Where do you stand?

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by Quaffer
And "who" is it that has decided that it does not carry a literary message?  Is it "humans" who are leaning upon their own understanding?

I didn't say that it didn't carry a literary message.  I said there are different literary styles used in the Bible.  Would you interpret Revelations literally?  I certainly hope not.  Does the fact that it is not to be interpreted literally mean that it doesn't have a literary message?  Of course not.  Literary and literal are two different words with two different meanings. 

I think it is very confusing to not compare the picture Solomon has drawn for us as comparable with the Savior Jesus, our Beloved.

I am not very familiar with that exposition.  My point wasn't that there was nothing to glean from it, nor that it didn't parallel Christ's love for us.  I'm just saying that comparing two completely different styles of literature is often misleading.

I guess God deals with me differently than He does you.

I have no clue what you mean by this. 

While to you SOS may be just poetry, to me it is the voice of my Beloved calling out to me to come away with Him. I am His and He is mine, and His banner over me is love.

When I find myself in the rocky and rough places of where He has led me, He asks me to show Him my face. Although He already sees me as I am He asks me to reveal myself to Him.

Okay.  You seem to be going off on a tangent here.  If you would be so kind please show me where in the Bible God asks someone to worship Him.  Thanks.

God says He is a husband to the one who has no husband. That would fit me.  I have yet to read the SOS without weeping with gratitude for His wooing.  He loved me even when I was unlovable.

What is it that leads you to believe that God "woos" or "entices" people to be saved?  Is there Scripture that leads you to believe this or is this just something you assume God does because of your need to be involved in the process of coming to Him? 

Thanks,

God bless

 

[SnuP]

from the stand point that you have presented you make God out to be a brain washer. God won't give you something that you did not ask for. You almost stated as much when you said that people usually experience this change of heart that God gives them after they prayed the sinners prayer. The key word here is after. After they asked. Anything before then is munipulation. God does not munipulate people to get them to love Him. The reference that Quaffer was making of SOS is eccoed by Paul and Jesus when they equate the chruch to the bride of Christ.

Okay. You seem to be going off on a tangent here. If you would be so kind please show me where in the Bible God asks someone to worship Him. Thanks.

God askes through out the old testiment for the children of Isreal to seek after Him. You often see the two sides of God displayed there. One side of Him pouring out judgement because He has bound Himself to the law. And the otherside calling the Isrealites to repentence and to come beck to Him. That is wooing. That is asking people to worship Him rather then other gods.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by SnuP
from the stand point that you have presented you make God out to be a brain washer.

No.  The stand point I present is that God gives man a new desire.  If you don't believe that man needs to have a new desire after the Fall, then you don't know anything about the Fall.  Post Fall man NEVER desires anything righteous.  God must first give him a new heart (inner man).  Then he desires the things of God.

God won't give you something that you did not ask for.

Really?  Did you ask to inherit the stain of original sin?  Did you ask to be born with a fallen nature, separated from your Creator?  You wanna reword that statement?

You almost stated as much when you said that people usually experience this change of heart that God gives them after they prayed the sinners prayer. The key word here is after. After they asked. Anything before then is munipulation. God does not munipulate people to get them to love Him. The reference that Quaffer was making of SOS is eccoed by Paul and Jesus when they equate the chruch to the bride of Christ.

No.  I didn't say that.  Do you read people's posts or just comment on what you think they said.  I said, "Their response, i.e., baptism, sinner's prayer, obedience, etc, is a result of the change that God has sovereignly wrought in them, NOT a means to obtain that change.

Their sinner's prayer is a RESULT of the change of heart that God gives them.  The change of heart that God gives them IS NOT A RESULT of a prayer they say.  Clear on what I said now? 

God askes through out the old testiment for the children of Isreal to seek after Him. You often see the two sides of God displayed there. One side of Him pouring out judgement because He has bound Himself to the law. And the otherside calling the Isrealites to repentence and to come beck to Him. That is wooing. That is asking people to worship Him rather then other gods. [/B][/QUOTE]

"Woo":

1 : to sue for the affection of and usually marriage with

2 : to solicit or entreat especially with importunity

3 : to seek to gain or bring about

intransitive senses : to court a woman

Obviously definition #1 is not applicable.

So you believe that God solicits, entreats, seeks to gain or bring about the repentence of the children of Israel?  Tell me, does He command their repentence?  What exactly do you mean by "woo?"

