The mind set on the flesh

[zoidar]

My recent arguments are based on quotes from John Calvin, and yet you term that as crafting a straw man and not understanding Calvinism. Let the readers decide based upon what Calvin wrote.

This might sound odd, but I don't think Calvin would have affirmed Calvinism, not the 5-points. A bit like Luther wouldn't agree with everything in the Lutheranism of today.

 

[Hammster]

My recent arguments are based on quotes from John Calvin, and yet you term that as crafting a straw man and not understanding Calvinism. Let the readers decide based upon what Calvin wrote.

I didn’t say your quotes from Calvin were a straw man. Your premise was, and your quotes didn’t support your assertion. This just isn’t the thread to discuss it, though. That’s why I started the thread, so that if you wanted to present the argument, there’d be a place to discuss it.

 

[John Mullally]

I didn’t say your quotes from Calvin were a straw man. Your premise was, and your quotes didn’t support your assertion.

My premise follows what Calvin wrote. For example, based upon the following from Calvin: How is man not God's puppet as Calvin states that God governs our will and our movements?

Hence we maintain that, by his providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)​

I know present day Calvinists don't affirm we are puppets - because it is intolerable.

 

[Hammster]

My premise follows what Calvin wrote. For example, based upon the following from Calvin: How is man not God's puppet as Calvin states that God governs our will and our movements?

Hence we maintain that, by his providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)​

I know present day Calvinists don't affirm we are puppets - because it is intolerable.

Not the thread for this. But there is one.

 

[Hammster]

Well, that was fun.

 

[John Mullally]

Fun you say. Going back to Post 223, I made a detailed argument:

“The Flesh” in Romans​

The unbeliever, of course, since He does not have the Spirit of God, has no choice but to operate through the flesh. As we have seen in the discussion about the three parts of a person, this says nothing whatsoever about the ability (or inability) of the unregenerate person to believe in Jesus for eternal life. It is not “the flesh” that believes in Jesus, but the spirit.

Proverbs 20:27 The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly.​

So while Paul is absolutely right that the flesh cannot please God, we should not understand Paul to be saying that a person cannot believe in Jesus for eternal life. God calls all to believe in Jesus, and since faith is not a work of the spirit through the corrupted flesh, our spirit convicted by the Holy Spirit is able to believe in Jesus and receive eternal life from Him. The transition from death into life occurs when we believe the Gospel message..

John 5:24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.​

​

Ephesians 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,​

​

1 Timothy 4:10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.​

Unbelievers are Not the Focus on Romans 8:7-8​

Of course, having said this, it is important to note that the unregenerate person is not the subject of Paul’s statement in Romans 8:7-8.

Instead, Paul is writing about the experience of believers.

In Romans 7, he wrote about the ongoing struggle with sin that every person experiences (both believer and unbeliever alike), and concluded that description by rejoicing that God has provided a way through Jesus Christ for people to be freed from the bondage to decay and corruption that was brought about by the body of death. As a result of Jesus and the indwelling Holy Spirit, our mind can side with our regenerated spirit now serve the law of God, even though the flesh still serves the law of sin (Romans 7:25).


Taken with some edits from Romans 8:7-8, Enmity with God, and Calvinism

To which I got this exchange:

And if the believer cannot please God in the flesh, then it certainly means that the unbeliever cannot please God in the flesh.

You sharply dismiss without addressing any of the points of my argument.

I did. That was the rest of my post.

No, here you never did respond to my arguments other than to rehash that which I disagreed with in your original post. That is called operating in an echo chamber. Other points I made in other posts on this thread were met with a similar quality of dismissive responses containing no specifics, such as: straw man accusation, that is not the way it works, you don't understand, and why are you antagonistic.

 

[Hammster]

Fun you say. Going back to Post 223, I made a detailed argument:

To which I got this exchange:



No, here you never did respond to my arguments other than to rehash that which I disagreed with in your original post. That is called operating in an echo chamber. Other points I made in other posts on this thread were met with a similar quality of dismissive responses containing no specifics, such as: straw man accusation, that is not the way it works, you don't understand, and why are you antagonistic.

Okay.

 

[John Mullally]

Okay.

Dodge: A partial response providing no information which is used to appear that one has responded to an argument.

No response to the meat of my argument in Post 367 (see below).

No, here you never did respond to my arguments other than to rehash that which I disagreed with in your original post. That is called operating in an echo chamber. Other points I made in other posts on this thread were met with a similar quality of dismissive responses containing no specifics, such as: straw man accusation, that is not the way it works, you don't understand, and why are you antagonistic.

Is that OK?

 

[Hammster]

Dodge: A partial response providing no information which is used to appear that one has responded to an argument.

No response to the meat of my argument in Post 367 (see below).

Is that OK?

I don’t have anything to add to my initial response.

 

[John Mullally]

I don’t have anything to add to my initial response.

Your post 365 and 366 makes it sound like you held court on this subject.

But when flaws are pointed out (Post 367), you provide a non-informational response. Got it.

 

[Hammster]

Your post 365 and 366 makes it sound like you held court on this subject.

But when flaws are pointed out (Post 367), you provide a non-informational response. Got it.

Okay.