Exactly
Right. New heart.
No. And this is where you’ve created the person that scripture never describes. The half alive/half dead man.
Okay, so now there’s a category of those who don’t suppress the truth, and don’t have God’s wrath on them. Is that what I’m to take from this?
Not because all unbelievers are just as wicked sinners as those of Sodom and Gomorrah, which you seem to believe, but because all sin deserves wrath.
I understand that is how it may seem, but conviction means an intellectual change, a change of understanding which may stir up a lot of emotions, but it's not the new birth, the indwelling of the Holy spirit and the new heart. The new heart does not come from realizing and admitting one deserves wrath, but from turning to Christ for forgiveness.
We have talked about passages that describe the person convicted, the jailer etc. but you don't find those passages convincing.
It's true the convicted man no longer suppresses the truth, but no, the convicted man still has God's wrath on him since he has not yet acted on his conviction. It's like you have admitted to yourself you have stolen the car. It won't change anything until you turn it back to the owner. That's when the owner forgives you. You act on your conviction, that is repentance, and you are forgiven, reborn.
Let me ask you this. Do you think your sin is less offensive to God than their sins?
Scripture says different.
But you don’t think the weight of passages that describe the unregenerate man apply to all unregenerate man. You seem think that it’s just some sort of poetic hyperbole that only tells us we are all basically sinners.
So again, you have an unregenerate man who doesn’t suppress the truth, even though scripture says otherwise.
I believe more serious sins are more offensive to God than less serious sins, no matter who commits them. Sure my sins are not as offensive to God as rape and murder.
Eph 2:4-5 does not say how we were made alive (if it was through repentance or not). It just says when being dead in sins we were made alive (saved). It's like I can say "the medicine doc gave me saved me". Somehow the medicine entered my bloodstream, I just didn't say how. Now you believe dead in sins means being unable to respond, but it does not say that. I believe it means under judgment.
Titus 3:3-7 explains we were saved from a life of sin through mercy, through washing by the Spirit through Christ. It does not say how this came to be, only that it was through mercy and not by works (of the law). And it does not say they were unable to respond when they were living under sin.
I think you agree there are people who believe Jesus is the Christ who are not yet born again, who haven't committed their life to Christ.
It applies to all since all unbelievers are sinners, otherwise no.
Romans 3 applies to all unbelievers since they are all sinners, so yes. If you take it at face value you should believe all unbelievers kill and murder people (Romans 3:15-17).
Scripture does not say all unregenerate men suppress the truth. It says "men who suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18).
However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have ...
Then I fear you really don’t understand the sinfulness of sin. Simple disobedience caused the Fall, not rape or murder.
It does say what was done. He made us alive. Pretty straight forward.
He saved us not on the basis of deeds, including repentance.
No, otherwise John is lying.
You are reading it wrong. I think the esv is clearer.
So with that, do you believe that faith comes about by intellectual acceptance?
The Bible, I would say is clear all sin is not equally serious. All sin deserves God's wrath, but it's not the same as saying all sins are equally offensive to God.
Yes, pretty straight forward. "He made us alive" is the same as saying "he saved us." There is no mentioning of anyone not being able to respond.
There is the question if the deeds/works (of the law?) include repentance. It's not mentioned in Titus 3 and I don't think it is.
If there was only this verse it might be true. But John continues:
No, I believe faith comes from heeding the message unto repentance.
So is murder worse than simple disobedience? Because one of them cast mankind into sin.
I’m not sure what your point is.
The law, from Genesis on, has blessings for obeying, and cursings for disobeying. Is there a blessing for obeying the command to repent, and is there a curse for disobeying that command?
Every believer obeys His commandments. Do we obey perfectly? Of course not. That’s why we have a Mediator and a Substitute. And yes, he is talking about life-transforming faith. It takes a new heart to have that faith. The dead heart of stone is just that…dead.
LolI take it you are one of those who believes Obi-Wan lied to Luke about his father.
It doesn’t say they can’t believe, either.
