Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is knowing Jesus as the Son of God a requirement to have eternal life or not?
- Thread starter zrs6v4
- Start date
- Status
Partner, do you even know where the track is?
He is talking about in chapter 2 the time when he first came to them when they were lost, Amy.
How can you not see this???
Let me give you some advice- don't follow Webdog- he's a fine fellow, I'm sure, but he does not have the theological background or the exegetical ability to lead you properly.
That Paul is speaking about the time he first came to them is clear as day- clear as day. Anyone who denies that probably should not be so bold as to debate on a matter of this significance.
I'll tell you what. If I can prove that my interpetation of I Corinthians 2- that he is speaking about a time when they were lost- is correct, then you start a thread entitled- "I apologize for saying Luke was way off- I was wrong"
Deal?
preacher4truth
Active Member
No thanks. I'll pass.
I can't stand again to see you post your twisted views, and run lip as you did on "Calvinism Better at Evangelism" post, or whatever it was. And that was running your mouth for no reason. At all. Maybe you ought to run on over there and take a look see.
I'm not going to feed the troll.
Have a good one.
I can't stand again to see you post your twisted views, and run lip as you did on "Calvinism Better at Evangelism" post, or whatever it was. And that was running your mouth for no reason. At all. Maybe you ought to run on over there and take a look see.
I'm not going to feed the troll.
Have a good one.
Last edited by a moderator:
I just read 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 and I do see that Paul is addressing when he first came to them - when they were first saved. I then looked at Matthew Henry who says
"1Cr 2:1-5
In this passage the apostle pursues his design, and reminds the Corinthians how he acted when he first preached the gospel among them."
then later
"1Cr 2:6-16
In this part of the chapter the apostle shows them that though he had not come to them with the excellency of human wisdom, with any of the boasted knowledge and literature of the Jews or Greeks, yet he had communicated to them a treasure of the truest and the highest wisdom"
Matthew Henry agrees that chapter two is addressing the Corinthians regarding how they were BEFORE they were saved.
"1Cr 2:1-5
In this passage the apostle pursues his design, and reminds the Corinthians how he acted when he first preached the gospel among them."
then later
"1Cr 2:6-16
In this part of the chapter the apostle shows them that though he had not come to them with the excellency of human wisdom, with any of the boasted knowledge and literature of the Jews or Greeks, yet he had communicated to them a treasure of the truest and the highest wisdom"
Matthew Henry agrees that chapter two is addressing the Corinthians regarding how they were BEFORE they were saved.
Wrong, you are reading that into the text Luke! It is only saying those who are currently believing (an action completed in the past continuing forward) has at some point been born again. It does NOT state when this occurs, it is eisegesis to state it does. These texts do not prove nor disprove pre-faith regeneration...they have NOTHING to do with it whatsoever.
I'm a believer (present tense) and I was born again at some point before today. With this information alone you cannot tell me when I was born again. That is what John was saying.
Your arrogance is seeping through again, Luke. Me thinks you have a much higher view of your biblical prowess than you really do, particularly if you think Paul is addressing the lost in Chapter 2. I would hope Amy doesn't "follow me" (unless it's Twitter)...I would hope she doesn't follow anyone but Christ. As we should do with any believer, we take the cherry and spit out the pits. If you automatically assume every calvinist has pit-free cherries...and everyone else a bowl of pits...I'm afraid you are not being wise.
Paul is addressing HOW he came to them...
News flash: I'm indwelt with the same Spirit as you and I spend time in God's Word. No amount of letters after my name can trump this. I don't put my trust in my "natural man" to understand spiritual matters, but having the mind of Christ I CAN "be so bold as to debate on a matter of this significance". You need to ask yourself where your boldness is coming from...
Last edited by a moderator:
Web - You don't think chapter 2 is addressing when Paul first came to them?
Paul is addressing a church. He notes in chapter one that they were saved, and baptized, though not he but another did most of the baptizing. He is addressing them as a church, as believers. He is not addressing them when he first came, but rather reminding them how he came to them at the first.
The emphasis of the entire chapter is how he came to them. It is a continuation of chapter one. He did not come to them as an orator, as one with enticing words, one that would lure them by deceitful means, or by any means of trickery. Remember that there were false teachers in this church.
That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:5)
He had wanted to make sure that their faith was not based on man's wisdom but rather in the power of God. He is reminding them of these things. The whole purpose of this is leading up to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which gives us the power to understand spiritual truths.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. (1 Corinthians 2:10)
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. (1 Corinthians 2:12)
The unsaved man cannot discern or understand the things that a saved person can because he doesn't have the Spirit of God.
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. (1 Corinthians 2:14)
Those introductory verses were as a prelude leading up to the teaching that he is giving these believers in the rest of the chapter about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and its benefits.
No I don't when taking the entire book and chapter in context (if you are referring to all of chapter 2 speaking of them while in their lost state). The church was addressing spiritual issues using worldly means and philosophies and Paul was stating that when he first came to them, his preaching was not using these same standards of speech and philosophies. He tells them further on that the natural man (greek for "animal" man...the flesh) cannot discern the things of God...but...the spiritual man can, and it's this reason they have the mind of Christ. They were allowing their natural man to decide spiritual issues.
