disagree with me beyond what I actually say.

I am not "trying to explain away what don't agree with", I am giving my reasons for disagreeing with your position. Thus, the rest of your argumentation falls apart for being based on another strawman.
Doug

Click to expand...

You certainly have not proven your claims. Nor refuted mine.

Disagreement is not refutation.

FreeGrace2 said:

You certainly have not proven your claims. Nor refuted mine.

Disagreement is not refutation.

Click to expand...

Refutation is in the eye of the beholder!

Doug

I said:
"In other words, if a believer doesn't forgive others, that is a sin. And unless the believer repents and confesses that sin, God won't forgive and cleanse him from that sin."

TibiasDad said:

And if that sin isn't forgiven and cleansed can that believer go to heaven?
Doug

Click to expand...

Of course. You aren't understanding the Bible. Believing in the work of Christ for salvation results in full payment of the sin debt. That is forensic forgiveness.

However, the believer continues to sin because of the sinful nature, as Paul clearly explained in Romans 7.

Sin is offensive to God. It results in loss of fellowship with God. He no longer hears the prayers of His children.

Psa 6:18 - If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:

So, the solution to offending God and being out of fellowship with Him is to confess the sins. The result of confession is forgiveness (restoration of fellowship) and cleansing.

1 John 1:9

I said:
"Is "have not believed" somehow different than "did not believe"?

Or, is "have not believed" somehow different than "never believed"?

If there is a real difference, then please explain coherently.

I claim they are one and the same. All 3 phrases communicate the SAME INFORMATION.

Now, if you are so technically correct, it should be easy to refute my claim."

TibiasDad said:

You would have to ask Gr8Grace what his reasoning was for using that term!
Doug

Click to expand...

So then, you still can't answer the question, huh.

I said:
"And they wouldn't be relevant to unbelievers, either, because they don't have the power source (Holy Spirit) in them to make the right choice."

TibiasDad said:

Which is precisely what Paul says about himself:

Click to expand...

What follows ISN'T "precisely what Paul says about himself".

For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.

Click to expand...

Just meditate on these words a minute. He's speaking in the PRESENT TENSE. And the final words "I agree that the law is good" show that he recognizes the purpose of the law; to reveal his sin. And his need for salvation through Christ. Gal 3 covers this in detail.

As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

Paul says he doesn't have the power to do what he knows he should do! If he had the Holy Spirit, which he would have if he was speaking of himself in real time rather than being in a past, unconverted position trying to live by the law.
Doug

Click to expand...

No, Paul was speaking in the PRESENT TENSE and noting that his sinful nature cannot carry out the good that God desires. He clearly ADMITS what causes his sin: "it is sin living in me that does it". It couldn't be any more clear. He is noting that he still has a sin nature.

But you left out the rest of the context:
22 For I delight in the law of God afterthe inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members,warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

How can an unbeliever say they "delight in the law of God"? Doesn't happen.

And v.23 shows that there is another law in his "members". Here, he is referring to the regenerated human spirit. And he REPEATS that "sin is in his members".

Paul finishes up with this:
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve* the law of God;but with the flesh the law of sin.

Here, Paul notes that the regenerated human spirit serves the "law of God", but that his flesh serves the "law of sin".

There isn't a better statement about the believer having a regenerated human spirit and their sinful nature. This is WHY there is a struggle.

Just go back to Romans 6 and see all the choices that Paul listed that the believer faces on-going.

TibiasDad said:

Refutation is in the eye of the beholder!
Doug

Click to expand...

That's just a fantasy. Truth refutes lies/errors. Every time.

Many beholders have been deceived. They can't see straight. Even when truth is clearly presented.

FreeGrace2 said:

That's just a fantasy. Truth refutes lies/errors. Every time.

Many beholders have been deceived. They can't see straight. Even when truth is clearly presented.

Click to expand...

If it refutes every time, and neither of us are swayed by the other, does that mean we are both wrong? Or is refutation simply the protagonist point of view about the argument?

