Oldsaint24
Well-known member
Is an unregenerate man void of a brain incapable of thinking?
The Notion that Unregenerate Men Can Believe the Gospel on Their Own is Foolishness ...
- Thread starter Howie
- Start date
Manfred
Well-known member
2Co 3:3 And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
2Co 3:4 Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God.
2Co 3:5 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God,
2Co 3:6 who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Your claim to your sovereign ability to move God into action, is debunked!
Manfred
Well-known member
You are teaching that the imputed righteousness of Christ is NOT a requirement for salvation, but that self righteous people such as yourself are saved.
Thank you for showing all your true colors!
I am teaching the bible
Romans 4:1–5 (KJV 1900) — 1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
One's faith is counted for righteousness
Two facts should be specially noted. One is, that it is faith itself, and not its object, that is thus imputed. This is certain even where a pronoun is the immediate antecedent to the verb. Here is an instance: “For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” Here only the faith of Abraham can be the antecedent to the pronoun it; and hence only his faith could be the subject of the imputation. Further, faith itself, as so named, is repeatedly the immediate nominative to the imputation. Here are instances: “His faith is counted for righteousness;” “faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.” Hence any attempt at a metonymical interpretation of faith, so that it shall mean, not itself but its object, that is Christ, and hence mean the imputation of his personal righteousness, is utterly vain. The other fact is, that the faith is counted, reckoned, imputed to him whose personal act it is. This is what is imputed to Abraham, to the Jew, to the Gentile. In neither case is there the slightest intimation of an imputation of any personal act of another.
1 John Miley, Systematic Theology, Volume 2 (New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1893), 319–320.
From these Scriptures it appears, (1) that it is faith itself, as a personal act of the believer, and not the object of that faith that is imputed for righteousness. Those who hold to the antinomian view of imputation are under the necessity of interpreting these scriptures in a metonymical manner, that is, making faith to be a figure of speech which includes the whole of Christ’s active and passive righteousness. But the Scriptures are clear that faith is imputed or reckoned for righteousness only to him whose personal act it is, and in no sense the imputation of the personal act of another. (2) Faith is the condition of righteousness. Faith is not to be identified with righteousness in the Tridentine sense, that faith constitutes righteousness. Faith cannot constitute personal righteousness. This would be to make faith a subtle form of works, to which merit would be attached, and would take away from us the atonement of Christ as the only ground of justification. St. Paul insists that faith is the condition of righteouness, and therefore “of faith” simply means the legal state consequent upon the remission of sins through faith. (3) The faith that justifies is not faith in general, but a particular faith in the propitiatory work of Christ. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood (Rom. 3:24, 25). Christ becomes the Saviour by virtue of the blood of the atonement which He shed for all men; but the faith which brings the assurance of salvation is that faith alone which accepts Him as the Saviour through an atonement in His blood.1
1 H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology (vol. 2; Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1940–1952), 400–401.
Was counted (ἐλογίσθη). The same word in ver. 22, is is rendered “it was imputed.” The word occurs frequently in the Scriptures. In the Old Testament, the verb חָשֵּׁב (hashab), which which is translated by the word λογίζομαι means literally, to think, to intend, or purpose; to imagine, invent, or devise; to reckon, or account; to esteem; to impute, i.e. to impute to a man what belongs to himself, or what ought to be imputed to him. It occurs only in the following places: 1 Sam. 18:25; Esth. 8:3; 9:24, 25; Isa. 33:8; Jer. 49:20; 50:45; Lam. 2:8; 2 Sam. 14:14; Jer. 49:30; Gen. 50:20; Job 35:2; 2 Sam. 14:13; Ezek. 38:10; Jer. 18:8; Ps. 21:12; 140:3, 5; Jer. 11:19; 48:2; Amos 6:5; Ps. 10:2; Isa. 53:3, 4; Jer. 26:3; Micah 2:3; Nah. 1:11; Jer. 18:11; Job 13:3–4; 41:19, 24; Ps. 32:2; 35:5; Isa. 10:7; Job 19:11; 33:10; Gen. 16:6; 38:15; 1 Sam. 1:13; Ps. 52:4; Jer. 18:18; Zech. 7:10; Job 6:30; 19:16; Isa. 13:17; 1 Kings 10:21; Num. 18:27, 30; Ps. 88:4; Isa. 40:17; Lam. 4:2; Isa. 40:15; Gen. 31:16. I have examined all the passages, and as the result of my examination have come to the conclusion, that there is not one in which the word is used in the sense of reckoning or imputing to a man that which does not strictly belong to him; or of charging on him that which ought not to be charged on him as a matter of personal right. The word is never used to denote imputing in the sense of transferring, or of charging that on one which does not properly belong to him. The same is the case in the New Testament. The word occurs about forty times (see Schmidius’ Concord), and in a similar signification. No doctrine of transferring, or of setting over to a man what does not properly belong to him, be it sin or holiness, can be derived, therefore, from this word. Whatever is meant by it here, it evidently is declared that the act of believing is that which is intended, both by Moses and by Paul.11 Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: Romans (ed. Robert Frew; London: Blackie & Son, 1884–1885), 96.
