Romans 8:8-9 - "none of his"

Discussion in 'Calvinism/Arminianism Debate' started by The Biblicist, Dec 25, 2013.

  1. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,099
    Likes Received:
    205
    Rom. 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
    9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.


    1. Some on this forum believe no individuals were indwelt at least permenantly until after Pentecost (I disagree, but)

    2. The book of Romans was written AFTER Pentecost

    3. Therefore, this text must be admitted as fully applicable at least from Pentecost to the Present.

    Therefore, it must at least be admitted that from Pentecost to the present if anyone has not the Spirit of Christ permenantly indwelling within them they are in fact "NONE OF HIS.'

    Furthermore, Paul makes it cyrstal clear that the phrase "in the Spirit" is to be understood as synonomous with having the Spirit indwelling you. Therefore all who are not "in the Spirit" are "none of his."

    But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.

    Therefore, those who are "none of his" are identified as all who are "in the flesh" as this is the only descriptive contrast to those that are His and the only possible alternative to the descriptive phrase "in the Spirit."


    The only possible way to be "in the Spirit" or to be indwelt by the Spirit is to be "BORN OF THE SPIRIT.' Thus in contrast, the only possible way to be "in the flesh" is to be "BORN OF THE FLESH"

    Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

    Thus to be "in the flesh" refers to the NATURAL STATE and/or OUTWARD MAN while "in the Spirit" refers to the REGENERATE STATE or INWARD MAN.

    A saved man can still OUTWARDLY be "in the flesh" and but where "in the flesh" is being contrast to "in the Spirit" it cannot refer to a child of God but refers to a person who is both outward "in the flesh" and inwardly descriptive of Romans 8:7 as Romans 8:7 is given as the explanation of those "in the flesh" who cannot please God (Rom. 8:8) who are in direct contrast with Spirit indwelt children of God.

    Hence, all mankind from Pentecost forward is either "in the Spirit" and are His people or they are "in the flesh" and "none of his." The "in the flesh" is equivilent to "lost" or "dead in tresspasses in sins" or the unregenerate thus without the quickening Spirit.
     
    #1 The Biblicist, Dec 25, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 25, 2013
  2. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,099
    Likes Received:
    205
    Hence, there are but TWO kinds of human beings (1) NONE OF HIS = "in the flesh;" (2) and His which are those "in the Spirit".

    Those which are "none of His" or "in the flesh" were "born of the flesh" and are the unregenerated. To be His, they must be "in the Spirit" which only occurs by being "born of the Spirit."

    In Scripture to be "in the Spirit" is to be "in Christ" and to be only "in the flesh" is to be "OUTSIDE of Christ" (Eph. 2:13).

    To be OUTSIDE of Christ is to be in a legal position of CONDEMNATION as only "in Christ" is there no condemnation (Jn. 5:24; Rom. 8:1). Only those "in Christ" SHALL NEVER DIE (Jn. 11:26). All OUTSIDE of Christ are under the condemnation of death. This is why Christ did not come into the world to condemn the world BECAUSE IT WAS UNDER CONDEMNATION ALREADY and subject to death and already UNDER THE WRATH of God (Eph. 2:3; Jn. 3:36). That is what sinners need SALVATION FROM! Hell is but the consequence of death whereas death is the penalty of sin.


    Gal. 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law ARE under the curse: for it is written, Cursed IS every one that continues not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

    To be "under the curse" is to be under the condemnation of the law. Only "in Christ" is the curse lifted:


    Gal. 3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree:

    The curse of the law is death and all OUTSIDE of Christ are subject to death. Only those "IN Christ" or "in the Spirit" SHALL NEVER DIE but HAVE everlasting life RIGHT NOW.
     
    #2 The Biblicist, Dec 26, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 26, 2013
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    I agree with your statements here - but I do not agree with the Calvinist constructs that make God the "cause of His own lament" as was shown here.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=90797


    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    True - yet many Calvinists will admit along with Arminians - that millions who were lost and "none of His" at the time the saints were reading Romans 8 in Paul's day - later became saved.

    I think we all can see that point.

    Here again - God is not the cause of His own lament.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,099
    Likes Received:
    205
    Nobody said He is. That is simply your spin on our position. You know our position so why do you and your fellow Arminians continue to spin as though you spin is our position? We believe that man himself is the cause of his own condition in Romans 8:8. Romans 8:8 refers to Romans 8:7 as the explanation why all "in the flesh CANNOT please God" and God is not being blamed.

    Just because you don't agree with our interpretation of Romans 5:12-19 does not give you the right to claim that our position is that God is cause of His own lament when we totally repudiate that! So why not be honest with what we actually do believe and present our position correctly?
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    I know you don't like having this detail in your position exposed - however you never state your position in such a way as to escape the point made about that you are making God "the cause of His own Lament".