Doug

TibiasDad said:

If it refutes every time, and neither of us are swayed by the other, does that mean we are both wrong?

Click to expand...

In EVERY disagreement, either one party or the other is wrong, OR, both are wrong.

What's impossible is for both parties to be right in a disagreement. There is only one truth. The real truth.

Or is refutation simply the protagonist point of view about the argument?
Doug

Click to expand...

This is a definition of 'refutation':

The act of refuting or disproving; the overthrowing of an argument, opinion, testimony, doctrine, or theory by argument or countervailing proof; confutation; disproof.

Truth is "countervailing proof". To 'refute' is to disprove, obviously by clear facts.

I know that everyone who enters an argument thinks their pov is the correct one. That goes without saying.

However, both sides cannot have the real truth when both sides disagree. One HAS to be wrong. Or both wrong, and there is proof of reality in another side.

FreeGrace2 said:

I said:
"And they wouldn't be relevant to unbelievers, either, because they don't have the power source (Holy Spirit) in them to make the right choice."

What follows ISN'T "precisely what Paul says about himself".


Just meditate on these words a minute. He's speaking in the PRESENT TENSE. And the final words "I agree that the law is good" show that he recognizes the purpose of the law; to reveal his sin. And his need for salvation through Christ. Gal 3 covers this in detail.


No, Paul was speaking in the PRESENT TENSE and noting that his sinful nature cannot carry out the good that God desires. He clearly ADMITS what causes his sin: "it is sin living in me that does it". It couldn't be any more clear. He is noting that he still has a sin nature.

But you left out the rest of the context:
22 For I delight in the law of God afterthe inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members,warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

How can an unbeliever say they "delight in the law of God"? Doesn't happen.

And v.23 shows that there is another law in his "members". Here, he is referring to the regenerated human spirit. And he REPEATS that "sin is in his members".

Paul finishes up with this:
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve* the law of God;but with the flesh the law of sin.

Here, Paul notes that the regenerated human spirit serves the "law of God", but that his flesh serves the "law of sin".

There isn't a better statement about the believer having a regenerated human spirit and their sinful nature. This is WHY there is a struggle.

Just go back to Romans 6 and see all the choices that Paul listed that the believer faces on-going.

Click to expand...

My question, asked for more than 40 years of debating this with others, is simply how Paul can be a "captive" of the law of sin (7:23), and also "have been set free from sin" (6:22) at the same point of reference in present tense real time? I have yet to get a logically coherent answer from any one in that time span, and I don't think that I'm likely to in the future, simply because both statements cannot be true at the same time, and yet that is exactly what you want me to believe.

And as for your "choices" argument, that is your death knell because Romans 6 and 8 both give the believer choice; follow the Spirit or the sinful nature - both are possible ways of going. But the Romans 7 man has no "choice", no ability to go either direction, he was, by your own admission, captive. More than that, Paul speaks of being made captive, meaning that he was completely passive, which means that the captor, not the captive, is in complete control, leading the captive wherever he wants him to go, to do whatever he wants him to do. the captive has no options, no choice, no ability to go another direction of he wants to! So Paul cannot have the power to go another direction (toward righteousness by following the Spirit) and yet the captive and slave under the power of sin, with no power to do the things "I want"! To assert this can be true is a logical fallacy; the law of self-contradiction.

Doug

FreeGrace2 said:

In EVERY disagreement, either one party or the other is wrong, OR, both are wrong.

What's impossible is for both parties to be right in a disagreement. There is only one truth. The real truth.


This is a definition of 'refutation':

The act of refuting or disproving; the overthrowing of an argument, opinion, testimony, doctrine, or theory by argument or countervailing proof; confutation; disproof.

Truth is "countervailing proof". To 'refute' is to disprove, obviously by clear facts.

I know that everyone who enters an argument thinks their pov is the correct one. That goes without saying.

However, both sides cannot have the real truth when both sides disagree. One HAS to be wrong. Or both wrong, and there is proof of reality in another side.

