Theology Club: Other than glorification, what is the need for the Holy Spirit in the open view?

[BrianJOrr]

Doctrine: “a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group” (Websters)

So you don’t have any beliefs?




I said: I do not believe that we cannot choose to accept God's gift of salvation without the Holy Spirit. Paul is not talking about accepting the Holy Spirit here. You cannot walk in the way of God without it. But you don't need the Holy Spirit to receive the Holy Spirit.
Here is the verse I am talking about.
Romans 8:7-9


2 Tim 2:25
But you reference is not the same as the verse. It doesn't mean what the verse means nor does it say what the verse says.




Where in scripture do you get the idea that man is fallen? Perhaps it is here : Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. And then man fell.

If you can answer that, because it seems to be a pretty key idea in your reasoning, I will answer you question.



Yes.



Man does not have the natural ability to follow God's law. Man can accept the Holy Spirit. After that he has the ability to follow God's law.




I disagree. That is the point I think Timothy is trying to make. Tim 2:25. If man doesn't know how good God is or if he does not see God as good, then he will not desire to change his nature. If he is taught what is good, then he might desire to change his nature. In which case, he will accept Jesus into his life, and the Holy spirit will come to transform him. With your reasoning, no one can seek God, ever.



But if the lion see that eating vegetables is good for him, then he may seek to change his nature, which obviously, he can't do by himself.



How does this contradict what I said?

It seems like you did not read any of the scriptures I posted on man's fallen nature. Did you check out the link I posted as well?

 

[intojoy]

It seems like you did not read any of the scriptures I posted on man's fallen nature. Did you check out the link I posted as well?

Yea it doesn't

 

[TIPlatypus]

It seems like you did not read any of the scriptures I posted on man's fallen nature. Did you check out the link I posted as well?

Firstly, none of the scriptures you gave concerning the fallen nature of man actually say anything about the fallen nature of man.

Secondly, when in your other post which you so humbly deferred to, you quote Rom 3:10 . This out of its immediate context. Paul is himself quoting scripture here to support his argument, with the following conclusion. Romans 3:19 , Romans 3:20 . I reckon this is only a conclusion used to support a bigger argument later, but that's for another time.

Essentially you are quoting Paul quoting a piece of scripture out of the context he intended and for a viewpoint Paul never states or implies.

I am not going to paraphrase Paul's argument. It is imo all of Ramans 3.

 

[TIPlatypus]

The differences of these numbers from those in 2 Sam 24:9 are problematic. It may be that the number of

...

Usually it is the skeptics who use instances like this to support an argument against inerrancy. And I am not implying that you are

Fair enough.

 

[BrianJOrr]

Firstly, none of the scriptures you gave concerning the fallen nature of man actually say anything about the fallen nature of man.

Lets look at this: When Paul says in Ephesians 2:3 that they "were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind," what does that tell us about their nature, as well as the rest of mankind? Wrath reserved for those who are rebellious sinners; their nature is what makes them children of wrath. Why is that? Because all they do is sin against God.

And when Jeremiah makes the analogy with the Ethiopian and the leopard and those who do evil, what point is he trying to make? The Ethiopian and the leopard by nature are what they are and cannot change, just like those who are evil (which is all of mankind), are by their nature and cannot change. It is mans nature to do evil.

Even Christ made this general statement in the sermon on the mount, Matthew 7:11: "If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" Even those who call God "Father" are considered evil, though they know how to give good gifts to their children. There are plenty more Scriptures demonstrating then fibrous sinfulness of mankind.

Secondly, when in your other post which you so humbly deferred to, you quote Rom 3:10 . This out of its immediate context. Paul is himself quoting scripture here to support his argument, with the following conclusion. Romans 3:19 , Romans 3:20 . I reckon this is only a conclusion used to support a bigger argument later, but that's for another time.

Romans 3:11-18 is a series of verses Paul interpolates from the OT to form the conclusion from 3:5-10, not 3:19. Note specifically 3:9. He writes, "What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written . . . And then he goes on to classify Jews and Greeks under the same indictment, showing us that law or no law, all are accountable to God, stressing the universal sinfulness of mankind. He then goes back to the Law (3:20), reaffirming the fact that the Jews, and anyone else for that matter, cannot be saved by the Law. Why is that? Because through the law comes knowledge of sin. And then the rest of Romans 3 takes us to the gospel— the righteousness of God through faith in Christ.