    Originally Posted by BobRyan [​IMG]
    We believe that man himself is the cause of his own condition [/quote]

    If man is the sole actor in the result of saved vs lost -- then we do not need a Savior we are able to save ourselves for we ALL know that some are saved and some are lost.

    Clearly you cannot actually believe that man is the sole cause of his condition saved or lost.

    That is a circular argument. Romans 8 is not blaiming God - because it is not teaching the Calvinist notion that you propose. You cannot argue that since Romans 8 is not blaiming God - then Calvinisms model is correct - when Romans 8 does not use it.

    You repudiate the result of your own position being stated. But you do not show that this is not the inescapable result in your view of Calvinist doctrine where "God is the cause of His own lament".

    As long as you argue that God is the one "making the difference" between the saved and the lost - and not the choices of man - then you make God the "cause of His own lament" when HE complains that HE has done EVERYTHING to save them - and yet they do not respond.


    [FONT=&quot]Matt 23[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]38“Behold, your house is being left to you desolate![/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Luke 7[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]28 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]29 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Is 5:4[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
    What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?[/FONT]


    (The Calvinist of course knows EXACTLY "what could have been DONE MORE" by God to avoid the outcome in Is 5:4 - thus they make God the cause of His own lament by NOT doing for those rejecting His work what He did do for others).

    The list is almost endless in God's lament. As the thread on that subject shows - which Calvinists carefully avoid- -- presumably because they want all those texts posted here.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #6 BobRyan, Jan 2, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 2, 2014
  7. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass...He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future... By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished." -WCF​

    That seems to suggest that God causes that which he laments.
     
  8. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,099
    Likes Received:
    205
    I do not adhere to this statement. I have made my position crystal clear concerning the origin of sin, permissive versus will of good pleasure, unfallen responsible free agency, etc. If you want to fight the position you are quoting, good for you.
     
  9. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's fine. But it is one of the most widely accepted Reformed statements of faith. You did say, "Nobody said he is," so this was my effort to reveal how the system generally does make this claim, even if you individually deny it.
     
  10. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,099
    Likes Received:
    205
    Ok! But I have made it clear throughout this debate that I am not Reformed and I am not a superlapsarian and that I believe in regard to the logical order of decrees I place the universal fall and condemnation prior to the decree of particular and unconditional election to salvation. I have not changed my position.
     
  11. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Congratulations. :)

    I was merely responding to, "Nobody said He is. That is simply your spin on our position..."
     
  12. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,099
    Likes Received:
    205
    "Our position" includes me in that "our" and so I am not speaking of anyone outside the position that includes ME and MY position and there are others who embrace "our position."
     
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    I know you don't like having this detail in your position exposed - however you never state your position in such a way as to escape the point made about that you are making God "the cause of His own Lament".

    We believe that man himself is the differentiating factor in his own condition. God is "not partial" Rom 2:11 to anyone. The "arbitrary selection" model in Calvinism is mere speculation - not Bible fact. BUT IF the "arbitrary selection" doctrine of Calvinism were correct - then God would be the cause of His own lament.

    If man is the sole actor in the result of saved vs lost -- then we do not need a Savior we are able to save ourselves for we ALL know that some are saved and some are lost.

    Clearly you cannot actually believe that man is the sole cause of his condition saved or lost.

    That is a circular argument. Romans 8 is not blaiming God - because it is not teaching the Calvinist notion that you merely infer into the text.

    You cannot argue that since Romans 8 is not blaming God - then Calvinisms model is correct - when Romans 8 does not use the model that you infer into the text. You are merely "assuming" the salient point of your argument instead of showing that is in the text.

    You repudiate the obvious result of your own position - you object to the fact that we notice the logical conclusion? Why do that? Why not show some way where the premise you state in your own argument do not lead to the logical conclusion?

    You do not show that this is not the inescapable result in your view of Calvinist doctrine where is the ONLY differentiator between lost and saved.

    By making the difference "God" you force God into the position of "being the cause of His own lament".

    As long as you argue that God is the one "making the difference" between the saved and the lost - and not the choices of man - then you make God the "cause of His own lament" when HE complains that HE has done EVERYTHING to save them - and yet they do not respond.

    GOD's LAMENT - a few tiny examples.

    [FONT=&quot]Matt 23[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]38“Behold, your house is being left to you desolate![/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Luke 7[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]28 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]29 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Is 5:4[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
    What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?[/FONT]


    (The Calvinist of course knows EXACTLY "what could have been DONE MORE" by God to avoid the outcome in Is 5:4 - thus they make God the cause of His own lament by NOT doing for those rejecting His work what He did do for others).

    The list is almost endless in God's lament. As the thread on that subject shows - which Calvinists carefully avoid- -- presumably because they want all those texts posted here.


    Indeed it is the logical conclusion to that stated position.

    So far - nothing presented to suggest otherwise.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #13 BobRyan, Jan 2, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 2, 2014

Share This Page

Loading...