The question which traps the Arminian

[Colossians]

And the question is:


"At the exact precise moment that one chooses for God, is he the old man or the new man?"

If you answer, "old man", explain why it is necessary for him to become the new man, when he can achieve the same result (faith in Christ) while he is the old man anyway.

If you answer, "new man", explain why you don't understand you are a Calvinist.

[NSMinistries]

And the question is:


"At the exact precise moment that one chooses for God, is he the old man or the new man?"

If you answer, "old man", explain why it is necessary for him to become the new man, when he can achieve the same result (faith in Christ) while he is the old man anyway.

If you answer, "new man", explain why you don't understand you are a Calvinist.well for one thing... I know plenty of people who would choose for God just for doing the right thing. But the difference is Choosing God not for Him.

[Arminian]

And the question is:


"At the exact precise moment that one chooses for God, is he the old man or the new man?"

If you answer, "old man", explain why it is necessary for him to become the new man, when he can achieve the same result (faith in Christ) while he is the old man anyway.

If you answer, "new man", explain why you don't understand you are a Calvinist.

The way you asked the question isn't asking what you are getting at, so let me address it more directly:

The person was the old man who became a new creation as a result of believing. Why do I say that? Among other things, because Paul says that everyone prior to Christ lived in the old Adam. That includes all who believed prior to Christ. There's NO exception. Hence Romans 5:12-21. Those who believe, now that Christ has arrived, are in the Second Adam -- they are a new creation.

On other words, if life in Christ is merely a continuation of a state of affairs that was possible for believers who preceded Christ, then what's new about it other than a more detailed explanation of the facts?

Your question is only a "trap" if we take away the eschatological meaning Paul gave it and redefine it according to your metaphysics.

I call this movement the Informed movement. So now on to Paul's use of "life/death," "obedience/disobedience," "slavery/freedom"! Should be interesing.

[Tercel]

"At the exact precise moment that one chooses for God, is he the old man or the new man?"The Old man.

"The Old Man" is where we are living according to our bodily desires. "The New Man" is where we are living according to virtue. By following Christ's example we can see and learn virtue. So the decision to stop being unvirtuous and follow Christ's example clearly comes when we are the Old Man, and by following Christ we learn to be the New Man.

If you answer, "old man", explain why it is necessary for him to become the new man, when he can achieve the same result (faith in Christ) while he is the old man anyway.Faith in Christ is not the goal, it's the means to the goal of virtue.

[Arminian]

For those of you who are students, I highly recommend Fee's Empowering Presence with regard to this topic. Specifically, his comments on Romans and Galatians. I was reading him, again, this week and was quite impressed, as usual. I'd tweak it a bit, but he still gets a "WOW" from me.

Anyhow, that material will most certainly be addressed in the essay portion of the FINAL EXAM!! Consider yourself warned. :glare:

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

I have it and I'm ready.

[Arminian]

I have it and I'm ready.

You do!??! You rock! I'm useless to you now.

The essay will involve his description of "life," "death" and "flesh."

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

I love Fee, he's one of my favorites. Was he one of your teachers?

[Colossians]

Arminian,

The person was the old man who became a new creation as a result of believing.
We already know this. Now answer the question as asked.

[Colossians]

Tercel,

the decision to stop being unvirtuous and follow Christ's example clearly comes when we are the Old Man
So the old man makes a virtuous decision to follow Christ? If he started making virtuous decisions as the old man, there is no reason why he can't continue doing so as the old man.
So you are contradicting yourself.


Faith in Christ is not the goal, it's the means to the goal of virtue.
False dichotomy. Faith is itself a virtue, and in fact is the only virtue a Christian has, which is why it is his only justification.

[Tercel]

So the old man makes a virtuous decision to follow Christ? If he started making virtuous decisions as the old man, there is no reason why he can't continue doing so as the old man.But that is nonsense.
If an alcoholic makes a decision to stop being an alcoholic it's nonsense to say (to quote you) "If he started making decisions not to drink when he was an alcoholic, there is no reason why he can't continue doing so as the alcoholic." If he stops drinking, then by definition he is no longer an alcoholic in slavery to his addiction, and if we learn virtue from Christ then by definition we are no longer the old man in slavery to sin. The two cases are exactly analogous and so your comment makes no sense.

Faith is itself a virtue, and in fact is the only virtue a Christian has, which is why it is his only justification.Your theology is wrong.

[Colossians]

Tercel,


But that is nonsense.
If an alcoholic makes a decision to stop being an alcoholic it's nonsense to say (to quote you) "If he started making decisions not to drink when he was an alcoholic, there is no reason why he can't continue doing so as the alcoholic."
Your analogy presumes your theology; it does not answer the question.
I can simply ask you: “at the exact precise moment he decided to not be an alcoholic, was he an alcoholic or a non-alcoholic?
You have simply begged the question. You need to understand that there is state, and manifestation of state.
The question speaks of state before God (the positional aspect). Don’t try to muddy it with the progressive aspect.


Faith is itself a virtue, and in fact is the only virtue a Christian has, which is why it is his only justification.
Your theology is wrong.
So your theology says faith isn’t a virtue. Goodness me.
You must be one of those Christians who is under the law, trying to please God every day by doing things not in faith.

[Arminian]

Arminian,

The person was the old man who became a new creation as a result of believing.
We already know this. Now answer the question as asked.


I did answer it as asked. In fact I cleared up your amphiboly. That is, unless you intended to play word games. In which case you have my answer, the Biblical answer.

So, I'm glad you "already know this." I hope not to see you refute it since you already know it, although it looks like you are starting to, above. Note that my reply employs the word "result" and it plays a role in the sentence, giving it a particular meaning, which, I guess, you "already know"??

I love Fee, he's one of my favorites. Was he one of your teachers?

No. But I wish he had been.

[Tercel]

Your analogy presumes your theology; it does not answer the question.Yes it does, and it explains why your argument was invalid.

I can simply ask you: “at the exact precise moment he decided to not be an alcoholic, was he an alcoholic or a non-alcoholic?"And the answer, of course, to that rather mundane question is: "when he's an alcoholic". It's fairly obvious.

So your theology says faith isn’t a virtue. Goodness me.
You must be one of those Christians who is under the law, trying to please God every day by doing things not in faith. :lol: :ahem:

[Colossians]

Tercel,

I can simply ask you: “at the exact precise moment he decided to not be an alcoholic, was he an alcoholic or a non-alcoholic?"
And the answer is, of course, "when he's an alcoholic". It's fairly obvious.
So He's an alcoholic who is not an alcoholic. Eh......
I think you need to think this one through a bit more.


Getting back to the actual question, considering that faith in Christ is the greatest act anyone will ever experience, if the old man can achieve such act in his life, how is it he needs the new man to achieve lesser acts?
How can a stream rise above its source?

[Arminian]

Getting back to the actual question, considering that faith in Christ is the greatest act anyone will ever experience, if the old man can achieve such act in his life, how is it he needs the new man to achieve lesser acts?

Life in the Spirit is the greater life. It is now possible because Christ has come. Your comments beg the question. We can clear this up by reading Paul, instead of philosophy-driven conclusions (Gal 3):

21 For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law

1) Did Paul say that those who believed in God prior to Christ go to hell? No.

2) Was there life for those believers prior to Christ's arrival? No (vv. 21-22).

3) What was it like before "this faith came" (v.23)? They were prisoners.

4) Why did God do this? That the law might lead those loyal believers to Christ, and at that time they would receive the "promised" life. They would be a new creation; they would have LIFE.

14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith ---->we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

[Colossians]

Life in the Spirit is the greater life.
False dichotomy. Life in the Spirit is prepetually in and because of faith, not separate to it.
The faith we come to Christ with, is the same faith we continue in Him with for the rest of our lives. Such faith is the foundation stone for all that is righteousness in Him, and all spirtual life.

Accordingly, you must show us why the old man, who achieves this personal faith in Christ, needs to become the New Man.
Moroever, you need to tell us how long after the old man expresses faith in Christ is it that he becomes the new man... (a few seconds, instantly?). If it is instantly, then how is it that he was the old man at the exact point he expressed faith in Christ?

[Arminian]

Life in the Spirit is the greater life.
False dichotomy. Life in the Spirit is prepetually in and because of faith, not separate to it.
The faith we come to Christ with, is the same faith we continue in Him with for the rest of our lives. Such faith is the foundation stone for all that is righteousness in Him, and all spirtual life.

Accordingly, you must show us why the old man, who achieves this personal faith in Christ, needs to become the New Man.
Moroever, you need to tell us how long after the old man expresses faith in Christ is it that he becomes the new man... (a few seconds, instantly?). If it is instantly, then how is it that he was the old man at the exact point he expressed faith in Christ?

I answered that very challenge in my last post. The old man was ALWAYS able to have faith. In fact, generation after generation existed having faith and waiting for the day when Christ would come and bring life. Now that Christ has come, those men along with us receive the Spirit "by faith," and not before. This ability to believe existed loooong before there was any "new man."

1) Were people capable of having faith prior to Christ's arrival?

2) Did those believers under the law have life prior to Christ?

3) The Spirit makes the old man and "new man." The Sprit is received "by faith" (3:14).

14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith ---->we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Look closely:

so that by faith ---->we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Even closer:

....receive the promise of the Spirit.

Closer still:

by faith ----> the Spirit.

[Colossians]

Arminian,

The old man was ALWAYS able to have faith.
There is no such thing as being able to have faith. You either have it or you don’t.

You have not responded to the question as to how long after he had faith in Christ, did he become the new man? A few seconds later, or at the same time exactly?
If you say “exactly the same time”, then how can you say he was the old man?

[Arminian]

Arminian,

The old man was ALWAYS able to have faith.
There is no such thing as being able to have faith. You either have it or you don’t.

You have not responded to the question as to how long after he had faith in Christ, did he become the new man? A few seconds later, or at the same time exactly?
If you say “exactly the same time”, then how can you say he was the old man?

I see no record of anyone holding a stopwatch. There are a number of instances when the HS came upon people a while after they believed. However, it's clear from the description that faith is logically and temporally prior.