God bless

 

[SnuP]

Originally posted by Reformationist
No.  The stand point I present is that God gives man a new desire.  If you don't believe that man needs to have a new desire after the Fall, then you don't know anything about the Fall.  Post Fall man NEVER desires anything righteous.  God must first give him a new heart (inner man).  Then he desires the things of God.

I agree completely with you on this point except you fail to include one step.  God will not change any thing with in a man untill the man has agreed to that change.  Here is the flow of events.  God begins to court a man by showing him how much God loves him.  At the same time God shows him how much the man needs God, by showing him his true possition.  By showing the man truth, he now has the oppertunity to agree with God that he needs God.  When the man finally agrees with God then God can change something with in the man.  If God changes the man without the mans agreement then that is munipulation.  It is witchcraft.  Truelove does not force its will upon another.  It allows the other to make the choice.  All that God ever does is show man the truth.  He then leaves everything up to the man.  God never moves in a persons life without mans agreement.  After God has changed the mans heart does the man desire the things of God, that is true.  But before God can change the heart of a man, he must first disire God's help.

Really?  Did you ask to inherit the stain of original sin?  Did you ask to be born with a fallen nature, separated from your Creator?  You wanna reword that statement?

No I don't wanna reword my statement because God did not give man sin or the fallen nature.  These things are a result of mans rebellion, not God.  They are a part of "the spiritual law of reaping and sowing". 

"Woo":

1 : to sue for the affection of and usually marriage with

2 : to solicit or entreat especially with importunity

3 : to seek to gain or bring about

intransitive senses : to court a woman

Obviously definition #1 is not applicable.

So you believe that God solicits, entreats, seeks to gain or bring about the repentence of the children of Israel?  Tell me, does He command their repentence?  What exactly do you mean by "woo?"

God bless

Accually # one looks good too.

woo    1 court:  seek the love of.  2 try to win.  3 seek the favor or support of.

1 see COURT v. 1. 2 chase, follow, pursue, seek. 

He commands that in order for us to reap the blessings of His love, we must remain within His inbrace (for Isreal that meant to remember the law and the sabbeth, to not worship idiols and to pray to God alone, for us that means to remain in Christ).  Yes I believe that He constantly was trying to woo Isreal.  And yes I like all of the deffinitions of "woo".  Was it not God who refered to Isreal as His wife, and bride; and was it not God who refered to Isreal as a harlot? 

Read Jeremiah 3

check this out:  Hosea 2:

14Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her. 15And I will give her her vineyards from thence, and the valley of Achor for a door of hope: and she shall sing there, as in the days of her youth, and as in the day when she came up out of the land of Egypt. 16And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali. 17For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name. 18And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely. 19And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. 20I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD. 21And it shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith the LORD, I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth; 22And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel. 23And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by SnuP
I agree completely with you on this point except you fail to include one step.  God will not change any thing with in a man untill the man has agreed to that change.

Really?  And what do you base that on?  What about Abraham?  Did God say, "Hey, I'd like to establish a covenant with you because you seem so agreeable?"  Of course not.  Abraham was a pagan.  He was a heathen from Ur.  He lived in the desert.  God came upon him and basically told him how things would be.  I don't know of one point in that exchange where God asked Abraham to agree to anything.

Here is the flow of events.  God begins to court a man by showing him how much God loves him.  At the same time God shows him how much the man needs God, by showing him his true possition.  By showing the man truth, he now has the oppertunity to agree with God that he needs God.

You seem to totally disregard the fallenness of man.  Man does not see the Truth in his fallen state.  He does not seek God.  He does not seek the Truth.  He is God's enemy.  Unless God changes that relationship by regenerating the individual and giving them the desire and ability to do for His good pleasure man will not ever desire to please God.

When the man finally agrees with God then God can change something with in the man.

Huh???!!!  Can't God change something in fallen man without his permission?  Who's God, God or man?  God needs man's permission and agreement?  That absolutely blows my mind.

If God changes the man without the mans agreement then that is munipulation.  It is witchcraft.  Truelove does not force its will upon another.  It allows the other to make the choice.  All that God ever does is show man the truth.  He then leaves everything up to the man.  God never moves in a persons life without mans agreement.  After God has changed the mans heart does the man desire the things of God, that is true.  But before God can change the heart of a man, he must first disire God's help.

So fallen man desires the things of God before God changes anything in the fallen man???!!!  You seriously need to read Romans 1, 2, and 3 and concentrate on the nature of fallen man shown in Romans 3:10-18 and then tell me if you think fallen man will ever seek God or desires the things of God.