Essentially you are quoting Paul quoting a piece of scripture out of the context he intended and for a viewpoint Paul never states or implies.

I hope what I put just cleared that up.

 

[BrianJOrr]

I said: I do not believe that we cannot choose to accept God's gift of salvation without the Holy Spirit. Paul is not talking about accepting the Holy Spirit here. You cannot walk in the way of God without it. But you don't need the Holy Spirit to receive the Holy Spirit.
Here is the verse I am talking about.
Romans 8:7-9


2 Tim 2:25
But you reference is not the same as the verse. It doesn't mean what the verse means nor does it say what the verse says.




Where in scripture do you get the idea that man is fallen? Perhaps it is here : Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. And then man fell.

If you can answer that, because it seems to be a pretty key idea in your reasoning, I will answer you question.

Yes, the Fall is central to understanding grace. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4276696&postcount=105

Man does not have the natural ability to follow God's law. Man can accept the Holy Spirit. After that he has the ability to follow God's law.

Your right. But how does one receive the Holy Spirit? I see that if one receives the Spirit, the fruit from that is a demonstrating of repentance and faith in God, which is following God's law in his command to repent and believe (Acts 17:30). How does one receive the Spirit if he cannot even discern what it is? (1 Cor. 2:13-14; cf. John 3:3-8. Nicodemus could not even understand what it meant.)

I disagree. That is the point I think Timothy is trying to make. Tim 2:25. If man doesn't know how good God is or if he does not see God as good, then he will not desire to change his nature. If he is taught what is good, then he might desire to change his nature. In which case, he will accept Jesus into his life, and the Holy spirit will come to transform him. With your reasoning, no one can seek God, ever.

I differ you above on this one. And I address this in my other post regarding man's nature: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4276696&postcount=105

But if the lion see that eating vegetables is good for him, then he may seek to change his nature, which obviously, he can't do by himself.

The lion will never see vegetables as being good for him; just like man never truly sees how good God is for him, hence the need for God to do the work himself, removing the stony heart and replacing it with one of flesh. Man walks around in the domain of darkness and God transfers him into the kingdom of his beloved Son (Colossians 1:13).

 

[intojoy]

By grace alone thru faith alone plus nothing

 

[intojoy]

It is still by grace even if the elect first believe then become regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

Why?

Because chose the elect not based on any merit.

The fact of divine enablement is how the elect can believe the gospel.

 

[Lighthouse]

Firstly, none of the scriptures you gave concerning the fallen nature of man actually say anything about the fallen nature of man.

He seems to like doing that: posting Scriptures he claims are about something that don't say anything about the subject.

 

[TIPlatypus]

Lets look at this: When Paul says in Ephesians 2:3 that they "were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind," what does that tell us about their nature, as well as the rest of mankind?

Ephesians 2:3

It tells me this: Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.
It's quite simple really.

Wrath reserved for those who are rebellious sinners; their nature is what makes them children of wrath. Why is that? Because all they do is sin against God.

Yeah... no. This verse does not tell me that at all.

And when Jeremiah makes the analogy with the Ethiopian and the leopard and those who do evil, what point is he trying to make? The Ethiopian and the leopard by nature are what they are and cannot change, just like those who are evil (which is all of mankind), are by their nature and cannot change. It is mans nature to do evil.

How am I disputing this in any way? I am not saying that man can change by his own nature.

Even Christ made this general statement in the sermon on the mount, Matthew 7:11: "If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" Even those who call God "Father" are considered evil, though they know how to give good gifts to their children.

What has this got to do with anything?

Note specifically 3:9. He writes, "What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written . . . And then he goes on to classify Jews and Greeks under the same indictment, showing us that law or no law, all are accountable to God, stressing the universal sinfulness of mankind.

Firstly, Romans 3:19-20. Paul says "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God." Does this not say the opposite of what you said:

showing us that law or no law, all are accountable to God

Secondly, how do you know, 2000 years later, what Paul was stressing and what he wasn't? I'd be interested to find out.