And, yes, there are recorded instances of people being able to have faith, yet not exercising it. Yesterday I quoted to you Jesus saying exactly that. Your posturing doesn't negate it.

Besides Paul's repeated, clear descriptions throughout his corpus, my trump card is the fact that Paul clearly says that the believers prior to Christ did not have life, the Spirit -- they were not "new creations." Heck, how much clearer can it get? They lived their ENTIRE LIVES as prisoners of the law, waiting for life to come. And you have to ask me about the order of events?!

What's the title of this thread? :hehe:

[Colossians]

Arminian,

I see no record of anyone holding a stopwatch.
This is a cop out. You have said that there is a time delay.

You are thereby required to unequivocally state that there is a point in time when the old man has faith in Christ but is not born again.

[Kevin Wayne]

Of course, since salvation is a process and not only a one time event, this whole discussion is really moot.

[Colossians]

Of course, since salvation is a process
We are not talking about salvation, but being born again. Nice try to move context though.

So you may continue to try to answer the question.
Again, does time transpire between the exact moment your old man chooses for God and his becoming the New Man? Is there time in between the two events?

PS: It doesn't really bother me that you try to suppress the fact that you can't answer the question you know is there. Your life is not mine, and we will probably never meet.
What does bother me, however, is that it doesn't bother you!

[Arminian]

Arminian,

I see no record of anyone holding a stopwatch.
This is a cop out. You have said that there is a time delay.

You are thereby required to unequivocally state that there is a point in time when the old man has faith in Christ but is not born again.

Once again, it has always been so. Entire generations believed and were not born again. It's undeniable. Other than that, you're being silly. What order did Paul say things happen in? You mean you're not happy with what Paul said? Why can't you address what Paul said? I think we all know the answer to that.

Btw, what's the title of this thread? :hehe:

[yxboom]

I answered that very challenge in my last post. The old man was ALWAYS able to have faith. In fact, generation after generation existed having faith and waiting for the day when Christ would come and bring life. Now that Christ has come, those men along with us receive the Spirit "by faith," and not before. This ability to believe existed loooong before there was any "new man."

1) Were people capable of having faith prior to Christ's arrival?

2) Did those believers under the law have life prior to Christ?

3) The Spirit makes the old man and "new man." The Sprit is received "by faith" (3:14).

14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith ---->we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Look closely:

so that by faith ---->we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Even closer:

....receive the promise of the Spirit.

Closer still:

by faith ----> the Spirit.

Of course, since salvation is a process
We are not talking about salvation, but being born again. Nice try to move context though.

So you may continue to try to answer the question.
Again, does time transpire between the exact moment your old man chooses for God and his becoming the New Man? Is there time in between the two events?

PS: It doesn't really bother me that you try to suppress the fact that you can't answer the question you know is there. Your life is not mine, and we will probably never meet.
What does bother me, however, is that it doesn't bother you!

/me thinks not close enough

[Arminian]

Three days after Paul believed, he received the Holy Spirit:

Acts 9:

17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

Acts 8:

14When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

What's the title of this tread? :hehe:

[Kevin Wayne]

Of course, since salvation is a process
We are not talking about salvation, but being born again. Nice try to move context though.

So you may continue to try to answer the question.
Again, does time transpire between the exact moment your old man chooses for God and his becoming the New Man? Is there time in between the two events?

PS: It doesn't really bother me that you try to suppress the fact that you can't answer the question you know is there. Your life is not mine, and we will probably never meet.
What does bother me, however, is that it doesn't bother you!



Once again, the sideline swipe rears its ugly head, that Arminans arent' saved.


But fyi, if I believe "Salvation" is a process and "being born again" is also a process and part of the larger process of Salvation, then the distinction you try to draw just isn't there. ;-)

[Colossians]

Arminian,

You are thereby required to unequivocally state that there is a point in time when the old man has faith in Christ but is not born again.
Once again, it has always been so. Entire generations believed and were not born again. It's undeniable.
We have finally located the foundational error in your understanding.
The receiving of the Holy Spirit spoken of in Acts (eg your reference to Acts 8) is not being born again, but being baptised in the Spirit for power of witness.

To be born of the Spirit is not the same thing as to be baptised in the Spirit.
All who had faith in Christ from Abraham, Moses, David, Esther, Job, right up to Simeon the prophet, Anna the prophetess, John the Baptist, Mary and Joseph, were born of the Spirit. John the Baptist was even born again before He was born, kicking for joy in Elizabeth's womb at the approach of Mary.

The penitent thief on the cross was born again, as was Nichodemus by the time Christ went to the cross. Any person today who expresses the same faith in Christ that John Baptist or Esther or Nichodemus did, is born of the Spirit, for "faith is the evidence of things unseen".

Your misnderstanding centres on the term "born of the spirit" which Jesus said to Nichodeums was possible before Pentecost. To be "born of the spirit" is to be birthed by the Spirit, to proceed out of the Spirit, just like a baby who is born. It is not to have the Spirit fall upon you, which is the baptism in the Spirit, and which occured in Acts 8 by the laying on of hands of Peter and John upon the thousands already baptised and born again under Philip's evangelical ministry at Samaria.

All who have faith in Christ are born of the Spirit: this is why no-one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Spirit. (1 Cor 12:3).

The Baptism in the Spirit does not change or add to one's salvific status: having faith in Christ you are born of the Spirit and completely married to Christ, being joined to the Lord as one spirit.
The Baptism in the Spirit simply provides a power dimension for a born again person to more specifically equip him for warfare in the demonic realm.
This does not occur with every born again person.

Back to the thread topic then, it is not possible for one to have faith in Christ while he is still the old man.

[Arminian]

Arminian,

You are thereby required to unequivocally state that there is a point in time when the old man has faith in Christ but is not born again.
Once again, it has always been so. Entire generations believed and were not born again. It's undeniable.
We have finally located the foundational error in your understanding.
The receiving of the Holy Spirit spoken of in Acts (eg your reference to Acts 8) is not being born again, but being baptised in the Spirit for power of witness.

No, it clearly says they had not received the Holy Spirit. Just like all beleivers prior to Christ.

To be born of the Spirit is not the same thing as to be baptised in the Spirit.
All who had faith in Christ from Abraham, Moses, David, Esther, Job, right up to Simeon the prophet, Anna the prophetess, John the Baptist, Mary and Joseph, were born of the Spirit.

No they weren't. Paul clearly says so in Galatians 3. No wonder you won't address Galatians 3. Sheesh!

The penitent thief on the cross was born again, as was Nichodemus by the time Christ went to the cross.

Wow, he was born again before he met Christ! We'll have to take your word for it, I guess. :lol: I guess your mere assertion is proof enough. You're running circles aroun me.

Your misnderstanding centres on the term "born of the spirit" which Jesus said to Nichodeums was possible before Pentecost. To be "born of the spirit" is to be birthed by the Spirit, to proceed out of the Spirit, just like a baby who is born.

Good so far, except Jesus didn't say it was possible before Pentecost.

It is not to have the Spirit fall upon you, which is the baptism in the Spirit, and which occured in Acts 8 by the laying on of hands of Peter and John upon the thousands already baptised and born again under Philip's evangelical ministry at Samaria.

You better read Acts 8 again, right after you read Galatians. (Btw, we're going to go all through Paul's corpus, so keep your Bible handy.)

The Baptism in the Spirit does not change or add to one's salvific status: having faith in Christ you are born of the Spirit and completely married to Christ, being joined to the Lord as one spirit.
The Baptism in the Spirit simply provides a power dimension for a born again person to more specifically equip him for warfare in the demonic realm.
This does not occur with every born again person.

Nice distraction. Now back to the text.

Back to the thread topic then, it is not possible for one to have faith in Christ while he is still the old man.

Sure it is. I've proved it. Paul proved it. We've all seen it, and will wait for you to address it.

[Colossians]

Arminian,

Your foundational understanding is faulty.
It is not possible to say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Spirit.All who have faith in Christ are saying Jesus is Lord. Therefore they are born of the Spirit.

John Baptist was born of the Spirit in the womb.
David said "take not thy Holy Spirit from me".

Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
The very thing faith does is reveal the kingdom of God.
All who have faith in Christ have seen the kingdom of God, and are thus born again.

When Philip baptised the Samaritans, he was not baptising unregenerate people.

[Arminian]

Arminian,

Your foundational understanding is faulty.
It is not possible to say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Spirit.All who have faith in Christ are saying Jesus is Lord. Therefore they are born of the Spirit.

As I demonstrated yesterday (with no rebuttal from you), Jesus clearly taught that not everyone capable of believing would believe. Since I agree that no one could believe without the influence of the HS (I've been saying so for days), I wouldn't disagree that it's only possible to do so by the HS. But not everyone influenced by the HS does believe, as I showed yesterday. This influence of the HS is not the same as being born again, which can't happen until after one believes, as Paul clearly showed us.

Nonetheless, Paul isn't addressing this issue. In the context of orderly worship, some behaviors are from the Spirit and others are not. The Corinthians could say that "Christ is cursed," but that wouldn't be from the Spirit. Truly inspired speech says the "Jesus is Lord," so all speech and behavior must be measured against this confession. With this in view, the Corinthians need to use their gifts in an orderly way -- one which honors Christ as Lord and does not bring honor to the bearer of the gift.

John Baptist was born of the Spirit in the womb.

No, you're saying much more than Scripture allows. This inference of yours doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but the point of the narrative is to present a special sign, which serves to authenticate the relationships between the infants. John will testify that Jesus is the Christ. This doesn't offer a prescriptive paradigm, any more than Balaam's ass speaking.

Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
The very thing faith does is reveal the kingdom of God.
All who have faith in Christ have seen the kingdom of God, and are thus born again.

You can find my response to this line of thinking here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1047555

Your position can't be defended.

David said "take not thy Holy Spirit from me".

Of course he did.The Spirit came upon people for special acts -- for example, prophecy. Eventually the Spirit left them, so David asks that God not allow it. If you want to read a Calvinist making my same point, Morris would be a good start.

