Featured Carnal or Lost

You do not know if Jesus saved either you or me. You believe in Limited Atonement, Jesus did not die for the vast majority of people in your view. You have no idea who Jesus died for. You cannot tell anybody that Jesus died for them.

How can you have assurance in a complete uncertainty? Absurb! :laugh:

 

There is nothing contradictory about my view, you cannot show it.

MacArthur is a Calvinist, he MUST explain away that Paul is speaking of an unregenerate man in Romans 7:14-25 or Calvinism collapses like the house of cards it is.

LOL, do you know of any more Calvinists that say Paul was speaking of a saved person here. :laugh:

Paul is not speaking of sinful habits, he is speaking of being CONDEMNED (Rom 8:1). Born again believers can have many bad habits, but they are not sold under sin, they are not captive to the law of sin, and they are not condemned.

NOPE, Paul is speaking from the perspective of an unregenerate man in Romans 7. He is sold under sin and captive to the law of sin and death. It is impossible this is a saved person.

And I doubt anybody could convince you of anything. That means nothing.

 

The early church fathers believed Romans 7:14-25 was speaking of an unregenerate man.

http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/books/counterfeit-cross/romans-7.php#.U59V0_nZUqM

This is not why I personally believe Romans 7 is speaking of an unregenerate man, I have given my reasons, and I think they are correct. This is just to show that the early church fathers did not see the Calvinist interpretation in this chapter.

 

There is no way to answer your question accurately. God looks on the heart. He sees what we cannot. Even the wisest person cannot proclaim with certainty that someone is or is not saved. That said, if a person has given themselves over to a worldly lifestyle there is sufficient ground to be concerned about their spiritual well-being. Hopefully they belong to a church that is brave and caring enough to confront them about their lifestyle.

 

I can, and do have complete assurance, as i believe what Jesus and the Apostles said on this subject, do you?

 

paul stated that WHATEVER we submit ourselves to being under will have control over us, so His exhortation was to submit to the Holy Spirit, and be continually filled by Him...

So since we can also chose to quench/grieve Him, and be submitting to sin again, why do you disagree with God in this?

 

Perhaps those fathers had their own agenda to NOT see original Sin, and other things also in the scriptures!

Bottom linem ALL of us can quote every commenatry/father in history, but what counts is what the BIBLE itself teaches, and you have erred really badly in understanding this area!

 

Really? The Church Fathers? You rely on them???????
So do the Catholics!

Origen was a heretic. Even the RCC declared him as one.
Some say he was the "Father of Arianism."
Study up on all of the various heresies that he held.

Tertullian held that baptism washed away sin and gave one eternal life.
Later in life he joined the Montanists.

Need I go on? Is this as reliable source as you have? The ECF is the source that the RCC count on most.

 

You can say whatever you want, anybody who believes in Limited Atonement cannot possibly know Jesus died for him.

Google "how can I know I am elect" and you will see page after page after page of Calvinists asking how they can know they are elect.

You are no different from them.

 

Perhaps you cannot read, I said I already knew Romans 7 is speaking of an unsaved person. No Christain is sold under sin or in captivity to the law of sin.

I was just showing you that nearly ALL of the early church fathers believed this passage was speaking of an unregenerate man.

It was Augustine, the great perverter of scripture that introduced this error to the church, and the Calvinists followed this error.

 

Right, you keep telling yourself that. :laugh:

 

You wrote down a few names. Then, you falsely attributed to them your belief system. That is wrong and deceitful.
I took a couple of those names and demonstrated that they believed contrary to what we believe.
If you have an ounce of honesty in you, you will take those names and prove what you say they believe by offering exact quotes with links to back up your statements.

 

I did not write anything, I copied and pasted from an article about Romans 7 that said the early church fathers almost unanimously agreed that Romans 7 was Paul speaking of an unregenerate man. Live with it.

How that has anything to do with being dishonest is beyond me. Logic is not your strength.

 

1. The site you quoted from did not give direct quotes. It simply made generally stated opinions. To put it in perspective it goes like this:
"Winman says that the Administrator of said site says that Daniel Steele says that the Church Fathers say that Romans 7 should be interpreted this way..." What is that 3rd hand, 4th hand information? And it isn't even accurate. It is opinion. No direct quotes were given.
To be accurate look up each ECF you want and give an accurate quote of their belief.

2. The site you quoted from is a dubious source.
A. It is basically Calvinistic with some aberrant doctrines. Why would you quote from a site holding to the Total Depravity of Man? Have you read their statement of faith.
B. But look at this doctrine: It is called Conscious Immortality. Have you heard of it?