God bless

 

[SnuP]

 

You seem to forget that though man is fallen he still bears the nature of God. And still desires to do good.

Here is the flow of events. God begins to court a man by showing him how much God loves him. At the same time God shows him how much the man needs God, by showing him his true possition. By showing the man truth, he now has the oppertunity to agree with God that he needs God.

You seem to totally disregard the fallenness of man. Man does not see the Truth in his fallen state. He does not seek God. He does not seek the Truth. He is God's enemy. Unless God changes that relationship by regenerating the individual and giving them the desire and ability to do for His good pleasure man will not ever desire to please God.

You seem to disregard what I am saying. I never said that man starts this process. I did not say that man seeks God or the truth. I said that God seeks man by showing him the truth. And then out of love He waits for man to agree that the truth is the truth. Do you not believe that God has the ability to show fallen man the truth in a way that he will recognize it as truth? God is God, though He has the power to do what He wills with man, because of love He choses to allow man to have the freedom to love Him back. If I make you love me then you do not really love me. But if I display my love to you and show you the truth of where you are at without me, and then you choose to love me, that is real love. You seem to be forgetting about loves place in all of this.

So you want to talk about Abram
Genesis 12:
1The LORD had said to Abram, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you.
2 “I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.”
4So Abram left, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he set out from Haran. 5He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan, and they arrived there.

10Now there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to live there for a while because the famine was severe. 11As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, “I know what a beautiful woman you are. 12When the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife.’ Then they will kill me but will let you live. 13Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you.”

What exactly did God change in Abram? Did it say that some where?

I see evidence that Abram is not changed. God tells him to leave his people and his fathers household, but Abram takes his nephew (one of his fathers house hold) and all that people that he had acquired. God tells him to leave everything but instead he takes everything and everyone that he can get to go with him. Yeah a whole lot has changed in Abram since he doesn't trust God at all.

And then after God tells him to go to Canaan and promises the land to him and all of his offspring, Abram discides he'd be better off in Egypt, where he'd lie and risk loosing his wife because he's afraid. God didn't tell him to do any of that. There is absolutely no trusting of God here. God has to intervene just so that Abram's wife doesn't become defiled by Pharaoh.

God doesn't need mans permission for anything, but He wants man to truely love Him for who He is. This is not something that you can force someone into. If God did want man to have the ability to choose Him then why give Adam a choice in the first place. The choice to trust God, or trust man

Galatians 3:
6Consider Abraham: “He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

What was Abraham's action? He believed God. If God forced Abraham to believe, the Abraham deserves no credit for it wasn't his action, and he is therefore not righteous by vertue of an action. Rather it was Abraham's action and not God's. Abraham choose to believe God. As I have already shown you, he had alot of trouble doing that. If trust is God is something that God gives you without your permission, then why did Abraham struggle with his trust in God? That would make God's "gift" imperfect. Rather, it is not the gift that is imperfect it is that man who is imperfect, and struggles with letting God be God. If Abraham was so changed by the power of God, then there would be no struggle. The fact that Abraham struggled is proof that he had trouble just obeying, which is accually just agreeing with God.

So where is this great change that you are talking about? I do see alot of discisions on Abram part. Discisions of whether or not to obey God. As a matter of fact, where has there ever been a scripture talking about God changing the heart of someone, without their concent, so that they will become a follower of God? I have never seen one.

 

[SnuP]

Hosea 2:

14Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her. 15And I will give her her vineyards from thence, and the valley of Achor for a door of hope: and she shall sing there, as in the days of her youth, and as in the day when she came up out of the land of Egypt. 16And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali. 17For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name. 18And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely. 19And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. 20I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD. 21And it shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith the LORD, I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth; 22And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel. 23And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.

What, don't you want to comment on this scripture?

By that way, its the same word in every translation I have.  Interesting isn't it.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by SnuP
You seem to forget that though man is fallen he still bears the nature of God. And still desires to do good.

What???!!!  I didn't forget that.  It just isn't something that is said anywhere in the Bible.