Click to expand...

To say that an argument has been refuted means the one claiming this is claiming that they are truth/right, and the opponent's argument is false/wrong. The problem is that Truth is not truth because you or I say it is. I claim that my approach is more truthful because of my years of experience demonstrating it as such; you would say the same kind of thing. But we might both be wrong and something else is the real MCCoy. Yes, "Truth is "countervailing proof". To 'refute' is to disprove, obviously by clear facts." But the question is as old as Pilate's dictum, "What is [the] truth?

Neither of us can say absolutely that what we argue for is "the truth", and only eternity will reveal the absolute answer as to the question at hand, but, for the time being, truth is defined by the protagonist, and refutation is only true in the eye of the one claiming victory. The only exception that I can think of, is the opponent saying, "you make a good point, and I see I was mistaken." Then both can say that X refuted Y.

Doug

TibiasDad said:

πιστεύων is a present, active, participle, nominative, male, singular. The Subjunctive clause, μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν, follows, or is the result of the πιστεύων.

Doug

Addendum, I forgot the hina in the above, but this makes the purpose reflective of "he sent his only son" , not the believing.
Furthermore, as an aside, why wouldn't the aorist be used if the punctiliar action is all that is necessary?

Doug

Click to expand...

This is a fairly easy read and explains it very well. BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: JOHN 3:16

TibiasDad said:

My question, asked for more than 40 years of debating this with others, is simply how Paul can be a "captive" of the law of sin (7:23), and also "have been set free from sin" (6:22) at the same point of reference in present tense real time?

Click to expand...

To be blunt, this is Christianity 101 or milk.

We have 2 natures after we are born again. The sin nature/flesh. And a regenerated human spirit, that CANNOT sin. They are mutually exclusive. And His Grace has TRULY set us free from any judgment or condemnation of ALL sin.

It cannot be stressed enough how important the doctrine of fellowship is. The moment we step out of fellowship(sin[grieve or quench the Spirit]) we are a slave to sin again. 1 John 1:9 and get back into fellowship.

The very simple answer to your question:

If we are out of fellowship, we are captive to the law of sin(sin nature/flesh.) Yet, if I am operating from the flesh, as a born-again Christian..........His GRACE has set me free from any condemnation or judgement from ALL of my sin.

FreeGrace2 said:

I asked:
"I asked for an explanation of WHY John added "abide" if a murder has no eternal life. Why."

So, instead of providing an answer or explanation to my question, you retreat to emotionalism.


The question continue to GLARE. Why did John include "abiding" if the message would have been MUCH MORE CLEAR to just say this:

"no murderer has eternal life in him".

The reason, which you seem to want to dodge, is that abiding changes how you want the verse to read. In fact, your view reads the verse AS IF the "abiding" isn't even there. But it is. For a reason. One that you don't want to know.


Let's be clear here, ok? Can you handle some intellectual honesty? Believers who live like you describe here are subject to God's painful discipline (Heb 12:11), which can include death by Satan (1 Cor 5:5), or at least PAIN by Satan (1 Tim 1:19,20).

Why do you always ignore this biblical fact?


Your opinion as no basis in Scripture.


In other words, if a believer doesn't forgive others, that is a sin. And unless the believer repents and confesses that sin, God won't forgive and cleanse him from that sin.

It's all very straightforward and clear in Scripture. We've been over all this many times.

Click to expand...

Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:15


Whoever hates his brother —

John is teaching us about two brothers in Christ, in which one begins to hate the other. If both are Christians then the hatred had to occur sometime after they both were born again and became brothers in Christ.


If we begin to hate our brother, then we are in danger of no longer having eternal life. We must ask the Lord to help us to forgive whatever offense that occurred in which the anger and hatred took place.


Each and every one of us will most likely deal with this issue before we die, especially in the days we are living.


Anger, bitterness, and unforgivness will lead to hatred if not dealt with.

If someone hates his brother it’s because of some offense that occurred and went unforgiven.