When Philip baptised the Samaritans, he was not baptising unregenerate people.

What does the text say? Had they received the Holy Spirit according to the text or not? Just answer the question.

Btw, what does Galatians 3 say about this?


No time to finish editing...

[Kevin Wayne]

Arminian,

John Baptist was born of the Spirit in the womb.
David said "take not thy Holy Spirit from me".




The parallel that Paul makes to being "reborn" is our having been crucified and risen with Christ. (Col 3:1-3) JBap & David were BC, and I'm not aware of any NT argument that the death of Christ had retroactive benefit, at least not to the point you are trying to make.

[Colossians]

Arminian,


Jesus clearly taught that not everyone capable of believing would believe.
Jesus didn't hold to recursive positions, so He couldn't have.
In order to choose to believe, you have to believe what you are choosing to believe. Your position is recursive, and therefore invalid.




Since I agree that no one could believe without the influence of the HS (I've been saying so for days), I wouldn't disagree that it's only possible to do so by the HS.
Which means that all who believe have the Holy Spirit. Right back to Seth.




But not everyone influenced by the HS does believe, as I showed yesterday.
So what? All who do believe do so by the Holy Spirit.




Nonetheless, Paul isn't addressing this issue. In the context of orderly worship, some behaviors are from the Spirit and others are not. The Corinthians could say that "Christ is cursed," but that wouldn't be from the Spirit. Truly inspired speech says the "Jesus is Lord," so all speech and behavior must be measured against this confession. With this in view, the Corinthians need to use their gifts in an orderly way -- one which honors Christ as Lord and does not bring honor to the bearer of the gift.
The diminitive aspect of specific post-regeneration behaviour is not at the expense of the foundation thereof: salvation itself.
If no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Spirit, then the first and foremost application of this is salvation. You are simply trying to over-constrain it to post-regeneration behaviour in order to create a gap where you can assert that one can have faith in Christ without being born again.




John Baptist was born of the Spirit in the womb.
No, you're saying much more than Scripture allows.
You need a new bible.
“He will be filled with the Spirit even from His mother’s womb”. Flashing neon lights couldn’t say it any better.




Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
The very thing faith does is reveal the kingdom of God.
All who have faith in Christ have seen the kingdom of God, and are thus born again.
You can find my response to this line of thinking here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/s...t.php?p=1047555
No thanks. Post it here. I’ll be all eyes and ears looking for your creativity.




David said "take not thy Holy Spirit from me".
Of course he did.The Spirit came upon people for special acts -- for example, prophecy.
The standard illogical anti-pentecostal innovation..
If it was an intermittent coming upon of David by the Holy Spirit, he would be quite used to His coming and going, and expect Him to depart after a while as per usual. He would not request that He remain.
There is no point in writing this request in the Psalms for our edification if it spoke not of salvific considerations. Such is attested to by the very next sentence: “restore to me the joy of Thy salvation”: David was speaking of the Holy Spirit within him, Who is present in all who believe.

Thus Paul says that the hearing of faith resulted in the receiving of the Spirit (Gal 3). The hearing of faith has always been what it is, and always resulted in the same thing: one’s being born again unto salvation via the receiving of the Trinity of God, necessarily including the Holy Spirit.
The “for the Spirit was not yet given” we see in the NT, refers to what Jesus spoke about to His disciples: a coming upon them of power from on high: the particular solo ministry/office of the Holy Ghost unto power of witness and supernatural signs. Not salvation.
Jesus never told the disciples they had to be born again, nor Mary Magdelene, nor His mother, nor John the Baptist. The reason? You guess.






When Philip baptised the Samaritans, he was not baptising unregenerate people.
What does the text say? Had they received the Holy Spirit according to the text or not? Just answer the question.
Rather, you go back to fundamentals. What does baptism symbolise? Death and resurrection in Christ. This is the interpretive constraint, not your “I don’t like that conclusion so I’ll make up my own anti-charismatic one” method.
Philip would not baptise a non-regenerate person, for that would misrepresent their state in God. The only conclusion then?…. The receiving of the Spirit in Acts 8 at the laying on of hands by John and Peter was not for regeneration, but power. And this is why Simon the Sourcerer was so impressed with what subsequently transpired.







You are up a creek without a pole, and this because you are trying to make scripture fit your anti-charismatic ideas, resulting in ludicrous notions to the effect that someone like King David, a man after God’s own heart and therefore one who had a renewed heart, a man who wrote the Psalms which detail some of the most beautiful worship in the entire bible, a man after whom the Throne of Christ is named, was not born again.
Well well well, and goodness me too. If King David was not born again, then none of us are.

[Colossians]

and I'm not aware of any NT argument that the death of Christ had retroactive benefit,
"The lamb slain from the foundation of the world". Now you are aware.

Don't you know it is not possible to go to heaven unless you have been born again while a human being on earth? Do you think Jesus was just kidding with Nichodemus?

[Kevin Wayne]

and I'm not aware of any NT argument that the death of Christ had retroactive benefit,
"The lamb slain from the foundation of the world". Now you are aware.

Don't you know it is not possible to go to heaven unless you have been born again while a human being on earth? Do you think Jesus was just kidding with Nichodemus?


Then find your exmple of where the new birth is said of anyone prior to the cross. Or where the historcial act of having been crucified and risen with Christ is said of them. I believe Jesus was speaking the terms and conditions of the emerging Kingdom. In fact, no human had gone to heaven prior to Christ (John 3:13).


I do agree that forseeing the Messiah as did most pious children of Abraham, will get you into heaven. Acts 10:35, as Ormly pointed out on another thread, would give us that indication. Cetainly the Lamb being slain from before the foundation of the world would support this also.

[Kevin Wayne]

Jesus never told the disciples they had to be born again, nor Mary Magdelene, nor His mother, nor John the Baptist. The reason? You guess.



They were already following Christ, which means they had joined into the stream of the salvation process, or had begun their citizenship transference to The Kingdom. God is able to ascribe justification by faith to those who are "toward" as opposed to "untoward" (that would take care of your objection also for David, etc). Nicodemus had not yet left all to follow him. The ones who had followed Christ would be there for the day of Pentecost, when the conditions of the new Kingdom were given: ""Repent," Peter said to them, "and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38

[Arminian]

Arminian,


Jesus clearly taught that not everyone capable of believing would believe.
Jesus didn't hold to recursive positions, so He couldn't have.
In order to choose to believe, you have to believe what you are choosing to believe. Your position is recursive, and therefore invalid.

Not only did you not address what Jesus said (he said they would have believed), but you beg the question. In Greek the word means to believe or trust. One does not trust before he trusts, to be sure. One must decide whether or not to do so. We're not talking about mere mental assent.


Since I agree that no one could believe without the influence of the HS (I've been saying so for days), I wouldn't disagree that it's only possible to do so by the HS.
Which means that all who believe have the Holy Spirit. Right back to Seth.

Wow, so you admit that you disagree with what Paul says throughout his corpus. No one was waiting for Christ to bring life because it was already here? When are you going to address Galatians 3? Then we'll move on to the rest of Paul's comments on the topic.


But not everyone influenced by the HS does believe, as I showed yesterday.
So what? All who do believe do so by the Holy Spirit.

Finally! I rest my case.

Nonetheless, Paul isn't addressing this issue. In the context of orderly worship, some behaviors are from the Spirit and others are not. The Corinthians could say that "Christ is cursed," but that wouldn't be from the Spirit. Truly inspired speech says the "Jesus is Lord," so all speech and behavior must be measured against this confession. With this in view, the Corinthians need to use their gifts in an orderly way -- one which honors Christ as Lord and does not bring honor to the bearer of the gift.
The diminitive aspect of specific post-regeneration behaviour is not at the expense of the foundation thereof: salvation itself.
If no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Spirit, then the first and foremost application of this is salvation. You are simply trying to over-constrain it to post-regeneration behaviour in order to create a gap where you can assert that one can have faith in Christ without being born again.

I already addressed your misunderstanding, and showed that it made no difference either way. Either way I would be right. However, Paul is telling them to test the spirits, so this is a different topic.

John Baptist was born of the Spirit in the womb.
No, you're saying much more than Scripture allows.
You need a new bible.
“He will be filled with the Spirit even from His mother’s womb”. Flashing neon lights couldn’t say it any better.

As I said, this is no challenge either way, since "it isn't a prescriptive paradigm" (<--my words). The Greek can be translated "still of" or "even from." Since I have no objection to an exception to the rule, either interpretation functions fine with my explanation.

Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
The very thing faith does is reveal the kingdom of God.
All who have faith in Christ have seen the kingdom of God, and are thus born again.
You can find my response to this line of thinking here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/s...t.php?p=1047555
No thanks. Post it here. I’ll be all eyes and ears looking for your creativity.

We've been asked not to repost entire articles if a link can be provided. I understand that you might not want to look at it, because, after all, this is a folder where you are supposed to ask a question I can't answer. My answer would, therefore, defeat the purpose of this folder.

But that's fine, because I doubt you really want to learn anything.

David said "take not thy Holy Spirit from me".
Of course he did.The Spirit came upon people for special acts -- for example, prophecy.
The standard illogical anti-pentecostal innovation..

:lol:

If it was an intermittent coming upon of David by the Holy Spirit, he would be quite used to His coming and going, and expect Him to depart after a while as per usual.

Really. I guess in such a circumstance he'd be really tired of the HS and wish He would go away? I can just imagine David saying, "The Holy Spirit? Been there; done that."

He would not request that He remain.

:lol:

So as alternative to my explanation, you are claiming that David is asking God not to take away something that God doesn't take away? And you think it's silly to suggest that David would pray that God not take away something that God does take away?

Thus Paul says that the hearing of faith resulted in the receiving of the Spirit (Gal 3). The hearing of faith has always been what it is, and always resulted in the same thing: one’s being born again unto salvation via the receiving of the Trinity of God, necessarily including the Holy Spirit.
The “for the Spirit was not yet given” we see in the NT, refers to what Jesus spoke about to His disciples: a coming upon them of power from on high: the particular solo ministry/office of the Holy Ghost unto power of witness and supernatural signs. Not salvation.
Jesus never told the disciples they had to be born again, nor Mary Magdelene, nor His mother, nor John the Baptist. The reason? You guess.