Romans 3:10-18
<SUP>10</SUP>As it is written:


&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "There is none righteous, no, not one;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<SUP> 11</SUP>There is none who understands;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There is none who seeks after God.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<SUP> 12</SUP>They have all turned aside;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; They have together become unprofitable;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There is none who does good, no, not one."&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<SUP> 13</SUP>"Their throat is an open tomb;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; With their tongues they have practiced deceit";&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "The poison of asps is under their lips";&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<SUP> 14</SUP>"Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<SUP> 15</SUP>"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<SUP> 16</SUP>Destruction and misery are in their ways;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<SUP> 17</SUP>And the way of peace they have not known."&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<SUP> 18</SUP>"There is no fear of God before their eyes."&nbsp;

That is the nature of fallen man.&nbsp; In fact, the first three chapters of Romans is about the universalty of man's depravity.&nbsp; The fact that you think fallen man "still desires to do good" shows that you don't understand the Fall.

Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

Fallen man is completely carnal.&nbsp; Fallen man does not ever desire the things of God.&nbsp; Fallen man is dead.&nbsp; Spiritually dead people do not desire the things of God.

Look SnuP, with all due respect, unless you recognize that fallen man does not seek after&nbsp;God or and does not desire to do good it is pointless to continue this.&nbsp; I encourage you to read, or re-read, Romans 1, 2, and 3 and if after that you still think that fallen man desires to do good then, well, re-read it until you understand that fallen man is God's enemy and God is fallen man's enemy and fallen man will never desire to serve God until God makes them a new creation by rebirthing them from above.

God bless

 

[SnuP]

Let me say again that I have not said that fallen man persues God.

What ever "good" that is done in the flesh is just that, fleshly good.
But you can not denigh that the unsaved still do have compassion. But that is not the point. The point is that I have not ever said that fallen man desires anything that is Godly, or that he persues God in anyway.

I have said that God persues fallen man, and that He shows fallen man the truth in a way that fallen man cannot denigh. At that point it is up to the man to accept the help of God, by verbally saying so. God does everything else. In fact everytime man tries to help he just messes it up. I understand the depravity of fallen man, and I have read Romans many many times. But it is God that persues, it is God that shows the truth, it is God that changes man. But man must agree that he need help from God. Without this humbling, initiated by God, man can not be saved. If man will not recieve this humbling then God will not save the man.

Only believe and you shall be saved. right. Well that is an instruction for a man to do something prior to being saved. He must believe that he need God, and that God has and will save him. But he must choose to believe.





You can chalk it all up and say to your self that I just don't understand how fallen, man really is, if you want to. And you can play the part of my spiritual elder, if you want to. But you still have not addressed the issues that I have put before you. But I have addressed your's. You just didn't agree with my answer. If you really believe this way then you should be able to give an answer for all of my inquerries. Otherwise it appears as if you don't really have answers just doctrines given to you from some other man without answers.

 

[batteredsheep]

I personally don't like labels because it tends to box us into a certain category. Having said that, I guess I lean towards Calvinism...

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by SnuP
Let me say again that I have not said that fallen man persues God.[/b]

You did most certainly say that fallen man still desires to do good.&nbsp; What is good if not God?&nbsp; Even Jesus, whom we would definitely say is good, said "There is none good but my Father in Heaven."&nbsp; To say that fallen man desires to do GODLY good is to say that man is not really separated from the righteousness of God.&nbsp; Any goodness we have is not of ourselves.&nbsp; It is of God.&nbsp; If fallen man desires to do what is "good" not by God's standards but rather by man's standards, well, then it just isn't good.&nbsp; "Good" is defined by what God says is "good."&nbsp; Do you believe that fallen man desires to do what God says is good?

What ever "good" that is done in the flesh is just that, fleshly good.

Uh...then it's not "good."

But you can not denigh that the unsaved still do have compassion.

I didn't say that the unsaved don't have compassion.&nbsp; I will say that the unsaved do not have compassion for godly reasons therefore their compassion is sinfully based.&nbsp; The unsaved do NOTHING because of their faith in God and as the Word says, "Whatever is not of faith is sin."&nbsp; All the unsaved do is sin.

The point is that I have not ever said that fallen man desires anything that is Godly, or that he persues God in anyway.

Really?

You seem to forget that though man is fallen he still bears the nature of God. And still desires to do good.

Your words, not mine.&nbsp; And please, if all you want to do is say that fallen man desires to do "fleshly good" then don't bother.&nbsp; "Fleshly good" is NOT good.

I have said that God persues fallen man, and that He shows fallen man the truth in a way that fallen man cannot denigh.

Yeah.&nbsp; It's called regeneration.

At that point it is up to the man to accept the help of God, by verbally saying so.

The ever elusive 11th commandment:

If thou wantest the helpeth of God, thou must asketh for it and accepteth it.

