Invitation or Summons

Yet, how does that fit with 1 Corinthians 3?

 

Jesus also told us "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." (Matt 5:48) Jesus did not add that since we can't be, God will cut us some slack.

 

Jesus was referring to loving others, not "being" perfect. If we live by the Spirit, it most definitely something that can be done.

 

Perhaps it's a difference in how we're each reading it?

You used 1 Cor 2:14 as a justification for the calvinistic viewpoint; whereas, when I read it in context of both chapters 2 and 3, I see a link to the "carnal man" in chapter 3--the man already saved but still engaged in "natural" behavior.

 

If I said the sky was blue and the grass green you would disagree :laugh:

 

God commands it, yes; but how many say, "No"?

I agree that God gives commands to men that we are to at least try to obey; but each command has the option of non-obedience, with the result being eternal damnation. In other words, free will (or at least the illusion of free will).

 

Yes...it is man's fault that he was not given the gift of saving faith to use.

What inconsistency. I guess man was sovereign over God when it came to reprobation...

 

Delusions of grandeur.

 

Just a question. If I am

; then how will I be judged for it. I have no capacity to act otherwise thus how can I be judged fairly? Adam ate the fruit. Eve ate the fruit and gave me this nature. How can I be held accountable for a nature I can't act against? Does God judge a scorpion when it stings? In fact following this through I am only behaving in such a manner as I am created. I am following my creation's mandate. So how then am I to be judged?

thus I act in accordance with my creation. In this case I am no different than how mud operates. By natural chemical reaction if you thow water onto dirt it will be mud. Mud cannot determine itself to stay dry it only does as it is created. Thus is mud judged? How is mud superior in action than I? It cannot be we both are acting naturally to our creation. Mud isn't thown into the lake of fire yet I will be if I'm not doing something I couldn't do anyway? How is this just?

 

You'll notice that Dr. Bob said, "man, by his fallen nature, is completely and utterly incapable of repenting/believing." He did not say, "man is completely and utterly incapable of repenting/believing." When you see the difference in those two statements, you'll see why God is just in condemning sinners. In other words, there is a reason man is incapable of repenting - his own nature forbids it. Therefore, he is worthy of his judgement.

 

Sounds lofty. Yet when examined I am still left with the question. You must explain the difference. If you are correct

then I am acting in accordance with my creation. There is a reason dirt becomes mud when water is put on it. Dirt cannot remain dry because it's

. What is the difference?

 

Mud is incapable of sin. It does not have a will. Calvinism does not deny the existence of the will, but the ability of the will. Man guided only by his sinful nature is incapable repairing himself to God. Think about it.

 

I think the only will allow able in Calvinism is the ones Adam and Eve had. If my will is inable/incapable then the will is dead. It does not operate it cannot operate. Therefore I cannot enact its use and thus have an ability to choose. Choice has been taken from me by Adam and Eve thus will cannot act other than the repeated series loop called sin. Its malfunctioning entirely(total depravity). thus I can no more choose God than dirt remain dry when water is thrown on it.

 

Did you mean chapter 3, verse 1? Chapter 2 verse 1 tells how Paul approached them; doesn't say a thing about their spiritual condition.

Disagree; the context of 2:14 (or rather, chapter 2) is a prelude to chapter 3. Taken together, and within context of the entire book, it is a reproof to them that although Paul identifies them as Christians, they are still behaving and acting like the natural man.

I will endeavor to re-read some commentaries on the subject.

 

Okay, re-reading and re-thinking about my posts, I have miscommunicated. In attempting to show the link between chapter 2 and chapter 3, I muddied the intent of verse 2:14. Chapter 2 is a prelude to chapter 3; but Paul's intent was to show how the members of the church of Corinth are still acting like "natural" men (i.e., his identification of their carnal-ness).