 

[TIPlatypus]

Yes, the Fall is central to understanding grace. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4276696&postcount=105

Find somewhere in the Bible that uses the words "the fallen nature of man" or anywhere where it says "The Fall"

As you know headings don't count because they were added in later.

How does one receive the Spirit if he cannot even discern what it is? (1 Cor. 2:13-14; cf. John 3:3-8. Nicodemus could not even understand what it meant.)

He finds out what the spirit is through evangelism. We who are saved are perfectly equipped to evangelise and tell other people about Jesus and the holy spirit.

I differ you above on this one.

What?

And I address this in my other post regarding man's nature: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4276696&postcount=105

I read it, and I think you may be thinking of another post?

The lion will never see vegetables as being good for him; just like man never truly sees how good God is for him, hence the need for God to do the work himself, removing the stony heart and replacing it with one of flesh. Man walks around in the domain of darkness and God transfers him into the kingdom of his beloved Son (Colossians 1:13).

The lion will see that vegetables are good for him if another lion who knows that vegetables are good for lions has told him and has told him why etc. Then all the lion has to do is ask Jesus to get him over his revulsion to vegetables, which are so contrary to his nature.

 

[BrianJOrr]

Ephesians 2:3

It tells me this: Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.
It's quite simple really.

What is it 'by nature' that makes us deserving of wrath? Is it that our nature is to only sin?

How am I disputing this in any way? I am not saying that man can change by his own nature.

Define what that change means? Man cannot believe apart from the Spirit. If it is in man's nature to always say 'no' to God, how then can he say 'yes' unless the Spirit changes his nature to do so? That is what we are discussing. There has to be a change in man's sinful nature in order to submit to God's law. You agree that man cannot change his own nature. Paul says that man cannot submit. Receiving Christ as Lord and Savior is responding to the call to repent and believe the gospel. That is submission to God's law!

Do you see the issue?

Firstly, Romans 3:19-20. Paul says "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God." Does this not say the opposite of what you said:

Secondly, how do you know, 2000 years later, what Paul was stressing and what he wasn't? I'd be interested to find out.

Following the grammatical and contextual structure of Paul's argument. How do you know what Paul intends to say 2000 years later?

Find somewhere in the Bible that uses the words "the fallen nature of man" or anywhere where it says "The Fall"

As you know headings don't count because they were added in later.

Find somewhere in the Bible that uses the word “Trinity.” Do you believe the Bible teaches that our God is triune though the word is not in the Bible?

He finds out what the spirit is through evangelism. We who are saved are perfectly equipped to evangelise and tell other people about Jesus and the holy spirit.

He may hear, but he doesn’t hear, and has eyes, but he doesn’t see—that is in the flesh. Paul didn’t ask Jesus into his heart; Christ came to him in a revelation and summoned him and took the scales off his eyes. Yes, those who are saved have the Spirit and God’s Word. Did not God open Lydia’s heart to respond to Paul’s message? (Acts 16:14). Lydia did not ask the Spirit to come into her, God just did it according to his will. Man’s heart and mind needs to be changed by the Spirit in order to submit to God’s law, as you agreed. So, how can man in the flesh desire to follow the Spirit unless the Spirit gives him the desire to do so? He doesn’t. He cannot see unless he has been born again, born of God (John 3:3-8; John 1:12-12).

I read it, and I think you may be thinking of another post?

No, its the right post. I discussed the passages from Ephesians and Jeremiah on the nature of man in the top portion addressing your question.

The lion will see that vegetables are good for him if another lion who knows that vegetables are good for lions has told him and has told him why etc. Then all the lion has to do is ask Jesus to get him over his revulsion to vegetables, which are so contrary to his nature.

A man is not revolted of his sin, seeing his guilt before a Holy God, unless he has the Spirit to convict him of his sin. He doesn’t say in the flesh, “Spirit, come to me so I can be repulsed of my sin.” Now, there are those who have worldly sorrow, but they don’t have the godly sorrow, an understanding that their sin is against God alone leading to repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10). Where do we see in the Scriptures what one in the flesh has the ability to control the Spirit?

What we see is that Spirit goes where it wills and wishes to go (John 3:3-8; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:11). The Spirit convicts those he wants—those who are the called (you should do a study on the ‘called’ in the NT; they are specifically those God calls, not just a generic calling that goes out. The called are the elect, meaning they come when God calls them); the Spirit is the only one who can convict of sin. One is convicted by the Holy Spirit and receives the gift of the Spirit through forgiveness and is given spiritual gifts for service in the ministry.