First of all, I didn't say they weren't going to heaven. I said that they did not have life, the Spirit -- they were not new creations. How did they get life if it wasn't available until Christ came? Galatians says that believers were waiting for Christ to come and bring it. How did they beat the system? Or was Paul confused?

When Philip baptised the Samaritans, he was not baptising unregenerate people.
What does the text say? Had they received the Holy Spirit according to the text or not? Just answer the question.
Rather, you go back to fundamentals. What does baptism symbolise? Death and resurrection in Christ. This is the interpretive constraint, not your “I don’t like that conclusion so I’ll make up my own anti-charismatic one” method.
Philip would not baptise a non-regenerate person, for that would misrepresent their state in God. The only conclusion then?…. The receiving of the Spirit in Acts 8 at the laying on of hands by John and Peter was not for regeneration, but power. And this is why Simon the Sourcerer was so impressed with what subsequently transpired.

It says they had not "received" the Holy Spirit. It doesn't say that they didn't get an extra dose of it. Philip was baptizing believers, and that's all he was supposed to do.

[Ormly]

and I'm not aware of any NT argument that the death of Christ had retroactive benefit,
"The lamb slain from the foundation of the world". Now you are aware.

Don't you know it is not possible to go to heaven unless you have been born again while a human being on earth? Do you think Jesus was just kidding with Nichodemus?

You just expressed your lack of knowledge about Heaven and the Kingdom of God. Seems you are trapped by your own non-knowledge.

[themuzicman]

And the question is:


"At the exact precise moment that one chooses for God, is he the old man or the new man?"

If you answer, "old man", explain why it is necessary for him to become the new man, when he can achieve the same result (faith in Christ) while he is the old man anyway.

If you answer, "new man", explain why you don't understand you are a Calvinist.

Your inability to grasp your own presuppositions regarding theology, especially those that are unbiblical, is amazing.

I might as well ask you how God can have an individual list of all the elect at creation if the future isn't settled, and a free will decision is required to receive salvation.

And you wouldn't be able to answer the question.

Michael

[Kevin Wayne]

Michael, throw in "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" or "did adam have a belly button" on top of all of that... :wink:

[Arminian]

Your inability to grasp your own presuppositions regarding theology, especially those that are unbiblical, is amazing.


Which is why I was reluctant to explain that the MT (the Hebrew OT) use of "Holy Spirit" is anachronistic to the NT reader. But to be correct I need to explain it, and "backfill" a bit. In other words, the words don't have the same meaning (they are not "loaded" the same). Of course, any commentary worth its weight (pretty much every one I own) can be found to make the same point, regardless of the theological disposition of the author.

[Tercel]

I can simply ask you: “at the exact precise moment he decided to not be an alcoholic, was he an alcoholic or a non-alcoholic?"
And the answer is, of course, "when he's an alcoholic". It's fairly obvious.
So He's an alcoholic who is not an alcoholic. Eh......
I think you need to think this one through a bit more.I think you need to actually start thinking about it. An alcoholic doesn't instantaneously become a non-alcoholic simply at the moment he decides to. An alcoholic can decide to do something about his addiction and over time work to break that addiction and free himself from slavery to it.

It is the same with the Old and New man. When we are the Old Man, we can decide that we do not want to be this way and want to change. At that moment we are still the Old man. But over time, and through effort, we put off the Old man and become the New man. We become free from the slavery to sin over time. We weren't instantaneously transformed into the New man at the moment we decided we wanted to stop being the Old man.

Getting back to the actual question, considering that faith in Christ is the greatest act anyone will ever experience,Faithfulness like Christ's is not a one-off act, any more than being a non-alcoholic is a one-off act. Just like the alcoholic can make a decision that he wants to stop being an alcoholic, and through time and effort and help he can acheive this, so we when we are living by the ways of the world can decide that we want to stop living like this and follow instead the example of Christ, and through time and effort and help we can acheive this.

if the old man can achieve such act in his life, how is it he needs the new man to achieve lesser acts?
How can a stream rise above its source?Can you why your question is wrong? It's like asking "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" because you assume in the question something that is false.
Once the person acheives faithfulness like Christ's then they have become the New man. Being the New man is the same thing as living like Christ, so trying to work toward having faithfulness like Christ's was the goal and the reason why they wanted to try to imitate Christ.


I think you misunderstand the old-man and new-man language. Paul is using the popular view of the soul. The ancients saw the soul as divided into three parts: Appetites, Spirit, and Mind.

The Flesh/Appetites are the bodies natural desires (eg for food, sex etc). These are not inherently bad. A person needs food to survive. But if the desire for food controls ones soul then one is a glutton.

The Spirit is the part of the soul that desires virtue, and godliness. It is the part that desires honour, goodness, and the intangible virtues.

The Mind is the rational part of the soul which decides what to do. It is the part of the soul that controls whether to put the Flesh or the Spirit in charge at any given time.

This was a very famous tri-partite view of the soul given by Plato in the 4th century BC and subsequently became popular thoughout the Greek-speaking world. The Flesh and Spirit parts are opposed to each other (in their desired behavour) and it is ultimately up the the person themselves in their mind to decide which part to put into control. The good and noble person lives by their Spirit rather than their Desires, while the glutton and fornicator lives by the Flesh rather than their Spirit.

Paul takes these ideas as a basic background to his writing, and uses them to express his theological ideas. Consider:
"Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the Flesh. For what the Flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the Flesh... Now the works of the Flesh are obvious: [long list of bad things that result from following the desires of the body in excess] By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is: [long list of good things that result from following the desires of the noble part of the soul]." (Gal 5:16-23)

In his view the "Old man" is the man who lives by the desires of the flesh. While the "New man" is the man who lives by the desires of the spirit. The first puts the Appetites/Flesh part of his soul in charge, and the second puts the Spirit part of his soul in charge. Thus we ought to "repent"/"renew our mind"/"change our mind" - decide in the Mind part of our soul to put the Spirit part of our soul in charge rather than the Flesh part.

Using the same ideas:
"us, who walk not according to the Flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the Flesh set their Minds on the things of the Flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their Minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the Mind on the Flesh is death, but to set the Mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For this reason the Mind that is set on the Flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law—indeed it cannot, and those who are in the Flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the Flesh; you are in the Spirit," (Rom 8:4-9)
Paul links this in with what Christ has done for us, and how in living by the Spirit, we have the Holy Spirit dwelling in us.

[Colossians]

Arminian,


One does not trust before he trusts, to be sure. One must decide whether or not to do so.
Once again, one cannot decide to believe unless he believes what he decides to believe. You don’t seem to understand your circularity.





so you admit that you disagree with what Paul says throughout his corpus. No one was waiting for Christ to bring life because it was already here?
Christ’s salvation is causal, not temporal. He was slain before the foundation of the world. Whether you are before Calvary, or after it, the faith and resulting regeneration is identical.
You seem to think there is some intrinsic value in living after the cross rather than before it as regards atonement. Why should there be?

When Galations speaks of our being shut up under the law until faith in Christ came, it speaks at the level of the individual: each and every believer was schoolmastered to Christ by the law which accused them in their hearts.
The teaching is “before faith came”, not “before Christ came”.






But not everyone influenced by the HS does believe, as I showed yesterday.
So what? All who do believe do so by the Holy Spirit.
Finally! I rest my case.
You don’t have a case to rest. One minute you tell us the OT saints did not have the Holy Spirit just because they believed, and here you say the opposite. You are confused.







Nonetheless, Paul isn't addressing this issue. In the context of orderly worship, some behaviors are from the Spirit and others are not. The Corinthians could say that "Christ is cursed," but that wouldn't be from the Spirit. Truly inspired speech says the "Jesus is Lord," so all speech and behavior must be measured against this confession. With this in view, the Corinthians need to use their gifts in an orderly way -- one which honors Christ as Lord and does not bring honor to the bearer of the gift.
The diminitive aspect of specific post-regeneration behaviour is not at the expense of the foundation thereof: salvation itself. If no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Spirit, then the first and foremost application of this is salvation. You are simply trying to over-constrain it to post-regeneration behaviour in order to create a gap where you can assert that one can have faith in Christ without being born again.
I already addressed your misunderstanding, and showed that it made no difference either way.
Of course it makes a difference. The faith that the OT saints had was one which declared the Lordship of Christ.





John Baptist was born of the Spirit in the womb.
No, you're saying much more than Scripture allows.
You need a new bible.
“He will be filled with the Spirit even from His mother’s womb”. Flashing neon lights couldn’t say it any better.
As I said, this is no challenge either way, since "it isn't a prescriptive paradigm" (<--my words). The Greek can be translated "still of" or "even from." Since I have no objection to an exception to the rule, either interpretation functions fine with my explanation.
Forget your paradigms and your Greek.
The receiving of the Spirit comes through the hearing of faith. John was no exception to this rule. John heard in the womb.





If it was an intermittent coming upon of David by the Holy Spirit, he would be quite used to His coming and going, and expect Him to depart after a while as per usual.
Really. I guess in such a circumstance he'd be really tired of the HS and wish He would go away?
So expecting Him to leave means he wished He’d go away? Eh……you ought to be a lawyer.
But rather, as I show below, David’s “take not thy Holy Spirit from me” spoke of salvation, and not an intermittent coming upon of him by the Holy Spirit as was the case when prophets prophesied.






He would not request that He remain.
So as alternative to my explanation, you are claiming that David is asking God not to take away something that God doesn't take away?
I'm afraid love and salvation are a little less clinical and logic-based than you presume.
The Psalms are pitched at the level of intercession and grace, and accordingly we find double negatives which emphasise unmerited grace. Similarly, Jesus says “He who comes to me I will in no wise cast out”.
The double negative is one of the most effective tools of both prose and poetry to express the positive. So effective that it is not only used in God’s songs of Psalms, but the world’s songs also: (“please don’t take my sunshine away”, “how am I supposed to live without you” etc…)
Your hermeneutic is ‘boyish’. How does a woman often appeal for softeness from her husband? By logic?