So what comes first, believing the message, or heeding the message?
I think that just affirms what Paul says: "The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). That is one aspect to sin. We see also from Scripture that God deals with sin according to severity. That's the other aspect. There seems to be different degrees of punishment in the afterlife as well. So from this I draw the conclusion all sins are not equally offensive to God.
All Christians agree with Eph 2:3-5. Paraphrasing: "When we were sinners we were saved by Christ". Eph 2:3-5 state basic doctrine. Teachings like we were regenerated in and from a state where we were unable to respond is not part of Eph 2.
Yes, there are both temporary and eternal consequences for disobeying and obeying the command to repent.
But you did say all who believes Jesus is Christ are born again. You then hold the view all who believe Jesus is Christ obeys his commandments, even not perfectly?
True!
Believing the message comes first. Then heeding the message unto faith. There is a difference from believing a fact and having faith. Faith is a relationship with God, believing a fact not very much so.
Okay, so when Paul says that we are by nature children of wrath, do you think that there’s a lesser wrath for the good unregenerate people?
Maybe it’s because responding isn’t necessary for God to regenerate us.
Then it’s just as equally a law of God than the command to not eat the fruit.
Every person with a new heart obeys. And when we are disobedient, we are disciplined. That’s one of the evidences that we are actually His children. Hebrews 12.
So having faith that the message is true comes before believing the message is true. So it is an intellectual assent to believe the gospel, according to you. No change of heart required.
A closer read of the text doesn't actually use the article with the lead in phrases "according to flesh" and "according to spirit" in the two clauses of Rom 8:5. Here it is:
There are no "good" unregenerate people, only less bad. Rom 2:5 might indicate unbelievers store up different degrees of wrath.
It is a command. I don't think it is a law. Repentance seems more to be a response to the Law. If repentance was a law, then salvation could be won by the Law, since salvation is through repentance.
Believe in the message -> Heed the message, i.e. repent -> receiving the Holy Spirt, the new heart, faith.
Well, It changes how we view the concept of regeneration, the topic that you started with.
This isn’t a level of good or bad. It’s a level of knowledge. So the apostate will suffer more than the aboriginal tribesmen that never heard the gospel.
Again, if it’s a command, and there are blessings and cursings, it’s not a response. Repentance in the OT was in the law. No reason to think it changed under the new covenant.
You can gussy it up all you want, but it’s still intellectual. Why would conviction be necessary?
And again, I don’t see that your translation changes anything. Green’s translation says the same thing as what I posted, but just said it differently, like all translations do.
Perhaps! Then there are at least two degrees of wrath.
If it is a law, how come Paul says we can't be righteous through the Law, when we become righteous through repentance?
If you think it's intellectual you don't understand what I mean. How do you mean it's intellectual?
Because otherwise you don't understand the need of the gospel.
My point was that although Green's translation initially recognized the lack of the article with the terms "flesh" and "spirit", he didn't recognize what the implications were. It's not so much that Green is "saying it differently", but rather the whole meaning of the text changes when the translation of πνεῦμα, without the article, is capitalized asserting reference to the "Holy Spirit", rather than simply "spirit", with reference to man's breath/spirit.
A distinction without a difference, if you are the one suffering.
Because we aren’t saved by repentance. We are saved by the grace of God. Repentance comes naturally to those with hearts of flesh.
Because you can be presented with facts, and decide whether or not to believe them.
Why not?
I beg you differ. Jesus says:
Ah, now I see what you are getting at. Yes, I think conviction can be seen as an intellectual understanding of the personal need of the gospel. I don't think people come to this understanding by themself. They must be convicted by the Holy Spirit.
It's like asking how can you not understand the need of a bandage without understanding you have a wound. Why then can you not understand you have a wound? Because of sin, pride, self-reliance. It's the nature of man to resist the gospel.
You must be born again. John 3.
Which I don’t think you’ve actually shown from scripture, but I could be mistaken.
Yes, it is his nature. Which is why he needs a new one.