So, while one plants and another waters, it is God who gives the growth (1 Corinthians 3:7). We are called to proclaim the Gospel and God does the rest of the work.

 

[Nang]

What is it 'by nature' that makes us deserving of wrath? Is it that our nature is to only sin?




Define what that change means? Man cannot believe apart from the Spirit. If it is in man's nature to always say 'no' to God, how then can he say 'yes' unless the Spirit changes his nature to do so? That is what we are discussing. There has to be a change in man's sinful nature in order to submit to God's law. You agree that man cannot change his own nature. Paul says that man cannot submit. Receiving Christ as Lord and Savior is responding to the call to repent and believe the gospel. That is submission to God's law!

Do you see the issue?




Following the grammatical and contextual structure of Paul's argument. How do you know what Paul intends to say 2000 years later?




Find somewhere in the Bible that uses the word “Trinity.” Do you believe the Bible teaches that our God is triune though the word is not in the Bible?



He may hear, but he doesn’t hear, and has eyes, but he doesn’t see—that is in the flesh. Paul didn’t ask Jesus into his heart; Christ came to him in a revelation and summoned him and took the scales off his eyes. Yes, those who are saved have the Spirit and God’s Word. Did not God open Lydia’s heart to respond to Paul’s message? (Acts 16:14). Lydia did not ask the Spirit to come into her, God just did it according to his will. Man’s heart and mind needs to be changed by the Spirit in order to submit to God’s law, as you agreed. So, how can man in the flesh desire to follow the Spirit unless the Spirit gives him the desire to do so? He doesn’t. He cannot see unless he has been born again, born of God (John 3:3-8; John 1:12-12).



No, its the right post. I discussed the passages from Ephesians and Jeremiah on the nature of man in the top portion addressing your question.





A man is not revolted of his sin, seeing his guilt before a Holy God, unless he has the Spirit to convict him of his sin. He doesn’t say in the flesh, “Spirit, come to me so I can be repulsed of my sin.” Now, there are those who have worldly sorrow, but they don’t have the godly sorrow, an understanding that their sin is against God alone leading to repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10). Where do we see in the Scriptures what one in the flesh has the ability to control the Spirit?

What we see is that Spirit goes where it wills and wishes to go (John 3:3-8; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:11). The Spirit convicts those he wants—those who are the called (you should do a study on the ‘called’ in the NT; they are specifically those God calls, not just a generic calling that goes out. The called are the elect, meaning they come when God calls them); the Spirit is the only one who can convict of sin. One is convicted by the Holy Spirit and receives the gift of the Spirit through forgiveness and is given spiritual gifts for service in the ministry.

So, while one plants and another waters, it is God who gives the growth (1 Corinthians 3:7). We are called to proclaim the Gospel and God does the rest of the work.

Yes, this is an important study, that reveals how powerful and purposeful God's calling of individuals proves to be.

Elective and Divine "Calling" is vividly revealed, even in the O.T. genealogies; specifically in the account of God calling Terah and his family members out from the Chaldean land of UR, and then calling his son, Abram, from Haran, to enter the land of Canaan. Genesis 11:27-12:9

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I would suggest for further reading you read John Piper's The Justification of God

Piper's work is the gold standard for exegesis of Romans 9:1-23.

Here Piper demonstrates a depth of analysis that few would come to expect when considering his usual body of works appealing to the everyman. A must read for those with a solid grounding in exegesis at all levels.

AMR

 

[TIPlatypus]

What is it 'by nature' that makes us deserving of wrath? Is it that our nature is to only sin?

Perhaps. Please explain what you mean.

Define what that change means?

verb
1.
make or become different.

alter in terms of.

2.
take or use another instead of.

move from one to another.

noun
noun: change; plural noun: changes; noun: Change; plural noun: Changes; noun: 'Change; plural noun: 'Changes
1.
an act or process through which something becomes different.

Man cannot believe apart from the Spirit. If it is in man's nature to always say 'no' to God, how then can he say 'yes' unless the Spirit changes his nature to do so? That is what we are discussing. There has to be a change in man's sinful nature in order to submit to God's law. You agree that man cannot change his own nature.