And you think it's silly to suggest that David would pray that God not take away something that God does take away?
Did you ever see Isaiah or Jeremiah or Ezekiel or Daniel, being in such intellectual and natural state of mind that they asked God not to take away the Spirit when they prophesied or saw visions? Ezekiel even fell down as though he was dead.
Just what is it you imagine they were experiencing? A pleasant walk in the park? Something like having an ice-cream?

When the Spirit came upon prophets and kings (even the wicked king Saul who prophesied for 3 days in the Spirit even though on his way to kill David), there was no advance notice of what was coming. The Spirit came and went without notice. There was no discussion about it between the two parties.

David’s plea that God not take His Holy Spirit from him speaks of salvation and is couched in the very effective double-negative common to discourses of grace: it is given for the encouragement of the saints in Christ who are sometime beladen with sin and condemnation.
Here is the context which you so conveniently ignored:
“Create in me a clean heart oh God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy Holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation, and uphold me with Thy free Spirit” Ps 51: 10-12”
The context was His adultery with Bathsheba.






Thus Paul says that the hearing of faith resulted in the receiving of the Spirit (Gal 3). The hearing of faith has always been what it is, and always resulted in the same thing: one’s being born again unto salvation via the receiving of the Trinity of God, necessarily including the Holy Spirit.
The “for the Spirit was not yet given” we see in the NT, refers to what Jesus spoke about to His disciples: a coming upon them of power from on high: the particular solo ministry/office of the Holy Ghost unto power of witness and supernatural signs. Not salvation.
Jesus never told the disciples they had to be born again, nor Mary Magdelene, nor His mother, nor John the Baptist. The reason? You guess.
First of all, I didn't say they weren't going to heaven. I said that they did not have life, the Spirit -- they were not new creations. How did they get life if it wasn't available until Christ came? Galatians says that believers were waiting for Christ to come and bring it. How did they beat the system? Or was Paul confused?
You are confused; Paul wasn’t.
I almost have a heart-attack when I read things like “they were going to heaven, but they had no life”.

Poor Job: he had so little life that he said “I know my redeemer liveth”.
Poor Abraham: he had so little life that we who have life have it because we were in him.
Poor Mary and Joseph: if only they’d known they had no life.
Poor Enoch: he had so little life God couldn’t even wait for him to die, but took him directly.
Poor Elijah: he had so little life that God took him to heaven in a chariot.
Poor David: he had so little life that he wrote the Psalms, was a man after God’s own heart, has Christ's throne named after him, and declared the joy of his salvation.
Poor John Baptist: he had so little life that he gave his life for His Saviour.

But Mr Arminian here has life: he types on the internet.








When Philip baptised the Samaritans, he was not baptising unregenerate people.
What does the text say? Had they received the Holy Spirit according to the text or not? Just answer the question.
Rather, you go back to fundamentals. What does baptism symbolise? Death and resurrection in Christ. This is the interpretive constraint, not your “I don’t like that conclusion so I’ll make up my own anti-charismatic one” method.
Philip would not baptise a non-regenerate person, for that would misrepresent their state in God. The only conclusion then?…. The receiving of the Spirit in Acts 8 at the laying on of hands by John and Peter was not for regeneration, but power. And this is why Simon the Sourcerer was so impressed with what subsequently transpired.
It says they had not "received" the Holy Spirit.
In the sense that “He had as yet not fallen upon any of them”, which does not refer to salvation.
There are two workings of the Holy Spirit: regeneration, and power.
Acts 8 concerns both: regeneration through Philip's preaching, attested to by their being baptised, and power through the laying on of hands by Peter and John, attested to by Simon the Sourcerer's wonder at it.
Simon was put there by God as witness because of fellows like you who would come along and try to water down the power dimension of the Holy Ghost.




It doesn't say that they didn't get an extra dose of it. Philip was baptizing believers, and that's all he was supposed to do.
Rubbish. You are making your position unfalsifiable by inventing an non-existent middle ground.
Philip was baptizing them because they were regenerate. Thus: “For as many as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ”.






Unfortunately your knowledge in spiritual things does not equal the level of your confidence.

[Kevin Wayne]

Once again, one cannot decide to believe unless he believes what he decides to believe. You don’t seem to understand your circularity.





That's because you can't seem to break out of the mold of seeing salvation as a once time event instead of also as a process. Belief doesn't happen all at once, anymore than a woman gives birth all at once. Instead we are told:



The light will be with you only a little longer. Walk while you have the light, so that darkness doesn't overtake you. The one who walks in darkness doesn't know where he's going. While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become sons of light.




Condtional. A process. We respond to God's initiative.



Christ’s salvation is causal, not temporal. He was slain before the foundation of the world. Whether you are before Calvary, or after it, the faith and resulting regeneration is identical.
You seem to think there is some intrinsic value in living after the cross rather than before it as regards atonement. Why should there be?

When Galations speaks of our being shut up under the law until faith in Christ came, it speaks at the level of the individual: each and every believer was schoolmastered to Christ by the law which accused them in their hearts.
The teaching is “before faith came”, not “before Christ came”.



Read it again:


The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith.


Looks like he sees the Christ event as something which happened in time, at least as far as how he's explaining things in this context.



Of course it makes a difference. The faith that the OT saints had was one which declared the Lordship of Christ.


No, their faith declared the Lordship of YHWH. They didn't yet know who Christ was.



Forget your paradigms and your Greek.
The receiving of the Spirit comes through the hearing of faith. John was no exception to this rule. John heard in the womb.


I think this is where you need to concede that you may be over-reaching to make a point.



So expecting Him to leave means he wished He’d go away? Eh……you ought to be a lawyer.
But rather, as I show below, David’s “take not thy Holy Spirit from me” spoke of salvation, and not an intermittent coming upon of him by the Holy Spirit as was the case when prophets prophesied.


Is it just possible that the "salvation" David experienced was a foreshadow of our own, even though not the same thing? I think that's reasonable because he wouldn't have been said to be "crucified and risen with Christ". I don't think the "before the foundation of the world" thing adds to this discussion, really... Paul seems to speak of Christ as a benefit that we received that happened in time that Saints before us could only hope for. As I just demonstrated by my cite of Galatians, above.



So as alternative to my explanation, you are claiming that David is asking God not to take away something that God doesn't take away?
I'm afraid love and salvation are a little less clinical and logic-based than you presume. The Psalms are pitched at the level of intercession and grace, and accordingly we find double negatives which emphasize unmerited grace. Similarly, Jesus says “He who comes to me I will in no wise cast out”.


Personally, I don't see a linguistic "double negative here." I see a condition and a promise.


The double negative is one of the most effective tools of both prose and poetry to express the positive. So effective that it is not only used in God’s songs of Psalms, but the world’s songs also: (“please don’t take my sunshine away”, “how am I supposed to live without you” etc…)
Your hermeneutic is ‘boyish’. How does a woman often appeal for softness from her husband? By logic?


I think David was thinking more "Theo-logic-al" than you give him credit for:


:10 God, create a clean heart for me and renew a steadfast spirit within me. :11 Do not banish me from Your presence
or take Your Holy Spirit from me. :12 Restore the joy of Your salvation to me, and give me a willing spirit.


I think he's taking the idea of God casting him out a bit more seriously than you realize, and is asking for a "willing spirit" -once again we are back to process, condition & promise.


Did you ever see Isaiah or Jeremiah or Ezekiel or Daniel, being in such intellectual and natural state of mind that they asked God not to take away the Spirit when they prophesied or saw visions? Ezekiel even fell down as though he was dead. Just what is it you imagine they were experiencing? A pleasant walk in the park? Something like having an ice-cream?


I don't think you have a point here.



David’s plea that God not take His Holy Spirit from him speaks of salvation and is couched in the very effective double-negative common to discourses of grace: it is given for the encouragement of the saints in Christ who are sometime beladen with sin and condemnation.


Sure, but I also think we are shown the model of repentance as well.




You are confused; Paul wasn’t.
I almost have a heart-attack when I read things like “they were going to heaven, but they had no life”.

Poor Job: he had so little life that he said “I know my redeemer liveth”.
Poor Abraham: he had so little life that we who have life have it because we were in him.
Poor Mary and Joseph: if only they’d known they had no life.
Poor Enoch: he had so little life God couldn’t even wait for him to die, but took him directly.
Poor Elijah: he had so little life that God took him to heaven in a chariot.
Poor David: he had so little life that he wrote the Psalms, was a man after God’s own heart, has Christ's throne named after him, and declared the joy of his salvation.
Poor John Baptist: he had so little life that he gave his life for His Saviour.

But Mr Arminian here has life: he types on the internet.


Reductio ad absurdum. And I think my response in post #36 answers this objection quite well. Unless you think Peter was adding to Salvation with his conditions in Acts 2, we are seeing a clear delineation between how these things operate from OT to NT.

Stream of salvation. Process. Toward & untoward. It includes the Saints in the OT quite nicely.



There are two workings of the Holy Spirit: regeneration, and power.
Acts 8 concerns both: regeneration through Philip's preaching, attested to by their being baptised, and power through the laying on of hands by Peter and John, attested to by Simon the Sourcerer's wonder at it. Simon was put there by God as witness because of fellows like you who would come along and try to water down the power dimension of the Holy Ghost.


So then the Spirit does or doesn’t do different things in different contexts? Seems this is what you are arguing here. So what's the problem?



It doesn't say that they didn't get an extra dose of it. Philip was baptizing believers, and that's all he was supposed to do.
Rubbish. You are making your position unfalsifiable by inventing an non-existent middle ground.
Philip was baptizing them because they were regenerate. Thus: “For as many as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ”.


So everyone who goes and gets themselves dunked is saved?


And by the way- here’s a question for you: was Paul saved before his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus?

[Ormly]

That's because you can't seem to break out of the mold of seeing salvation as a once time event instead of also as a process. Belief doesn't happen all at once, anymore than a woman gives birth all at once. Instead we are told

You are confusing securing Heaven for yourself and becoming a son [discipleship]. For instance, how could an OT believer in God ever be a disciple of Christ?