God's grace rains on the just and the unjust.&nbsp; Do you think the unjust ask for God's help?&nbsp; It is by God's grace that we exist.&nbsp; Do you think the unjust thank or glorify God for their existance?&nbsp; It is by God's grace that we aren't utterly evil and all a bunch of Jeffrey Dahlmers.&nbsp; Do you think the unjust ask for&nbsp;and accept the grace that God gives to restrain them?&nbsp; I think those answers are self evident.

God does everything else. In fact everytime man tries to help he just messes it up. I understand the depravity of fallen man, and I have read Romans many many times.&nbsp; But it is God that persues, it is God that shows the truth, it is God that changes man. But man must agree that he need help from God.

So God cannot change a person unless that person first recognizes that they are depraved and in need of help?&nbsp; You sure do attribute a lot of righteous thought to an unrighteous creation.

Without this humbling, initiated by God, man can not be saved.&nbsp; If man will not recieve this humbling then God will not save the man.

So God's very ability to save someone is based on whether the creation agrees with the&nbsp;Creator?&nbsp;&nbsp;Hmmm...who's God in your story, because it certainly isn't the impotent&nbsp;entity you're calling God?&nbsp; It sounds to me as if the Will of God is subject to the will of the creation.&nbsp;

As to "not answering your inquiries," I thought I was.&nbsp; Maybe you don't desire to understand what I'm saying and instead you just desire to make me see how man is the real power in salvation.&nbsp; No thanks.&nbsp; Not interested.

As for what I know, I'm a person.&nbsp; I'll tell you what I know.&nbsp; There is a God,...and I'm not Him.&nbsp; You, however, seem to believe that the Will of the Creator has been subjected to the will of the creation.&nbsp; You might want to go back and re-read Romans.&nbsp; It seems as if you've missed the first three chapters.

God bless

 

[SnuP]

&nbsp;

Let me say again that I have not said that fallen man persues God.

You did most certainly say that fallen man still desires to do good.&nbsp; What is good if not God?&nbsp; Even Jesus, whom we would definitely say is good, said "There is none good but my Father in Heaven."&nbsp; To say that fallen man desires to do GODLY good is to say that man is not really separated from the righteousness of God.&nbsp; Any goodness we have is not of ourselves.&nbsp; It is of God.&nbsp; If fallen man desires to do what is "good" not by God's standards but rather by man's standards, well, then it just isn't good.&nbsp; "Good" is defined by what God says is "good."&nbsp; Do you believe that fallen man desires to do what God says is good?

What ever "good" that is done in the flesh is just that, fleshly good.

Uh...then it's not "good."

Let me see if I can clear this up a little

Romans 7:
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.£ For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now 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.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.

This is the state of the unsaved man, having the desire to do Godly Good, but unable to do it because sin controls him.&nbsp; Yes I am aware that many preach this as being a state that you go through after you are saved, but that contradics scripture.

Romans 6:
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,£ that we should no longer be slaves to sin—7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 17But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

See Paul says that when you are under grace, then sin cannot be your master unless you allow it to be.

The point is that I have not ever said that fallen man desires anything that is Godly, or that he persues God in anyway.

Really?

You seem to forget that though man is fallen he still bears the nature of God. And still desires to do good.

Your words, not mine.&nbsp; And please, if all you want to do is say that fallen man desires to do "fleshly good" then don't bother.&nbsp; "Fleshly good" is NOT good.

You are right, I am contradicting my self alittle since I did not make my statements clear enough.&nbsp; As shown earlier man does desire to do good, which is Godly.&nbsp; What I ment is that man does not desire Godly things other then to be good.&nbsp; Since man contains the knowledge of good and evil, he desire that which is good.&nbsp; But as Paul says,&nbsp; sin controls him so good is never realized.&nbsp; But fallen man never desires God Himself because that would mean that the man has to give up his control.

God's grace rains on the just and the unjust.&nbsp; Do you think the unjust ask for God's help?&nbsp; It is by God's grace that we exist.&nbsp; Do you think the unjust thank or glorify God for their existance?&nbsp; It is by God's grace that we aren't utterly evil and all a bunch of Jeffrey Dahlmers.&nbsp; Do you think the unjust ask for and accept the grace that God gives to restrain them?&nbsp; I think those answers are self evident.

What you fail to realize is that grace is given to all, what is given does not have to be recieved.&nbsp; But aren't you contradicting yourself since you believe that grace for salvation&nbsp;is only given to those whom God chooses.&nbsp; Just as grace for salvation if given to all it is not recieved by all because some have rejected God, so also all of God's graces can be rejected.