Do you find eating insects revolting?

Paul says that man cannot submit.

Remind me where Paul says that.

Receiving Christ as Lord and Savior is responding to the call to repent and believe the gospel. That is submission to God's law!

But you just said "Paul says that man cannot submit."
By your argument no one can receive Christ as Lord and saviour, and it seems that you think that people can. Besides what about those who do not respond to the call to believe in the Gospel.

Following the grammatical and contextual structure of Paul's argument. How do you know what Paul intends to say 2000 years later?

I know this : 2 Peter 3:16 , but I feel I may have a slightly better chance of understanding what the actual words mean than you have understanding what emphasis or nuances Paul put where.

Find somewhere in the Bible that uses the word “Trinity.” Do you believe the Bible teaches that our God is triune though the word is not in the Bible?

No I don't.

He may hear, but he doesn't hear, and has eyes, but he doesn't see—that is in the flesh. Paul didn't ask Jesus into his heart; Christ came to him in a revelation and summoned him and took the scales off his eyes.

There is nothing here to say Paul didn't have a choice in the matter. He got shown some very convincing proof that Jesus is God and that he should not persecute the Christians any more. God had made up his mind that he wanted Paul to become an apostle. This was how he accomplished it.

Yes, those who are saved have the Spirit and God’s Word. Did not God open Lydia’s heart to respond to Paul’s message? (Acts 16:14). Lydia did not ask the Spirit to come into her, God just did it according to his will.

But Lydia was already a follower of God.

Man’s heart and mind needs to be changed by the Spirit in order to submit to God’s law, as you agreed. So, how can man in the flesh desire to follow the Spirit unless the Spirit gives him the desire to do so? He doesn’t. He cannot see unless he has been born again, born of God (John 3:3-8; John 1:12-12).

But the Spirit is not God's law.

A man is not revolted of his sin, seeing his guilt before a Holy God, unless he has the Spirit to convict him of his sin. He doesn’t say in the flesh, “Spirit, come to me so I can be repulsed of my sin.”

I am afraid I have to disagree here. What stops this from being true?

Now, there are those who have worldly sorrow, but they don’t have the godly sorrow, an understanding that their sin is against God alone leading to repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10).

Revulsion does not mean sorrow.

Where do we see in the Scriptures what one in the flesh has the ability to control the Spirit?

We don't. I mean the Holy Spirit could refuse. He could say, "But God, I do not want to come into this person's heart. I do not want him to be saved."

What we see is that Spirit goes where it wills and wishes to go (John 3:3-8; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:11).

You said that, not these verses. Also, I get the impression that they are referring only to believers here.

The Spirit convicts those he wants—those who are the called (you should do a study on the ‘called’ in the NT; they are specifically those God calls, not just a generic calling that goes out. The called are the elect, meaning they come when God calls them); the Spirit is the only one who can convict of sin. One is convicted by the Holy Spirit and receives the gift of the Spirit through forgiveness and is given spiritual gifts for service in the ministry.

Where did you get these ideas from?

So, while one plants and another waters, it is God who gives the growth (1 Corinthians 3:7). We are called to proclaim the Gospel and God does the rest of the work.

But only after they have converted right?

 

[BrianJOrr]

Perhaps. Please explain what you mean.

Paul says we were by nature children of wrath; How are we by nature children of wrath?

Remind me where Paul says that.

Romans 8:7 - For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.

But you just said "Paul says that man cannot submit."
By your argument no one can receive Christ as Lord and saviour, and it seems that you think that people can. Besides what about those who do not respond to the call to believe in the Gospel.

Yes. Romans 8:7 says that man cannot. And that is the point! If one actually submits to God's law, i.e., receiving Christ as Lord and Savior, then that means he has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. It is only after the Holy Spirit changes the heart can one actually submit to God's law. You can only walk in the Spirit (living righteously unto God) if you have the Spirit. Read all of Romans 8.

I know this : 2 Peter 3:16 , but I feel I may have a slightly better chance of understanding what the actual words mean than you have understanding what emphasis or nuances Paul put where.

Care to demonstrate?

Find somewhere in the Bible that uses the word “Trinity.” Do you believe the Bible teaches that our God is triune though the word is not in the Bible?

