Would you dare pray this prayer,,,?

Yelsew said:


How does God change a sinner's mind without violating his free will?

Persuasion!

How do you persuade someone whose natural state is enmity with God to choose against his nature?

I keep bringing up Romans 8:7-8, and it keeps being ignored. Enemies of God by nature do not become friends of God without a change of their nature. (Unless you believe a leopard can change his spots just by changing his mind [Jer. 13:23]?)

 

So you think the gospel, which Paul called the "power of God unto Salvation," is insufficient?

Do you have scriptural support to show us that scripture is insufficient? Oh wait, if the scripture is insufficient it may not be sufficient in supplying us the answer to that question, uh?

What about the baptist confessions of faith that call the Bible "all sufficient"? I guess you take issue with that?

 

Skandelon said:

So you think the gospel, which Paul called the "power of God unto Salvation," is insufficient?

Is the Gospel insufficient to save? Yes. It is necessary for salvation, but it is not sufficient for salvation. Otherwise, as I said earlier, all you would have to do is read the Bible to atheists and they would become Christians. (That is what "sufficient" means.)

Do you have scriptural support to show us that scripture is insufficient?

Yes, as a matter of fact I do.

To those who are perishing, the gospel is foolishness. To unbelievers, the Word of God is an offense. It does not save them, it drives them away. If it were indeed sufficient, it would.

What about the baptist confessions of faith that call the Bible "all sufficient"? I guess you take issue with that?

Sola scriptura has to do with authority, not salvation. Don't confuse the issue.

 

So what do you do with Romans 1 where Paul calls the gospel the power of God unto salvation?

That is not what sufficient means. Look it up. I could say the instruction book was sufficient in guiding someone to put that object together but that wouldn't necessarily mean everyone would follow the guide while putting the guide together. Sufficiency doesn't mean that anyone who see it or reads it will believe or follow it. It simply means it has all that is necessary.

You have to make a leap to get your interpretation. You have to assume that those who are perishing are doing so because God didn't choose them, rather than it being foolish because they deamed it as such by their own will despite the fact that God did desire to save them. This verse doesn't help either one of our cases because it says nothing as to what determines it to be foolish to some and not others...you have to add that link.

 

Ransom,

A leopard cannot change its spots (external appearance), but its behavior can certainly be changed with effective persuasion.

Remember God gave MAN dominion over all other species. And that seems to me a pretty solid argument against total depravity, and total inability, and all the other arguments that put man down when God raised man so high as to be above all other creation.

 

Skandelon said:

So what do you do with Romans 1 where Paul calls the gospel the power of God unto salvation?

Well, I certainly don't make it the be-all and end-all of my soteriology as you are apparently trying to do.

That is not what sufficient means. Look it up.

Sufficient: "Being as much as is needed"

(American Heritage Dictionary, 34th ed.)

A sufficient cause is one that is "as much as is needed" to produce an effect. (As opposed to a necessary cause without which the effect will not be produced.)

So I will repeat what I said earlier: Is the gospel "as much as is needed" to bring someone to salvation? Nope. Plenty of people hear the gospel and reject it to the day they die. It is not a sufficient cause, by definition.

The fact that I could say the instruction book was sufficient in guiding someone to put that object together but that wouldn't necessarily mean everyone would follow the guide while putting the guide together.

Thank you, you have just made my point. The instruction book is sufficient to tell someone how to put the object together. But without something else - the effort of the assembler to put it together - it is not sufficient to accomplish that, is it?

Just as the Gospel is sufficient to tell someone how to be saved, but it is not sufficient to actually save them. That requires God to actually change them from God haters to God lovers. (But there's that nasty Romans 8:7-8 again, which no one wants to talk about!)

You have to make a leap to get your interpretation. You have to assume that those who are perishing are doing so because God didn't choose them,

No, I assume that those who are perishing do so because they are by their nature God's enemies and want nothing to do with him, as the Scripture says (Romans 8:7-8!)

 

Yelsew said:

A leopard cannot change its spots (external appearance), but its behavior can certainly be changed with effective persuasion.

Incredible. You completely missed the point of the analogy.

In other words, one's moral inability to do good is as much a part of human nature as spots are of leopard nature, or black skin is of Ethiopian nature.

By saying that human behaviour can be changed by "effective persuasion" you deny what God has affirmed. So I reject your rebuttal out of hand.