You are reading the text out of context
This has nothing to do with the ability to believe but concerns the apostleship
Reformedguy
Well-known member
Exactly. They knew Him because He was with Him. According to the text knowing Him means you have recieved Him. Hence the world does not know Him.
As the text plainly says, as the Old Testament clearly show. Receiving does not necessitate the Spirit being in you. Once again Tom is telling the Spirit what He can and cannot do and where He can and cannot go.
Nope, you are still twisting scripture
John 7:38–39 (KJV 1900) — 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Note out of belly indicates the Spirit would be in them
receiving the spirit refers to having the Spirit in them
should receive: for the Holy Spirit was not yet given
In the future, they would receive the Spirit that is after Christ was glorified.
Stop torturing scripture and start believing it.
Reformedguy
Well-known member
Receiving can be simply being with them as it was in the Old Testament. In the future they would have the Spirit in them. A type of receiving also. As is pointed out in the text itself.
Stop torturing scripture and start believing it.
Sorry no
You are ignoring scripture once again
John 7:38–39 (KJV 1900) — 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Note out of belly indicates the Spirit would be in them.
Receiving the spirit refers to having the Spirit in them.
should receive: for the Holy Spirit was not yet given
In the future, they would receive the Spirit that is after Christ was glorified.
Stop torturing scripture and start believing it.
In any case, the world (unbelievers) cannot receive the spirit, so you remain refuted.
Now accept correction and receive truth.
Last edited:
Reformedguy
Well-known member
Depends on what you mean by recieve. Where is it written receiving soley means the Spirit in you?
John 14:17 indicates otherwise. Accept correction and the truth of scripture.
Pretty much (Rom 1:28; cf 3:10-18).
sorry, no it does not, and you are just ignoring scripture
John 7:38–39 (KJV 1900) — 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Note out of belly indicates the Spirit would be in them.
Receiving the spirit refers to having the Spirit in them.
should receive: for the Holy Spirit was not yet given
In the future, they would receive the Spirit that is after Christ was glorified.
Stop torturing scripture and start believing it.
In any case, the world (unbelievers) cannot receive the spirit, so you remain refuted.
Notice readers he does not address this, and offers only diversion
Reformedguy
Well-known member
Notice Tom runs from his own proof text trying to save face. Implying Old Testament saints did not have the Spirit, were not born again and according to our Lord cannot see the kingdom of heaven.
You are fabricating again
sorry, no it does not, and you are just ignoring scripture
John 7:38–39 (KJV 1900) — 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Note out of belly indicates the Spirit would be in them.
Receiving the spirit refers to having the Spirit in them.
should receive: for the Holy Spirit was not yet given
In the future, they would receive the Spirit that is after Christ was glorified.
Stop torturing scripture and start believing it.
In any case, the world (unbelievers) cannot receive the spirit, so you remain refuted.
Notice readers he does not address this, and offers only diversion
and now offers falsehoods
Reformedguy
Well-known member
Tom denies salvation to Old Testament saints. He denies they could be born again and see the kingdom of heaven.
You're arguing for a theology, Tom.
Clearly faith requires an antcedent work of God, which is regeneration.
If that isn't eternally true, then God is liar.
Sorry but I am arguing bible, and you are arguing for a theology
which is why you do not deal with scripture
John 7:38–39 (KJV 1900) — 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Note out of belly indicates the Spirit would be in them.
Receiving the spirit refers to having the Spirit in them.
should receive: for the Holy Spirit was not yet given
In the future, they would receive the Spirit that is after Christ was glorified.
And just cite your theology while ignoring scripture
Reformedguy
Well-known member
How can they be? According to you they could not be born again. Christ says it is a must to see the kingdom of heaven. Are you not born again by the Spirit?
During the Old Testament era