The light will be with you only a little longer. Walk while you have the light, so that darkness doesn't overtake you. The one who walks in darkness doesn't know where he's going. While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become sons of light.

That you may is the operative here and is spoken to "pentecostal" people.



Condtional. A process. We respond to God's initiative.


As it speaks of sonship, you are correct but that is after one is already saved.


Read it again:


The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith.



Looks like he sees the Christ event as something which happened in time, at least as far as how he's explaining things in this context.


It did. Can that be denied?



No, their faith declared the Lordship of YHWH. They didn't yet know who Christ was.


Very true. [Romans 5.1]


Is it just possible that the "salvation" David experienced was a foreshadow of our own, even though not the same thing? I think that's reasonable because he wouldn't have been said to be "crucified and risen with Christ". I don't think the "before the foundation of the world" thing adds to this discussion, really... Paul seems to speak of Christ as a benefit that we received that happened in time that Saints before us could only hope for. As I just demonstrated by my cite of Galatians, above.

Everything David, Isaiah, Ezek, Jeremiah, et al, experienced was outside themselves.

And by the way- here’s a question for you: was Paul saved before his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus?

He was an elect scholar of the OT who didn't do his homework..

Orm

[Kevin Wayne]

You confusing securing Heaven for yourself and becoming a son [discipleship]. For instance, how could an OT believer in God ever be a disciple of Christ?


The light will be with you only a little longer. Walk while you have the light, so that darkness doesn't overtake you. The one who walks in darkness doesn't know where he's going. While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become sons of light.

That you may is the operative here and is spoken to "pentecostal" people.




As it speaks of sonship, you are correct but that is after one is already saved.


Read it again:


The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith.




It did. Can that be denied?




Very true. [Romans 5.1]



Everything David, Isaiah, Ezek, Jeremiah, et al, experienced was outside themselves.



He was an elect scholar of the OT who didn't do his homework..

Orm



I'm clueless as to what you are even arguing or why. No kidding.

[Ormly]

I'm clueless as to what you are even arguing or why. No kidding.

Retrace the posts of yours I'm responding to and tell me where I got you wrong based on what you are writing.

[FlimFlamboyant]

And the question is:

"At the exact precise moment that one chooses for God, is he the old man or the new man?"

If you answer, "old man", explain why it is necessary for him to become the new man, when he can achieve the same result (faith in Christ) while he is the old man anyway.

If you answer, "new man", explain why you don't understand you are a Calvinist.
I could do a word play on the title of this thread and simply declare "The question which the Bible does not directly answer". I think it's obvious enough that the new man does not exist in us until we believe; that is, faith is what activates the "crucifixion" of the old man; so it cannot be said that the new man makes this "choice".

Now I understand that, without the new man, we're left with only two options (that we as mere human beings are aware of); that being the old man, and God himself. Naturally, the Calvinist will contend that the choice is God's, as the old man couldn't possibly believe. This idea stems from the doctrine of total depravity, which is really the hidden root of this entire issue.

Is the old man corrupt? You bet. Is he therefore incapable of taking God at his word and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ? This is considered a no-brainer to the Calvinist; "of course he is incapable!" they would say. However, I don't believe that this is necessarily the case. Be aware that I am not contending that the old man can make himself righteous; such is utter absurdity. However, the old man does at least have a knowledge of both evil AND good.

(Rom 2:14,15) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Even before we are saved, we all have a conscience that bears witness to the fact that we're sinners. This in and of itself proves that even the old man has an awareness of what is right, even though he is incapable of achieving righteousness through this knowledge. However, I see no problem with the idea that such a man can simply take God at his word, believing on his Son, thus being spiritually crucified with Christ and spiritually resurrected as a brand new spiritual creature.

[Ormly]

Even before we are saved, we all have a conscience that bears witness to the fact that we're sinners. This in and of itself proves that even the old man has an awareness of what is right, even though he is incapable of achieving righteousness through this knowledge. However, I see no problem with the idea that such a man can simply take God at his word, believing on his Son, thus being spiritually crucified with Christ and spiritually resurrected as a brand new spiritual creature.

How about a change in perspective on this. It might help. I.e., we all have knowledge of God before we are saved rather than we all know we are sinners. Point being we will know our "lesser" condition based on the acknowledgement of Him.

[Kevin Wayne]

Retrace the posts of yours I'm responding to and tell me where I got you wrong based on what you are writing.



Instead of that, how about we start with this: What's my theological position?

[Ormly]

Instead of that, how about we start with this: What's my theological position?

Quite frankly I don't know anylonger. It's a mixer last time I looked, especially with Thomas who I read as being quite accurate. That's why you are getting from me what you see. But, no worries, I like sleeping.

[Kevin Wayne]

Quite frankly I don't know anylonger. It's a mixer last time I looked, especially with Thomas who I read as being quite accurate. That's why you are getting from me what you see. But, no worries, I like sleeping.



Let me help you out here:



Thomas2003: Extremnist Calvinist who thinks that Arminians deny the Incarnation and the Trinity, among other things.



Kevin Wayne: Anabaptist and evil, unrepentant Arminian the Calvies think is here to destroy the very foundations of what they believe.



Are we now clear on this?

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Kevin
You're Anabaptist and evil? I won't ever cross you, I promise. :wink:

[Ormly]

Let me help you out here:



Thomas2003: Extremnist Calvinist who thinks that Arminians deny the Incarnation and the Trinity, among other things.



Kevin Wayne: Anabaptist and evil, unrepentant Arminian the Calvies think is here to destroy the very foundations of what they believe.



Are we now clear on this?

Perhaps, but whatever Thomas may be and though he understand differently than I in what he stated, it was nonetheless accurate in my estimation from experience. So lets be clear on that. I recognize good insight when I read it. I don't know any more on him nor did I back up and read any previous posts by him than what I addressed. As to him being a Calvinist-- I can care less. True is truth, Balaam found that out the hard way..

[Kevin Wayne]

Kevin
You're Anabaptist and evil? I won't ever cross you, I promise. :wink:



Yeah I'll have to pray for you and heap burning coals on your head. :-)

[Kevin Wayne]

Perhaps, but whatever Thomas may be and though he understand differently than I in what he stated, it was nonetheless accurate in my estimation from experience. So lets be clear on that. I recognize good insight when I read it. I don't know any more on him nor did I back up and read any previous posts by him than what I addressed. As to him being a Calvinist-- I can care less. True is truth, Balaam found that out the hard way..



OK now on to the next point. I never denied that Eve said more words than God did about eating the fruit. I disagreed with Thomas that this was a bad thing, and I asserted she was in doing so gettting at the heart of what God was saying. AND- anticpating Christ.

[Ormly]

OK now on to the next point. I never denied that Eve said more words than God did about eating the fruit. I disagreed with Thomas that this was a bad thing, and I asserted she was in doing so gettting at the heart of what God was saying. AND- anticpating Christ.

Well you are wrong about that and how could you even speculate she was anticipating anything? Good grief! She was innocent, as in gullable.

[Kevin Wayne]

Read what I wrote again...

[Colossians]

Flimflam,


I will ask you to consider each point in isolation first. The way to arrive at proper conclusions is to never dismiss a point which is logically true in itself, but rather to accept such points, itemise them on the side-line, and ensure your end result agrees with each and everyone one of them.
So it is a matter of listing what is true, item by item, without a-priori qualification based upon anticipated result: that is, we deduce our answer rather than induce our answer.






I think it's obvious enough that the new man does not exist in us until we believe;
One of the things which brings you to this result, is to miss the fact that there are 3 aspects of our being:
1. Our complete human being
2. The new man in our human being
3. The old man in our human being.

When you say “we believe”, at present you are distracted by (1). You need to only think in terms of (2) and (3).








that is, faith is what activates the "crucifixion" of the old man; so it cannot be said that the new man makes this "choice".
The new man is not a changed old man (a continued entity with a new nature).
The new man is a born-again man. Born completely again. Started again from scratch.
There is no old man in the new man. The new man comes into being by the death of the old man.

Consider thoughtfully the following:
It was he who was made sin for us who was crucified. Such represented our old man.
When Christ was risen, this represented our new man alive unto God.
Which came first …. the new man, or the crucifixion of the old man?

If you are within the domain of the law, you are legally obliged to stay married to it. You cannot enact your own divorce. Such is adultery, even if married to the wrong partner.
So then, God being the only one who determines the life of our spouses, we see that God had to take the life of the law, so that we might be married to another. This came about by our crucifixion in Him.
So then the crucifixion enabled our remarriage: it was not begun by us, for we are not permitted to even think about divorce unless the spouse is first of all dead.
Take this principle and ensure your final understanding agrees with it.








Is the old man corrupt? You bet. Is he therefore incapable of taking God at his word and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ? This is considered a no-brainer to the Calvinist; "of course he is incapable!" they would say. However, I don't believe that this is necessarily the case. Be aware that I am not contending that the old man can make himself righteous; such is utter absurdity. However, the old man does at least have a knowledge of both evil AND good.
The knowledge of evil and good is the very thing that makes him the old man: such is a transacting with the wrong tree: a marriage to the law. So it renders him in complete opposition to God.
Thus God cast Adam out of Eden and placed a Cherubim at the entrance to keep the way to the tree of life.







(Rom 2:14,15) "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)"
Even before we are saved, we all have a conscience that bears witness to the fact that we're sinners.
Yes this is the law that we were under which “shut” us away from faith. (Gal 3). Note “shut”.








This in and of itself proves that even the old man has an awareness of what is right, even though he is incapable of achieving righteousness through this knowledge.
True. But what is right, is not what is righteousness. They are completely other than each other.
Righteousness is love; right and wrong is law.







However, I see no problem with the idea that such a man can simply take God at his word, believing on his Son, thus being spiritually crucified with Christ and spiritually resurrected as a brand new spiritual creature.
I have pointed out the legal problem with it: adultery.
And I have pointed out the sequence problem with it: crucifixion precedes resurrection.
I also now point out incongruity of state and its dynamic: old cannot act as new, even for an instant, unless it is new.