“You have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:21-22





JLB

TibiasDad said:

My question, asked for more than 40 years of debating this with others, is simply how Paul can be a "captive" of the law of sin (7:23), and also "have been set free from sin" (6:22) at the same point of reference in present tense real time? I have yet to get a logically coherent answer from any one in that time span, and I don't think that I'm likely to in the future, simply because both statements cannot be true at the same time, and yet that is exactly what you want me to believe.

Click to expand...

It is you who doesn't understand Scripture. Paul was clear about his own sinful nature, which he struggled with. And his admission to Timothy. You have no excuse for your unbiblical views.

And as for your "choices" argument, that is your death knell because Romans 6 and 8 both give the believer choice

Click to expand...

There you go! Well, the Bible SHOWS the choices that all believers face. The Bible does NOT give believers the choice not to sin. That is faulty language.

Paul continues to refute your notions throughout his epistles.

Gal 5-
13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh ; rather, serve one another humbly in love.
15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.

Eph 4-
26 “In your anger do not sin” : Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry,
27 and do not give the devil a foothold.
30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.
3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.

All of these verses are directed to believers. NONE of these verses make any sense IF believers do not have a sin nature.

Finally, consider Paul's prayer to believers:

Phil 1-
9 And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight,
10 so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ,

If your theory were correct, believers who cannot sin are already "pure and blameless".

esp if they no longer have a sin nature.

So Paul totally destroys your opinions.

JLB777 said:

Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:15


Whoever hates his brother —

John is teaching us about two brothers in Christ, in which one begins to hate the other. If both are Christians then the hatred had to occur sometime after they both were born again and became brothers in Christ.


If we begin to hate our brother, then we are in danger of no longer having eternal life. We must ask the Lord to help us to forgive whatever offense that occurred in which the anger and hatred took place.


Each and every one of us will most likely deal with this issue before we die, especially in the days we are living.


Anger, bitterness, and unforgivness will lead to hatred if not dealt with.

If someone hates his brother it’s because of some offense that occurred and went unforgiven.


“You have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:21-22
JLB

Click to expand...

I guess you're not interested in the truth. You don't understand what you quote, and you reject what has been quoted to you.

Gr8Grace said:

This is a fairly easy read and explains it very well. BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: JOHN 3:16

Click to expand...

This doesn't answer my question. Yes the subordinate clause, beginning with ἵνα, is to be understood as subjunctive, an if/then potential, but the dynamic element that determines the actuation of the potential is πιστεύων, a present tense, participle, active voice, but the rest of the verbs in the clause, μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον, are both subjunctive.
Believing is not a "should" or "should not" verb, it is the verb that effects the reality of the of the "should" verbs one way or another; if anyone has belief presently, they will not perish, but will be given eternal life, or if anyone does not have belief presently, they will perish and will not be given eternal life.

Doug

TibiasDad said:

if anyone has belief presently, they will not perish, but will be given eternal life

Click to expand...

Please stop perpetuating this false opinion. There are NO verses that say this. None.

So quit already. The FACT is that at the MOMENT of belief in Christ for salvation, the believer is given the gift of eternal life, and John 10:28 applies to them IMMEDIATELY.

Recipients of eternal life shall NEVER PERISH.

That is the FACT. Not your icorrect "present belief will not perish".

or if anyone does not have belief presently, they will perish and will not be given eternal life.
Doug

Click to expand...

How come you've never quoted any verse that says this either?

FreeGrace2 said:

Please stop perpetuating this false opinion. There are NO verses that say this. None.

So quit already. The FACT is that at the MOMENT of belief in Christ for salvation, the believer is given the gift of eternal life, and John 10:28 applies to them IMMEDIATELY.

Recipients of eternal life shall NEVER PERISH.

That is the FACT. Not your icorrect "present belief will not perish".


How come you've never quoted any verse that says this either?

Click to expand...

Grace just gets lost in this quagmire doesn't it? It is a attack on His work on the the Cross for us and His Grace for us..........creature focus rather than Creator focus.