(Tell us the analogy is "flawed." I dare ya.)

 

Your analogy is flawed. The bible very clearly and obviously affirms that human behavior can be changed by effective persuasion.

 

First, its not the "be-all and end-all of my soteriology" it just one of the verses I would like you to respond to. Second, you didn't answer the question. Do you need a pen knife to cut that verse out so it doesn't bother your system?

Do you even hear what you are saying???? This is absurd!!! The defination is "everything that is needed," not "everything that will cause it to happen for sure." The gospel has everything that is needed for a person to make the decision, period. The debate between us is does God need to provide anything else? We know man's will is a factor, which is why some reject. That proves nothing.

On the issue of the instruction manual. You are right there is something else that has to happen. You believe that it is God doing an extra, internal, secret, irreistable calling that the bible doesn't even address and I think its man's response. That doesn't change the the gospel is all that God needed to do, he doesn''t need to irresistably call them in addition to the gospel as you suggest.

I just got through talking about that with Larry. Man's inability to subject themselves to God's Law has nothing to do with their inability to believe the gospel by Faith.

Their inability to please God while in the flesh says nothing about their ability to leave the flesh and walk in faith once confronted with the truth of the gospel.

Keep trying.

 

In other words, one's moral inability to do good is as much a part of human nature as spots are of leopard nature, or black skin is of Ethiopian nature.

By saying that human behaviour can be changed by "effective persuasion" you deny what God has affirmed. So I reject your rebuttal out of hand.

(Tell us the analogy is "flawed." I dare ya.) </font>[/QUOTE]Why NO I did NOT miss it at all! I simply proved it wrong in the context you were using it. You see it is not the outside of a man that gets persuaded, it is the spirit which some refer to as "the inner man". God did affirm that a leopard cannot change its spots, but He has not affirmed that man cannot be persuaded and therefore change his behavior. That is, man cannot change his outer self, which he was born with, but he can change his inner self which is instilled within him, but that does take effective persuasion.

I suggest you do some study on the subject of persuastion, it is afterall what religion is all about!

 

Harley4Him said:

Your analogy is flawed.

Thank you. In fact it was not my analogy, but Scripture's. Since you have admitted to denying this Scriptural truth, further discussion with you on this issue would be pointless.

 

Skandelon said:

Second, you didn't answer the question.

Er . . . yes I did just answer your question directly. Just because my answer did not square with your presuppositions does not make it a non-answer, sorry.

Do you even hear what you are saying???? This is absurd!!! The defination is "everything that is needed," not "everything that will cause it to happen for sure."

Sorry, but you do not have the right to redefine the terms as you see fit.

</font>

• A necessary cause is one that is inferred from the effect. In other words, if X is a necessary cause of Y, then if Y occurs, X has occurred.</font>
• A sufficient cause is one from which the corresponding effect can be inferred. If X is a sufficient cause of Y, then if X occurs, Y occurs.</font>

If X is "the gospel" and Y is "salvation," and (as you say) X is a sufficient cause for Y, then if X is present, salvation occurs. If the Gospel is preached, the hearer is saved. It is as simple as that.

Except, of course, that plain old experience tells us otherwise. And so does Scripture. Some people hear the Gospel and reject it. Salvation cannot be inferred from the presence of the preaching of the Gospel.

Therefore, the Gospel is not a sufficient cause for salvation, by definition.

Sorry to disappoint you.

The gospel has everything that is needed for a person to make the decision, period.

That is a blatant categorical error. The above sentence defines the Gospel as a necessary cause of salvation, not a sufficient cause.
Isn't that what I said yesterday? Thanks for proving my point!

The debate between us is does God need to provide anything else?

The answer is yes. Without God's grace, he cannot be saved. Because it is God by his grace that gives the natural man:
</font>

• spiritual life (Eph. 2:1);</font>
• faith (Eph. 2:8)</font>
• belief (Phil. 1:29)</font>
• repentance (Acts 11:18, 2 Tim. 2:25)</font>

without which it is impossible to be saved. These, too, are necessary causes of salvation. (It is self-evident that if there are multiple necessary causes, no one of them is a sufficient cause.)

Man's inability to subject themselves to God's Law has nothing to do with their inability to believe the gospel by Faith.