The sequence problem dealt with
You feel that in order to be the new man, you must first have faith, but we say that in order to have faith, you must first be the new man, otherwise there is no need to become the new man, and otherwise there is a short period of time in which one is justified by faith while still the old man (incongruity of state and its own dynamic).
You then ask how it is that the new man can come into being without faith in the first place.
This question is answered via two considerations:
1. The first consideration concerns the protocol in life:
State precedes the dynamic of state: nouns are primary over verbs: I do what I do because of who I am, rather than the converse. So it must be that my new man comes first before the faith which manifests he is new: (a baby arrives before it cries).
How then does my new man become my new man ‘before’ he has faith? (See (2) below).

2. The new man is outside of time. When you first see him ‘appear’ inside of time (manifested by faith), this is just a view of what was already there outside of time. So there was no change from old to new, just a change in the view that God allows of what already is. Within time it appears there is a change from old to new, but the transition is really a change in the revealed knowledge of God concerning the eternal state of things outside of time. So then, what is revealed is Christ and Him crucified, and thus the faith activity of the new man, the risen Christ.

[Ormly]

Read what I wrote again...

How come you don't think I read you right? Perhaps it's you who isn't clear. Words mean something they always tell me. I had to go back to school.

Here you read it:

"OK now on to the next point. I never denied that Eve said more words than God did about eating the fruit. I disagreed with Thomas that this was a bad thing, and I asserted she was in doing so gettting at the heart of what God was saying. AND- anticpating Christ."

[Arminian]

Arminian,
Unfortunately your knowledge in spiritual things does not equal the level of your confidence.

:lol: Well, I guess this will have to wait until I'm done at a men's conference, unless I can get some more computer time in the next 24 hours.

[FlimFlamboyant]

I will ask you to consider each point in isolation first. The way to arrive at proper conclusions is to never dismiss a point which is logically true in itself, but rather to accept such points, itemise them on the side-line, and ensure your end result agrees with each and everyone one of them.
What about points that are scripturally true?


I think it's obvious enough that the new man does not exist in us until we believe;
One of the things which brings you to this result, is to miss the fact that there are 3 aspects of our being:
1. Our complete human being
2. The new man in our human being
3. The old man in our human being.

When you say “we believe”, at present you are distracted by (1). You need to only think in terms of (2) and (3).
Actually, I am thinking only in terms of 2 and 3, which is why I defended the old man's ability to discern right from wrong and come to an understanding that he is a sinner and is in need of a savior.

that is, faith is what activates the "crucifixion" of the old man; so it cannot be said that the new man makes this "choice".
The new man is not a changed old man (a continued entity with a new nature). The new man is a born-again man. Born completely again. Started again from scratch. There is no old man in the new man. The new man comes into being by the death of the old man.
I don't disagree with a single word of that. The old man is crucified, literally put to death. He exists no longer once we are saved. I don't recall stating anything in my previous post that would deny that.

Consider thoughtfully the following:
It was he who was made sin for us who was crucified. Such represented our old man.
When Christ was risen, this represented our new man alive unto God.
Which came first …. the new man, or the crucifixion of the old man?
Obviously, the crucifixion of the old man comes first. I said nothing that would deny this undisputable fact in my previous post.

If you are within the domain of the law, you are legally obliged to stay married to it. You cannot enact your own divorce. Such is adultery, even if married to the wrong partner.
Now here is where you lose me. What relevance does divorce law have to our salvation (and where is this connection made in the scriptures)? The legal issues here concern that of slavery and redemption.

So then, God being the only one who determines the life of our spouses, we see that God had to take the life of the law, so that we might be married to another. This came about by our crucifixion in Him.
So then the crucifixion enabled our remarriage: it was not begun by us, for we are not permitted to even think about divorce unless the spouse is first of all dead.
Perhaps you can point me to the scriptures that tell us that we are "married" to the law. The law of sin and death is not alive; it is a carnal commandment that brings death to mankind. I can hardly see how this could be considered to be some sort of marriage relationship; rather, it is a master/slave relationship in every Biblical sense.

The knowledge of evil and good is the very thing that makes him the old man: such is a transacting with the wrong tree: a marriage to the law. So it renders him in complete opposition to God.
Thus God cast Adam out of Eden and placed a Cherubim at the entrance to keep the way to the tree of life.
No problem with anything there, other than the whole "married to the law" issue, of course.

This in and of itself proves that even the old man has an awareness of what is right, even though he is incapable of achieving righteousness through this knowledge.
True. But what is right, is not what is righteousness. They are completely other than each other.
Righteousness is love; right and wrong is law.
Yes, I understand the difference between right and righteous. Note, however, that our righteousness is never said to originate from man. It is a gift fron God through faith.

However, I see no problem with the idea that such a man can simply take God at his word, believing on his Son, thus being spiritually crucified with Christ and spiritually resurrected as a brand new spiritual creature.
I have pointed out the legal problem with it: adultery.
I think you're going to need to explain from the scriptures how adultery has anything to do with this before we can proceed much further.

And I have pointed out the sequence problem with it: crucifixion precedes resurrection.
I have already acknowledged that this is an undeniable fact. However, I don't see how this presents a problem in sequence when looking at the issue from my vantagepoint. I can see where the Calvinist would have a problem with it, however.

I also now point out incongruity of state and its dynamic: old cannot act as new, even for an instant, unless it is new.
Again the dispute here is rooted in the doctrine of total depravity. It is presumed that faith is a righteous act that the old man is incapable of producing. However, from a Biblical perspective, faith and works are presented as being diametrically opposed to each other. Furthermore, faith is presented as the means by which a man receives righteousness:

(Rom 4:9) Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

From the Calvinist perspective, however, the cart is put before the horse, demanding that righteousness must be given prior to faith. Therefore, it is Calvinism that has a problem with sequence; faith cannot be present without righteousness, yet righteousness cannot be present without faith. Such is circular reasoning and doesn't solve anything.

[Colossians]

Flimflam,


Perhaps you can point me to the scriptures that tell us that we are "married" to the law.
Romans 7:2 - 4. Complemented by Galations 2:19
It is a principle based upon servitude, and obligation. It is seen throughout the entire dispensation of the OT.
It is typed in Israel’s being under the law, as well as items in the law such as a newly married daughter’s still being answerable to her own father after her having become married.
There are others too, but this will suffice.






Note, however, that our righteousness is never said to originate from man. It is a gift from God through faith.
Faith is righteousness. Therefore faith also does not originate in man.
But this is what you miss: by the same principle of faith's not originating in man, it also never resides in man, for if man is worthy of its residence, then man is worthy of its origination also. But man is not worthy of its origination, therefore man is not worthy of its residence.
Rather, it resides only ever in Christ who is in us, for faith is the property of the Head and not the Body. Thus Gal 2:20: “The life that I now live I live by the faith OF the son of God”.







And I have pointed out the sequence problem with it: crucifixion precedes resurrection.
I have already acknowledged that this is an undeniable fact. However, I don't see how this presents a problem in sequence when looking at the issue from my vantagepoint.
Your vantage point is circumvention of the sequence issue, not harmony with it.
You need to apply the full forensic substance of the crucifixion to your doctrine: the new man came into being by virtue of the Father's punitive measures toward the old man, not by virtue of the old man's change of heart. Understand that the old man did not become dead by faith, but by punishment: he was capitally punished because of his lack of faith, not changed by faith.
Accordingly you must explain why the old man was crucified if he had faith which necessarily renders him righteous.








from a Biblical perspective, faith and works are presented as being diametrically opposed to each other. Furthermore, faith is presented as the means by which a man receives righteousness:
(Rom 4:9) Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
You are reading into this verse that which is not there. You presume that faith came to Abraham’s old man, changing him into the new man. There is nothing in this passage to suggest this. All we are told is that Abraham had faith.
By the principles of the Headship of Christ of the Body, we necessarily conclude that the faith in the part of the Body that was Abraham was the faith of his Head, the New Man, Christ Jesus, within him.








it is Calvinism that has a problem with sequence; faith cannot be present without righteousness, yet righteousness cannot be present without faith. Such is circular reasoning and doesn't solve anything.
I have addressed this fully in the last item in my post to you. Either you did not bother to read it, or did not understand it.
For convenience, I repost it here:

The sequence problem dealt with:
You feel that in order to be the new man, you must first have faith, but we say that in order to have faith, you must first be the new man, otherwise there is no need to become the new man, and otherwise there is a short period of time in which one is justified by faith while still the old man (incongruity of state and its own dynamic).
You then ask how it is that the new man can come into being without faith in the first place.
This question is answered via two considerations:
1. The first consideration concerns the protocol in life:
State precedes the dynamic of state: nouns are primary over verbs: I do what I do because of who I am, rather than the converse. So it must be that my new man comes first before the faith which manifests he is new: (a baby arrives before it cries).
How then does my new man become my new man ‘before’ he has faith? (See (2) below).

2. The new man is outside of time. When you first see him ‘appear’ inside of time (manifested by faith), this is just a view of what was already there outside of time. So there was no change from old to new, just a change in the view that God allows of what already is. Within time it appears there is a change from old to new, but the transition is really a change in the revealed knowledge of God concerning the eternal state of things outside of time. So then, what is revealed is Christ and Him crucified, and thus the necessary faith activity of the new man, the risen Christ.








Overall you need to consider that faith is specifically a receiving of the things of the Spirit of God, and we are told that:
" the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God".
Exit your idea that the natural man can "take God at his word": he doesn't want to (that is why he is the natural man). And even if he wanted to, he is not capable of it (that is also why he is the natural man).

[FlimFlamboyant]

Flimflam,


[QUOTE]Perhaps you can point me to the scriptures that tell us that we are "married" to the law.
Romans 7:2 - 4. Complemented by Galations 2:19
Romans 7:2-4 is an example from what is more than likely Roman law that Paul is using to illustrate his point; which is that the only way to be freed from the law is to die; thus the necessity to be "crucified with Christ" and so on. There is nothing in this passage that indicates that anyone is married to the law itself.