It is similar to the SDA doctrines of soul sleep and annihilation of the wicked, as far as I could understand.


3. If you are going to quote the ECF then do so, not another site that can't be trusted.

 

Goes hand in hand though, for if one denies origianl Sin, one can also hold to other false teachings as soul sleep, and destruction of the wicked!

 

Actually, Jesus and paul already told us that, way before Augustine did!

Augustine just rediscovered a truth, same way the reformers did!

 

What does this have to do with quotes I provided? I gave a link to the page, there were footnotes at the bottom so you can see where those quotes came from, those author are well known, for instance;

Steele was a professor of theology at Boston Univ. and later the first president of Syracuse Univ.

Tholuck was a famous theologian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Tholuck

Beet is a well known theologian

Jennings has written numerous books.

These writers sound quite credible to me.

Personally, I wouldn't care what the early church fathers thought, because I can read what Paul said. In chapter 7 he does not mention the Holy Spirit, not once, whereas in chapter 8 he mentions the Spirit 22 times!

Paul said he was "sold under sin" and in "captivity to the law of sin" in chapter 7, in chapter 8 he says he is free from the law of sin and death.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

So, no way was Paul speaking as a regenerate man in chapter 7, he is speaking of himself as a Jew under the law before he was converted. He loved the law and he truly desired to keep the law but he could not. He had sinned and therefore was sold to sin and had become captive to the law of sin.

But in chapter 8 he is clearly writing from the perspective of a born again Christian who has received the Holy Spirit. He is now FREE from the law of sin and death.

It is very plain and simple.

 

I quote Paul more than you do. Paul said he was alive without the law once, this refutes Original Sin and Calvinism. Paul said that men from Adam to Moses HAD NOT sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, this also refutes Original Sin and Calvinism. Paul said Jacob and Esau had done no evil when they were in their mother Rebecca's womb, this also refutes Original Sin and Calvinism.

Paul does not support your views whatsoever, he clearly refutes them many times.

Jesus said the prodigal son was "alive again" when he repented, this also refutes Original Sin and Calvinism.

So neither Jesus nor Paul supported your views, they both refuted them.

You cannot possibly show a verse of scripture from Jesus or Paul that supports your view, I challenge you to show them.

You won't do it, because you CAN"T.

 

1. The site is primarily Calvinistic.
But I gave you a very good explanation from John MacArthur. You outright rejected simply because MacArthur is a Calvinist. That is called hypocrisy.
2. The site holds to dubious doctrine such as conscious immortality. Why then would I trust it? That doctrine is similar to the SDA.
3. The quotes from those you quoted from are vague.
For example, here is what Steele said:

So what! That is an opinion without any verifiable fact. No quotes are given from any church fathers. It is simply his opinion. He says they are unanimously agreed in interpretation.
I will contend that is a lie. They are not, and he is full of hot steam. He just says that without any documented proof. Let him prove what he says through proper documentation. Not one ECF is quoted.

If there work is credible they would document it, and the documentation would be available.

So what!
Often one does not mention the Holy Spirit when giving their testimony. What is important is the conclusion of the testimony. Is this the conclusion of an unregenerated man?

Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Paul said he was "sold under sin" and in "captivity to the law of sin" in chapter 7, in chapter 8 he says he is free from the law of sin and death.
--Does an unsaved man say: "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord...? Does he?

Do you realize that this is a letter written to the Romans? In this original letter there are no chapter divisions. The divisions put in by the translators are not inspired. There is nothing to say that if he is speaking of himself as an unsaved man that he would continue to speak as an unsaved man in chapter 8 because it is a continuation of chapter 7. There is no break.

And yet I have never heard an unconverted Jew say: "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord." Can you point to one?

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
The law is holy and God. He delighted in it. The law was not sinful.
This doesn't sound like a man who is unsaved. An unsaved man does not delight in God's law does he?

 

You do not get it. MacArthur is a Calvinist. No Calvinist can be considered unbiased in this controversy, a Calvinist must insist Paul was regenerate in Romans 7 or else Calvinism is overthrown.

That has nothing to do with the quotes I provided. The early church fathers either believed Paul was speaking as a regenerate man in Romans 7 or they did not. It doesn't have a thing to do with the authors who made those quotes, it has to do with whether those statements are fact or not.

The early church fathers almost unanimously believed Paul was writing from the perspective of an unregenerate man in Romans 7. That is an HISTORICAL FACT. These early church fathers had no agenda, Calvinism was not an issue for them. They called it like they saw it.

It doesn't matter what Thoruck, or Steele, or Beets believed, they weren't giving their personal opinion as MacArthur was.

You cannot seem to grasp the difference.