You emphasize that one clause of 8:7 at the expense of the rest. The natural man is not merely unable to be subject to God's law. He is unable to please God at all (Rom. 8:8).

Their inability to please God while in the flesh says nothing about their ability to leave the flesh and walk in faith once confronted with the truth of the gospel.

How, pray tell, does the carnal man "leave the flesh"? Is it in the same manner that leopards change their spots, by any chance?

Keep trying.

So far, rebutting your points has been effortless.

 

Yelsew said:

You see it is not the outside of a man that gets persuaded, it is the spirit which some refer to as "the inner man".

Uh . . . no kidding. That verse in Jeremiah is about the "inner man" - the evil that men do, and why. Tell me something I don't know. Better yet, rebut what is there, not what you wish was there.

I suggest you do some study on the subject of persuastion, it is afterall what religion is all about!

Horse feathers.

 

Horse Feathers? Just what do you think religion is all about if not a battle for the hearts and minds of man? It sure ain't no social club!

What do you think Jesus meant when He said, "GO, make disciples of all nations".

Horse feathers indeed!

 

Yelsew said:

Just what do you think religion is all about if not a battle for the hearts and minds of man? It sure ain't no social club!

What do you think Jesus meant when He said, "GO, make disciples of all nations".

I'm under no obligation to accept your reductionistic view that religion is nothing more than a multi-level marketing scheme. The Christian life consists of considerably more than making more Christians.

 

And who did you get that term from?

Religion, however, does tend to be a multi-level marketing scheme.

Christianity, however, is not. God is not a respecter of persons. Nor is it to be marketed. No one can buy it. We invite them to respond to God Himself.

 

Helen said:

And who did you get that term from?

The apostle James (1:27). There is nothing wrong with calling Christianity religion, so whatever rabbit trail you think you're hopping down with that question, you might as well give up because it is ultimately going to do you no good.

 

Ransom said,

Ransom, it matters little to any of us what you submit yourself to, but the truth of the matter is that Christianity is Lifestyle, while religion is salesmanship! The whole purpose of religion is to convince or persuade others to believe as you do, or in that which you believe.

As I have oft stated on this BBS, we humans, act out our beliefs. So you too are acting out your beliefs. You do not do that which you do not believe in! Your morals are the structure in which your lifestyle is exhibited. Your enthusiasm toward what you believe is based upon how strongly you believe in what you believe. If you are sold out to it you want others to have it, if you are not sold out to it, telling others is merely a ho-hum drudgery. I believe you can tell the difference when it is done to you, so too, others can see it when you do it to them. So religion is salesmanship. The religion you adhere to is lifestyle!

 

I can't believe we are debating this nonsense. Just because something is sufficient doesn't mean its applied.

Even Sproul and many other Calvinists when talking about Limited Atonement say, "Atonement is sufficient for all but only effecient for some."

By your defination Sproul and other would be saying all are atoned for and that would make any sense. I tired of wasting time on this...

You don't disappoint me as much as you frustrate me. Nitpicking basic English only bogs down the discussion. Plus, you say that you did answer my question concerning Roman 1 when Paul clearly say that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. All you said is that it shouldn't be the end-all and be-all of my doctrine. Its not, and that doesn't explain your view, it only attack mine by implying that I don't have any other verses of support. I just want to deal with one verse at a time and you still haven't dealt with this one, so I'll just keep waiting.

And I know grace is necessary for salvation, but we were talking about the means by which God's grace is applied. You are merely making nonsensical cyclical arguements to avoid the issues.

You emphasize that one clause of 8:7 at the expense of the rest. The natural man is not merely unable to be subject to God's law. He is unable to please God at all (Rom. 8:8).</font>[/QUOTE]No, it says he is unable to please God IN THE FLESH. It says nothing about his ability to leave the flesh and walk in faith once confronted by the "POWER OF GOD UNTO SALVATION" (that is called the gospel)

How, pray tell, does the carnal man "leave the flesh"? </font>[/QUOTE]Pursuing righteousness by FAITH in Christ

 

Skandelon said:

Just because something is sufficient doesn't mean its applied.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, children of all ages, I direct your attention to the centre ring . . . The Amazing Self-Refuting Sentence!

Nitpicking basic English only bogs down the discussion.

It is only through "basic English" and proper definition that the discussion can be held at all. But, if clarity and precision aren't important to you, your point isn't particularly important to me. It's been a slice.