As for Galatians 2:19:

(Gal 2:19) For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

Paul is issuing a condensed version of what he wrote in Romans 7, so my previous point applies here also.

It is a principle based upon servitude, and obligation. It is seen throughout the entire dispensation of the OT.
Yes, it is. Thus, it is a master/slave relationship, not a husband/wife relationship.

It is typed in Israel’s being under the law, as well as items in the law such as a newly married daughter’s still being answerable to her own father after her having become married.
The only marital relationship that Israel had was with Jehovah himself, not the law.

(Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

Now I'm sure you won't propose that the Lord was in a polygamous relationship with Israel. The law; that covenant that they broke, was the means by which they maintained their marriage status with Him. You're going to need to produce some solid scriptural evidence if you're going to convince me that marriage to the law is a Biblical concept.

Faith is righteousness.
Ok, where does the Bible actually say that?

(Phi 3:9) And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

If faith is the means by which righteousness is received, then it cannot be said that faith IS righteousness.

You need to apply the full forensic substance of the crucifixion to your doctrine: the new man came into being by virtue of the Father's punitive measures toward the old man, not by virtue of the old man's change of heart.

Understand that the old man did not become dead by faith, but by punishment: he was capitally punished because of his lack of faith, not changed by faith.
(Rom 5:12) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Death is the natural result of sin, the knowledge of good and evil. Death is not God's judgment against people who sin. In fact, death is declared to be an enemy of God (1 Cor 15:26).

Accordingly you must explain why the old man was crucified if he had faith which necessarily renders him righteous.
No, I don't have to explain, because I don't accept the notion that faith = righteousness. That issue needs to be tackled first.

You are reading into this verse that which is not there. You presume that faith came to Abraham’s old man, changing him into the new man.
(Eph 2:15) Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

I don't believe the one new man even existed in Abraham's time. Any righteousness that Abraham had was the result of God's imputitive action in response to Abraham's faith, not a change in Abraham's inward man.

The sequence problem dealt with:
You feel that in order to be the new man, you must first have faith, but we say that in order to have faith, you must first be the new man, otherwise there is no need to become the new man, and otherwise there is a short period of time in which one is justified by faith while still the old man (incongruity of state and its own dynamic)

Again, this is all built upon the presumption that faith itself IS righteousness. Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves without laying some groundwork.

You then ask how it is that the new man can come into being without faith in the first place.
This question is answered via two considerations:
1. The first consideration concerns the protocol in life:
State precedes the dynamic of state: nouns are primary over verbs: I do what I do because of who I am, rather than the converse. So it must be that my new man comes first before the faith which manifests he is new: (a baby arrives before it cries).
States, dynamics, nouns, and verbs aside, do you have any actual scriptural evidence to substantiate these claims?

2. The new man is outside of time. When you first see him ‘appear’ inside of time (manifested by faith), this is just a view of what was already there outside of time. So there was no change from old to new, just a change in the view that God allows of what already is. Within time it appears there is a change from old to new, but the transition is really a change in the revealed knowledge of God concerning the eternal state of things outside of time. So then, what is revealed is Christ and Him crucified, and thus the necessary faith activity of the new man, the risen Christ.
Again, without some substantial scripture to back all of this up, what am I to make of this? It would be foolish of me to simply take your word for it.

Overall you need to consider that faith is specifically a receiving of the things of the Spirit of God, and we are told that:
" the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God".
Woah, that's wayyyy outta context.

(1Co 2:14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Paul is talking about spiritual knowledge here, not faith. It is "the deep things of God" (v10) that the natural man is incapable of receiving.

[Colossians]

Flimflam,

Romans 7:2-4 is an example from what is more than likely Roman law that Paul is using to illustrate his point; which is that the only way to be freed from the law is to die; thus the necessity to be "crucified with Christ" and so on. There is nothing in this passage that indicates that anyone is married to the law itself.
Rather, he specifically uses the marriage relationship to indicate our relationship to the law.
He then sums up by saying we have become married to another marriage partner, and that therefore there was a former marriage partner. I’m afraid this is not negotiable: it couldn’t have been said any clearer.







It is a principle based upon servitude, and obligation. It is seen throughout the entire dispensation of the OT.
Yes, it is. Thus, it is a master/slave relationship, not a husband/wife relationship.
And thus the nature of marriage to the law. You overlook the actual marriage that was for what you understand marriage is supposed to be. Marriage to the law is necessarily a master/slave relationship. That is why we had to be divorced from it. That we were married to the law is why not only we were nailed to the cross, but the law also, for the two of us were ‘one flesh’.







It is typed in Israel’s being under the law, as well as items in the law such as a newly married daughter’s still being answerable to her own father after her having become married.
The only marital relationship that Israel had was with Jehovah himself, not the law.
(Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Now I'm sure you won't propose that the Lord was in a polygamous relationship with Israel. The law; that covenant that they broke, was the means by which they maintained their marriage status with Him. You're going to need to produce some solid scriptural evidence if you're going to convince me that marriage to the law is a Biblical concept.
Romans 7:2-4 tells you quite plainly, as I have indicated.
God’s marriage to Israel, as also the bill of divorce he allowed them, was notional (or ostensible) only, for God only marries permanently.
God will establish no real covenant based upon that which reminds Him of sin in His wife (the law): no marriage of God contains punitive measures toward the wife, hence the NT understanding of marriage.

Israel, being in the flesh, was necessarily married to the law rather than God: in order to marry God, one must be “in the spirit”. This is what Romans 7:2-4 tells us. Thus we also understand the following concerning the nation of Israel in Romans 9: “the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God”.
(True/proper/actual) marriage to God must be specifically to His Son, which can only be effected by the revealing of His Son, which can only be effected by His Son’s death and resurrection at Calvary.







Faith is righteousness.
Ok, where does the Bible actually say that?
(Phi 3:9) And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
If faith is the means by which righteousness is received, then it cannot be said that faith IS righteousness.
You seem to prefer to split atoms rather than let scripture speak out at you.
Righteousness is not merely a consideration of God (an imputation), but a dynamic which expresses itself as faith. This is the reason of the “ness” at the end of the word: it indicates a dynamic. Similarly: “happiness” is not merely a considered thing, but an experienced thing.
Righteousness and faith are together as the noun “I” and the verb “am” in “I am”, they are together as happiness and the laughter of happiness.
Thus faith was accounted as righteousness in Abraham, for two things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.









You need to apply the full forensic substance of the crucifixion to your doctrine: the new man came into being by virtue of the Father's punitive measures toward the old man, not by virtue of the old man's change of heart.Understand that the old man did not become dead by faith, but by punishment: he was capitally punished because of his lack of faith, not changed by faith.
(Rom 5:12) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Death is the natural result of sin, the knowledge of good and evil. Death is not God's judgment against people who sin. In fact, death is declared to be an enemy of God (1 Cor 15:26).
You are confusing here our death toward God (the result of being the old man), with the crucifixion of such old man (the eradication of the old man himself), which crucifixion is necessarily by the law, for it is written: “cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree”.
When we ate of the knowledge of good and evil, we died toward God, and remained dead yet while living physically. Thus Jesus said that the non-believer “is dead even while he liveth”.
What was then required was the eradication of the old man to in full effect get rid of his pysical life via the proxy of faith in Christ’s physical death.
The grace we have received is therefore that which exterminated such dead-living man at Calvary via the crucifixion, providing for our resurrection as the New Man who is not only alive physically, but alive unto God.
So then, the old man cannot have had faith, for he was crucified with Christ: there is no legal reason to crucify him who has faith, for he who has faith, has faith in Christ, and is therefore righteous.








I don't believe the one new man even existed in Abraham's time. Any righteousness that Abraham had was the result of God's imputitive action in response to Abraham's faith, not a change in Abraham's inward man.
There is no reason to suppose that Abraham’s faith was any different in experience than ours other than a desire to suppose such.
Jesus told Nichodemus that “unless a man (while he is a man) be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”, so all who enter heaven are they who are born again while on earth.
Paul uses Abraham’s faith as ensample for us, and we are declared his seed. The seed is never greater than the father: this is an incontrovertible principle in both scripture and life.
The NT was just as much the instrument for salvation in the era of the OT, as it is now. Hence David was forgiven for his adultery, rather than executed as he should have been if he were truly under the law.
The only difference is that now the NT it has been articulated through Paul’s gospel, whereas previously it was hidden behind the prima-facie of the OT text. Thus when Jesus walked with the two to Emaus, he began with the books of the law to tell them about Himself.
There is no reason to suppose that those who are pre-Calvary are any less born again than post Calvary. If anything, the logical default would be that those pre-Calvary would be more likely saved than those post Calvary, for one would naturally consider their sins to be more naturally captured at the cross than ours which follow after the cross. (It is the more natural position to have one die after transgression than before.)
But so as there would be no doubt, we are told that the Lamb was “slain from the foundation of the world”.









You then ask how it is that the new man can come into being without faith in the first place.
This question is answered via two considerations:
1. The first consideration concerns the protocol in life:
State precedes the dynamic of state: nouns are primary over verbs: I do what I do because of who I am, rather than the converse. So it must be that my new man comes first before the faith which manifests he is new: (a baby arrives before it cries).
States, dynamics, nouns, and verbs aside, do you have any actual scriptural evidence to substantiate these claims?
You need to understand that all things are created to speak of God. The structure of language is preeminent in this, and this Christ is called “the Word”.
It is difficult to try to teach one who is resistant to new things, and who demonstrates such with puerile statements like “show me an exact scripture”. Theology is not at the “exact scripture” level, but is couched in the philosophy of cause and effect of life, logic, and the interplay between scripture.







The new man is outside of time. When you first see him ‘appear’ inside of time (manifested by faith), this is just a view of what was already there outside of time. So there was no change from old to new, just a change in the view that God allows of what already is. Within time it appears there is a change from old to new, but the transition is really a change in the revealed knowledge of God concerning the eternal state of things outside of time. So then, what is revealed is Christ and Him crucified, and thus the nec