God does everything else. In fact everytime man tries to help he just messes it up. I understand the depravity of fallen man, and I have read Romans many many times.&nbsp; But it is God that persues, it is God that shows the truth, it is God that changes man. But man must agree that he need help from God.

So God cannot change a person unless that person first recognizes that they are depraved and in need of help?&nbsp; You sure do attribute a lot of righteous thought to an unrighteous creation.

I'm not attributing righteousness to man, but rather to God, since it is by God's righteousness that man is able to see his need for God.&nbsp; knowing that you need God does not make a man righteous, obedience makes a man righteous.

Without this humbling, initiated by God, man can not be saved.&nbsp; If man will not recieve this humbling then God will not save the man.

So God's very ability to save someone is based on whether the creation agrees with the Creator?&nbsp; Hmmm...who's God in your story, because it certainly isn't the impotent entity you're calling God?&nbsp; It sounds to me as if the Will of God is subject to the will of the creation.

Where you not listening,&nbsp;I have already said that God has choosen to incorperate man into His plan, and that it is not love to just force someone to except you.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by SnuP
Let me see if I can clear this up a little

Romans 7:
14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.£ For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now 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.&nbsp; 21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.

This is the state of the unsaved man, having the desire to do Godly Good, but unable to do it because sin controls him.&nbsp; Yes I am aware that many preach this as being a state that you go through after you are saved, but that contradics scripture.

So you contend that Paul,&nbsp;who wrote more books of the Bible than anyone (wrote, not authored) was saying,&nbsp;"I'm unsaved.&nbsp; I want to&nbsp;do good but I just can't?"&nbsp; You are waaaaay off&nbsp;here bro.&nbsp;

Romans 6:&nbsp;
6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,£ that we should no longer be slaves to sin—7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.&nbsp; 12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.&nbsp; 14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 17But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

See Paul says that when you are under grace, then sin cannot be your master unless you allow it to be.

Okay.&nbsp; Your point?&nbsp;

You are right, I am contradicting my self alittle since I did not make my statements clear enough.&nbsp; As shown earlier man does desire to do good, which is Godly.&nbsp; What I ment is that man does not desire Godly things other then to be good.

Ooooh.&nbsp; Fallen man doesn't desire to do anything godly "other than to be good."&nbsp; I gotta say, "Huh???!!!"&nbsp; Where do you read that?&nbsp; Please don't say Romans 7.&nbsp; That is completely unbiblical.

Since man contains the knowledge of good and evil, he desire that which is good.

Man knows good from evil??&nbsp; Let me guess, from the fruit in the garden, right?&nbsp; IT WAS A LIE!!!&nbsp; After the Fall man DID NOT know good from evil.

But as Paul says,&nbsp; sin controls him so good is never realized.&nbsp; But fallen man never desires God Himself because that would mean that the man has to give up his control.

You really need a good commentary on Romans.&nbsp; You don't&nbsp;seem to understand any of it.&nbsp;

What you fail to realize is that grace is given to all, what is given does not have to be recieved.&nbsp; But aren't you contradicting yourself since you believe that grace for salvation&nbsp;is only given to those whom God chooses.&nbsp; Just as grace for salvation if given to all it is not recieved by all because some have rejected God, so also all of God's graces can be rejected.

SnuP, "Grace" is God's&nbsp;"help."&nbsp; If God gives an unsaved person the grace to not beat their&nbsp;child it doesn't mean that He&nbsp;gave them the grace of&nbsp;faith unto salvation.&nbsp; God only gives His "saving grace" to those He has elected for salvation.&nbsp; The fruit of that grace is salvation.&nbsp;&nbsp;The fruit isn't that it could be salvation.&nbsp;

I'm not attributing righteousness to man, but rather to God, since it is by God's righteousness that man is able to see his need for God.&nbsp; knowing that you need God does not make a man righteous, obedience makes a man righteous.

Let me see if I've got this now.&nbsp; God gives every person the grace to see their need for a Savior, but some don't actually see it?&nbsp; Very ineffective grace you ascribe to God.&nbsp; Tell me, if "obedience makes a man righteous" then does disobedience make a man unrighteous?&nbsp; If so, we are just going back and forth between righteous and unrighteous disposition with God and we'll never know if we're going to be saved.

Where you not listening,&nbsp;I have already said that God has choosen to incorperate man into His plan

His plan of what?&nbsp; Salvation?&nbsp; Sanctification?&nbsp; Evangelism?&nbsp; Which Plan?

and that it is not love to just force someone to except you.