I see DHK addressed this at the same time as I did...and probably clearer. I guess Amy can cross him off as another one to ignore on the BB :laugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's the passage:
We see clearly in this passage that the Corinthians have had a changed spirit and thus can understand the things of God but that the world cannot understand it because it is spiritually discerned. It is not speaking of a believer using his flesh to think but instead an unregenerate man. I'm looking at some commentaries and I see Matthew Henry say:
Jamieson, Faucett and Brown agree:
It is clear that the "natural man" does not mean that a believer is using his natural state to think but instead it is speaking of an unregenerate soul. There are two types of men spoken of in this passage: the spiritual person (regenerate person) or the natural person (unregenerate). It's quite clear in the text. The "natural man" is never considered saved.
We see clearly in this passage that the Corinthians have had a changed spirit and thus can understand the things of God but that the world cannot understand it because it is spiritually discerned. It is not speaking of a believer using his flesh to think but instead an unregenerate man. I'm looking at some commentaries and I see Matthew Henry say:
Jamieson, Faucett and Brown agree:
It is clear that the "natural man" does not mean that a believer is using his natural state to think but instead it is speaking of an unregenerate soul. There are two types of men spoken of in this passage: the spiritual person (regenerate person) or the natural person (unregenerate). It's quite clear in the text. The "natural man" is never considered saved.
If the entire book was this one chapter, you may be correct. This is the problem the commentators you quoted have, they take this chapter not as a continuation of Paul's thoughts from chapter 1 (as it should be), but an entirely different thought altogether.
This is not about two kinds of people, but two kinds of ways to understand spiritual matters. They should be relying on the mind of Christ, but their actions are CLEAR from chapter 1 they were not.
Don't you think it's unusual for two commentaries to have the same mistake? No one is looking at a chapter alone. I don't think the commentaries that have withstood the test of time would have gotten there if they just took verses out of the context of the whole book.
I honestly have not found any commentary that says that verse 14 is speaking of saved people. It is not the understanding of the verse at all.
Adam Clarke is one I know that agrees with me, and I believe Robertson, but can't remember off hand. I've read others from the Grace Evangelical Society, too.
It's really not much different than the false understanding of Romans 9 - 11 dealing with individual salvation and not the nation of Israel.
Good choice. You were certainly going to lose that one as Ann proves above.
Drive by posting like you did here is, IMO, cowardly. Make an argumetn and be man enough to let it stand up to sincere scrutiny or don't post. This is a debate site - not a drive by posting where you get to pop in and say- "He's way off!" without proving it. That's pointless and inflammatory and anti-intellectual.
Stay in the pocket and go a round or two or don't post. It's like a little kid I remember in junior high who wanted to look tough to his buddies by picking on me, who was quite a bit larger than him, and so what he would do is run by and smack me from behind and run off before I could whip him for it. It meant he was a coward without honor.
I think that is what you make yourself in a debate site when you pop in and make some smart alek comment like that and then don't stand your ground and back it up. Either recognize that the guy is bigger than you and can whip you and leave him alone or pop him and stand in the pocket and face the consequences.
Be a man, Bud, is all I am asking.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a good point Ann- I hope Webdog will learn something here.
Adam Clarke is a GENUINE Arminian. He is Arminian on all five points. He is a Wesleyan Arminian- believes you can lose your salvation and get it back and lose it again- I mean he's the whole package.
AND EVEN ADAM CLARKE RECOGNIZES THAT 1 COR 2 IS TALKING ABOUT THE LOST.
The reason Webdog makes this error often is because he thinks that he does not need to respect the opinions of scholars and heroes of the faith.
He must not even look at a commentary before he goes off on these wild tangents about me being a heretic or ignorant of hermeneutics or whatever hyperbole he employs to demean me and Calvinists.
But then he winds up getting embarrassed when someone like you comes along and points out- Hey, Webdog, even scholars who believe what you believe do not agree with you! Luke is not alone in his interpretation of that passage- you are.
I hope he will humble himself as a result of your proving him wrong here and think before he hurls some silly, baseless accusation again.
But it will require him recognizing and yielding to the fact that there are wiser men than himself and that what they think about a passage counts.
We will see if he can do this.
Nothing there disagrees with what I said at all, in fact supports it.
I found the following from Clarke...
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]CHAPTER II. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The apostle makes an apology for his manner of preaching, 1. And gives the reason why he adopted that manner, 2-5. He shows that this preaching, notwithstanding it was not with excellence of human speech or wisdom, yet was the mysterious wisdom of God, which the princes of this world did not know, and which the Spirit of God alone could reveal, 6-10. It is the Spirit of God only that can reveal the things of God, 11. The apostles of Christ know the things of God by the Spirit of God, and teach them, not in the words of man's wisdom, but in the words of that Spirit, 12, 13. The natural man cannot discern the things of the Spirit, 14. But the spiritual man can discern and teach them, because he has the mind of Christ, 15, 16.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
[/FONT]
Here's what he says, Webdog:
They are lost folks- as I said before; everybody recognizes that but you. You're whipped- just yield. Can you not do that?
- Status