Can Unregenerate Man "Do" any Righteous Thing?

True believers disagree on abstinence or moderate use.

The Bible is clear that God does not require abstinence.

This is just one of many things that are clear in scripture that have to be debated because some believers have faulty presuppositions they bring to the Bible that cloud their perspective.

A faulty presupposition that I carried and that you still carry TO the Scriptures along the lines of what we are talking about is that regeneration and salvation are the same thing and that the new birth is just a synonym for salvation.

The Bible does not teach that but we see it that way through faulty lenses.

 

I'm sorry if I offended you, it was a play on reformed, dry humor.

Now, is this any different that what Preacher4truth has been doing...and why hasn't anyone reprimanded his actions? Don't let this be a one way street, now

 

Actually, the Bible does require abstinence in places and at times, but that's a rabbit trail in itself. The fact is, even abstinence is not as clear cut as the trinity and Christ's deity.

I would also like to note I believe the "faulty lens" is pre-faith regeneration that is derived from the logic of TULIP and from being read into Scripture, and not vice versa.

 

The Trinity isn't as "clear" as you think. Yes, it's clear to us, but for the Church Fathers onward the Trinity was not articulated as you and I think of it. Most would call the Fathers heretical for their thoughts on the Trinity.

You might want to check out Roger Olson's book on the Trinity.:thumbsup:

 

You seem to think if I get all entangled with your arguments I will be convinced of your position. I don't need your arguments nor the twisted anti-logic of your Cal/DoG "scholars", I trust what the scriptures clearly and simply say, and they say a man must believe to have life.

 

Perhaps the lens that you now see through is faulty, and that you saw more clearly before. Is that not possible? Perhaps your thinking has been tainted by the listening and reading of other men's opinions on this subject, and that you could be entirely wrong. It is a very debatable subject to say the very least. You ought to give consideration to at least the thought that you could be wrong.

I may be wrong, but I believe if a poll were taken among all the pastors on this board there would be more that disagree with you than agree with you. And they all can't be wrong.

 

I have. Ask him. I sent him several pm's recommending he chill.

Did you get him when he was attacking me so vehemently when he first joined up?

I don't care if you didn't, btw. That was in the past and I hope the past is behind us.:godisgood:

 

So then you will NOT commit to respond line by line, right?

 

I am familiar with it and I agree. The Trinity is a complex issue.

But that there is one God who exists in three persons can be clearly established.

But you are right, perhaps the Trinity was not the best item to illustrate my point since the church hotly debated it up to the Nicene Council where Arius was narrowly condemned for heresy.

 

Were you an only child?

 

I have not read that book, but I have read Roger Olson before and he is a POOR writer. If you check out his footnotes, they are bogus at best.

Again, maybe he has done better with this book, but from what I read he is laughable.

 

I will answer that question if you will commit to debate me line by line.

Stop avoiding the challenge. Be a man and say yes or no.

If you say "no" you will not have to worry about me anymore because I am not going to waste my time posting to you without any response to my arguments at all.

No intelligent person debates that way.[/quote]

 

You are correct this time.

Winman, needs to stick with the OP and stop with inane remarks, as do we all.

 

[/QUOTE]

If you will limit your questions to one at a time, and agree to answer one question I ask you in return, I agree.

Deal?

If so, ask you first question.

 

This is exactly right. The whole POINT of these three chapters is to conclude the whole world head for head, Jews and Gentiles under sin.

If Romans 3 does not teach that NO PERSON does good and that EVERY SINGLE person is a sinner then it is hard to justify the need for salvation.

Paul is clearly making an argument that every single individual is thoroughly wicked.

Right. It is like the argument that some use which says, "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost" SEE!! Calvinism is false!

No. Just because the Bible says that some seek after God does not mean that they were not regenerate who sought Him. Nor does it mean that all who do "seek him" are really seeking him.

Exactly.

Good passage.

Who found him? Those who did not seek him.

Those who do seek him tend to be the ones who do NOT find him.

But seek here I mean a superficial seeking of him.

The Pharisees "sought" him and never found him.

But the fact of the matter is that they were not seeking the one true God.

 

[/QUOTE]

If you will limit yourself to asking one question per post AND agree to answer one question I ask you per post in return, then I agree.

Deal?

If so, ask your first question.

 

John 20:31 is a passage you like to use to prove that faith precedes regeneration.

I contend that this verse does NOT necessitate faith before regeneration.

A baby lives before it breathes but it must breathe in order to live.

That is all this verse is saying. Faith is necessary for spiritual life. That by believing you might have life- that by breathing the baby might have life.

If breath is necessary for continue life yet life preceded breath why can not believing be necessary for continued spiritual life yet spiritual life preceded believing?

 

It is SO complicated that NO man can understand it in his natural state.

That God became a man and bore the sins of many of all ages in six hours upon a cross and can impute his own righteousness from that cross to his own people and make them fit for Heaven- that is a tremendously complicated issue!