Who said God forced anyone to love Him?&nbsp; I certainly didn't.&nbsp; Christians willingly, gladly love their Creator.&nbsp; They do this, however, because God gave them a new heart (desire).

God bless

 

[SnuP]

Prove to me that when Paul wrote Romans 7 he was not writing and analogy using his past experiences as an example.

If Paul was writing about his present circumstance then he was totally contradicting what he wrote in chapter 6.

As for comontaries how this.

Verses 14b-25
Here is a description of the conflict between grace and corruption in the heart, between the law of God and the law of sin. And it is applicable two ways:—1. To the struggles that are in a convinced soul, but yet unregenerate, in the person of whom it is supposed, by some, that Paul speaks. 2. To the struggles that are in a renewed sanctified soul, but yet in a state of imperfection; as other apprehend. And a great controversy there is of which of these we are to understand the apostle here. So far does the evil prevail here, when he speaks of one sold under sin, doing it, not performing that which is good, that it seems difficult to apply it to the regenerate, who are described to walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit; and yet so far does the good prevail in hating sin, consenting to the law, delighting in it, serving the law of God with the mind, that it is more difficult to apply it to the unregenerate that are dead in trespasses and sins.
Henry, Matthew, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Bible, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers) 1997.

If Matthew Henry will not denigh that there are two possable aplications of the text, why do you?
I do not rely on commentaries because frequently they are full of mans attemp to understand God's word but lack true revelation.

I agree with Matthew Henry on his comment that both are applicable to man, both regenerated and unregenerated. But for this arguement I desire to show how it is possible for the unregenerated man to desire what is Godly good. I my self have found this to be very true in the lives of many of the unsaved that I work with. I can not denigh what I see so planly.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by SnuP
Prove to me that when Paul wrote Romans 7 he was not writing and analogy using his past experiences as an example.

Huh?&nbsp; Read verses 13-25.&nbsp; He says "I am," "I do," "I know,"&nbsp;"I see."&nbsp; That is all present tense.&nbsp;&nbsp;He doesn't say,&nbsp;"I was,"&nbsp;"I did,"&nbsp;"I knew,"&nbsp;"I saw."&nbsp;

If Paul was writing about his present circumstance then he was totally contradicting what he wrote in chapter 6.

What are you talking about??&nbsp; All Paul was saying was that though he has been redeemed and has a new nature and he recognizes that God's Law is good that he sees another force at work in him.&nbsp; That force is his old nature, his sinful nature, that contends with his new, spirit led nature.&nbsp; He acknowledges that nothing good dwells in his flesh&nbsp;and that he is wretched but Christ will deliver him from his body that continually yearns to sin.&nbsp; What part of that contradicts chapter 6?

If Matthew Henry will not denigh that there are two possable aplications of the text, why do you?

Oh, well, Matthew Henry...who is that again and why should I listen to him if his views are totally unbiblical?

I agree with Matthew Henry on his comment that both are applicable to man, both regenerated and unregenerated.

And you determined this by the big struggle that unregenerate man faces?&nbsp; I don't know which "unregenerate" people you're talking about that struggle against their fleshly desires to sin and their godly desires to be obedient to God but if it's true, well, they're not unregenerate.&nbsp; Unregenerate people don't struggle with a desire to please God.&nbsp; They just don't desire to please God.&nbsp; How is that a struggle.&nbsp; Unregenerate man desires none of the things that God demands.

I tell you man, if Matthew Henry, whoever he is, says that Romans 7 is about unregenerate man you might not want to rely on him at all.

But for this arguement I desire to show how it is possible for the unregenerated man to desire what is Godly good.

Oh I see.&nbsp; And with the help of the infamous Matthew Henry you've done that?&nbsp; I'd sooner listen to Matthew Perry.

I my self have found this to be very true in the lives of many of the unsaved that I work with. I can not denigh what I see so planly.

Really?&nbsp; You know the motives of those around you?&nbsp; Just because someone does something that you think is nice or good you might want to keep this verse in mind:

Romans 14:23
for whatever is not from faith is sin.

If they don't do something because of their faith in God then it is sin, no matter how good it appears to you.

God bless

 

[SnuP]

From the back of the commontary

Matthew Henry's commentary remains one of the best-loved and most widely used biblical commentaries, some three hundred yeas after it was first published.

Matthew Henry (1662-1714)was a Presbyterian minister in Enbland who was greatly influences by the Puritans. He made hte exposition of Scripture the central concern of his ministery.