No I don't.

So, are you saying you don't believe that the God of Scripture is Triune?

There is nothing here to say Paul didn't have a choice in the matter. He got shown some very convincing proof that Jesus is God and that he should not persecute the Christians any more. God had made up his mind that he wanted Paul to become an apostle. This was how he accomplished it.

I think you are contradicting yourself in this statement. You said:

There is nothing here to say Paul didn't have a choice in the matter.

Then you said:

God had made up his mind that he wanted Paul to become an apostle.

According to what you said, I understand this to mean then that Paul did not really have a choice then, for God made up his mind that he wanted Paul to be an apostle.

Which, I fully agree with, but I don't think you are intentionally trying to prove my position.

But Lydia was already a follower of God.

No, she was a worshiper of God. She was very religious, not one who was born-again. That is why God opened her heart. When you see one who was called a worshiper of God or feared God in the NT, they are either Jews or very religious people, who still have hearts of stone.

But the Spirit is not God's law.

Again, man's heart needs to be changed by the Spirit so he can respond to the gospel; i.e., submit to God's law

I am afraid I have to disagree here. What stops this from being true?

All of your answers are making it clear that OT doesn't need the Holy Spirit to do anything, except glorification, supporting my thesis of my OP.

Revulsion does not mean sorrow.

I never said it did; however, one who is born-again becomes repulsed by his sin and is sorrowful toward God for his sin.

We don't. I mean the Holy Spirit could refuse. He could say, "But God, I do not want to come into this person's heart. I do not want him to be saved."

It seems like you are supporting my perspective here, which agrees with John 3:3-8.

You said that, not these verses. Also, I get the impression that they are referring only to believers here.

John 3:3-8 doesn't. The 1 Corinthians 12:11 shows how the Spirit gives gifts according to his will. I was trying to show you that the Spirit does works of regeneration and gifting according to his will, showing that we can only do anything in obedience and service to God by his will and working in us first (Philippians 2:13).

Where did you get these ideas from?

Again, do a word study on the 'called' in the NT. It's an eye-opener. My ideas come from what I see in the Scriptures. I do however, as we all do, listen to pastors and teachers God has given to the church to grow us and prepare us for ministry (Ephesians 4:11) and test what they say as we are to commanded to see if the Scriptures support what they teach (1 Thessalonians 5:20-21; 1 John 4:1; Acts 17:10-11).

But only after they have converted right?

God does the converting; we proclaim the gospel.

 

[musterion]

He seems to like doing that: posting Scriptures he claims are about something that don't say anything about the subject.

It also appears that your request for Scripture is being scrupulously ignored.

 

[Cross Reference]

Is the Spirit needed for illumination and sanctification if our wills cannot be changed by the work of the Spirit? Sanctification is the process of our hearts and minds being conformed into that of Christ's. Fallen man's will is enslaved to sin. Paul says Christians minds are set on the Spirit because the Spirit of Christ dwells in us; those who set their mind on the flesh don't have the Spirit; therefore, they cannot submit to Gods law (Romans 8:7-9). The Spirit has to change our hearts, which are willed toward sin and hostile to God's law, in order to submit to the Lordship of Christ.

Obviously, you must be wrong in your conclusions about speaking of man [in general]. Please explain Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Joshusa, Caleb, the Judges, Hanna, Samuel, David, Solomon, and on and on? Why not consider Paul had something more specific in mind when referring to God and David in "as it is written", Rom 3:10?

Please explain how it is that God tells we must overcome our natural inclination to put ourselves first in whatever situation might arise where making a proper choice is the issue __ something we must do apart from God but not possible without Him being in our concience/knowledge _____ "It is written"?

Just a thought: I think Adam had the issue of choice making even before he fell, didn't he?

 

[Lighthouse]

It also appears that your request for Scripture is being scrupulously ignored.

Yup.

 

[BrianJOrr]

Not off the top of my head. I think it was my first post in this thread, though.

I have posted plenty of Scriptures in my posts with platypus and my other responses, supporting God's monergistic work in salvation and man's inability to respond apart from the Spirit's work of regeneration. So, I haven't ignored your request, I just figured you would be able read my other discussions on that subject, using the verses to support that statement.