His commentary is one of those that are included in Quick Verse and the Logos Library System which are bible study software, and it is include in most other such software. His commentary is considered a classic for bible collage students. Also I don't rely upon commentaries to tell me how to believe. I rarely even use them. I only use them to help clarify what I have already heard from God. And I rarely find that Matthew Henry and I disagree.

So, why should I listen to you and disregard a noted scholar like Matthew Henry?

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by SnuP
So, why should I listen to you and disregard a noted scholar like Matthew Henry?

I never said you should.&nbsp; I've seen one little snipit of what the man believes.&nbsp; For all I know we agree on every other point.&nbsp; For all I know, you took that first quote out of context.&nbsp; The point is, just because someone is a "noted scholar" doesn't mean they don't make mistakes.&nbsp; Yes Snup, I would venture to say that even Matthew Henry makes mistakes.

All I'm telling you is what you've professed about Romans 7 is inaccurate.&nbsp; If Matthew Henry says the same thing you do, well, he's inaccurate too.

Believe that or not.&nbsp; That's up to you.&nbsp; I'm just telling you what I believe to be the Truth.

God bless

 

[SnuP]

You say that it is inaccurate because it does not agree with your belief system. I say that you belief in this area is inaccurate and dangerous. And if you had read the quote you would have notice that he says that there is a great contraversy over these two views. Niether of which he endorses but rather he says that both are applicable, with this I agree.

I to have often present past events interms of a present reality fot the benifit of a discusion.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by SnuP
You say that it is inaccurate because it does not agree with your belief system.

Well, would it make you feel better if I said, "Hey I don't agree that is what the Bible says, but I'm sure it right?"&nbsp; That would make no sense.&nbsp; I could say the same things about your issues with my views.&nbsp; You seem to be basing interpretive accuracy on your opinion of a person's credibility.&nbsp; You don't even know me.&nbsp; For all you know I am more learned than Matthew Henry ever was.&nbsp; I'm sure I'm not but the point is that you too are basing your opinion of my opinion on whether it disagrees with what you've said.&nbsp; I, too, could cite numerous respected theologians who share my beliefs.&nbsp; Not because they're mine but because they believe that's what the Bible says.&nbsp; Would that make my views more credible in your eyes?&nbsp; Not unless you viewed those people as credible because you obviously don't view me as a credible source.

I say that you belief in this area is inaccurate and dangerous.

Dangerous how?&nbsp; Salvitically?

And if you had read the quote you would have notice that he says that there is a great contraversy over these two views. Niether of which he endorses but rather he says that both are applicable, with this I agree.

So&nbsp;he says both views are right?&nbsp;

I to have often present past events interms of a present reality fot the benifit of a discusion.

Okay.&nbsp; Thanks for sharing that.&nbsp; Is this in reference to your belief that that is what Paul was doing in chapter 7?

God bless

 

[SnuP]

Originally posted by Reformationist
Well, would it make you feel better if I said, "Hey I don't agree that is what the Bible says, but I'm sure it right?"&nbsp; That would make no sense.&nbsp; I could say the same things about your issues with my views.&nbsp; You seem to be basing interpretive accuracy on your opinion of a person's credibility.&nbsp; You don't even know me.&nbsp; For all you know I am more learned than Matthew Henry ever was.&nbsp; I'm sure I'm not but the point is that you too are basing your opinion of my opinion on whether it disagrees with what you've said.&nbsp; I, too, could cite numerous respected theologians who share my beliefs.&nbsp; Not because they're mine but because they believe that's what the Bible says.&nbsp; Would that make my views more credible in your eyes?&nbsp; Not unless you viewed those people as credible because you obviously don't view me as a credible source.

My point is that it is pointless for either of ut to just call the others view inaccurate.&nbsp; Rather we should post nore ezplanations and scripture to support that opinion.

So&nbsp;he says both views are right?

&nbsp;
He doesn't say that either are right.&nbsp; Rather he says that both are applicable.

Okay.&nbsp; Thanks for sharing that.&nbsp; Is this in reference to your belief that that is what Paul was doing in chapter 7?

Yes.&nbsp; I think that he has choosen his past struggle to describe the existing struggles of possably both the unsaved and the save who are having struggles with allowing their flesh to be crucified with Christ.

&nbsp;

PS&nbsp; I haven't got my opinion from Matthew Henry, rather it is from Madamn Guyon and Watchman Nee.