Is knowing Jesus as the Son of God a requirement to have eternal life or not?

[Steven2006]

Hey, guys lets leave the personal insults out of it. Nothing good comes from going down this road, and it really doesn't matter who said what first.

 

[preacher4truth]

PM- and I did not invite you to fight- I actually think it is crooked for you to twist it that way. You asked me do I "run my face" to other people this way or just hide behind my monitor and do it.

I said when I withstand people I look them in the eye and that if you would like to test that I will give you my address.

I said nothing about fighting. For you to misrepresent what I said in a PM on this public forum is not right.

And now you lie about it.

I'd say unbelievable, but, no, I believe it.

Gotta put you on ignore, friend. As soon as you grow up, and someone informs me of it, then we can talk.

The plain fact that you cannot admit you're wanting to and have in fact invited me to fight physically with you (which, by the way would be an utterly foolish thing for you to attempt for many reasons) and that you have lied about it, is all a mark on your honor, and testimony, son.

- Blessings

 

[Amy.G]

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.

That is how I understand it as well. Even though we are indwelt with the Spirit and can understand the spiritual things of God, we sometimes think and act in the flesh. Our flesh is still active in desiring things we shouldn't. We didn't lose the flesh when we were saved. We still have to deal with it's sinful desires every day. Paul spoke about this clearly. "Oh who will save me from this body of death?"

 

[Luke2427]

PM- and I did not invite you to fight- I actually think it is crooked for you to twist it that way. You asked me do I "run my face" to other people this way or just hide behind my monitor and do it.

I said when I withstand people I look them in the eye and that if you would like to test that I will give you my address.

I said nothing about fighting. For you to misrepresent what I said in a PM on this public forum is not right.

Here is the exchange copied from the pm and pasted here. I hate to do this. Nobody cares about our personal business but I will not be misrepresented here. Unfortunately I am controversial enough as it is with some- I do not need to be misrepresented.

ME
And those accused of ad hominem are often not guilty of it at all- all they are guilty of is decimating argumetns and frustrating the inflated egos of those whose argumetns fall. Then in frustration they accuse the strong debater of ad hominem just to save face.

That is what you are doing.

Don't get me wrong- I get heated and often apologize for it.

But your post is bull and cowardly and void of honor.

HIM
OH NO!! Not an ad hominem!!!

LOL.

Look how your knees are shaking over saying you're off track. Hilarious.

Look, friend. you cannot stand to be called out because, well, you're a puny person, with a huge mouth.

If my "off track" comment floored your weak person, then, well, you're very weak, more so than I first thought.

BTW, webgdog is correct, you have no clue about context.

You're wrong so often, it's kind of scary. I hope you don't teach people.

Like I asked, do you run your face in public like this, or just behind your monitor?

ME
Your off track comment was pointless and cowardly and yes, cowardice does aggravate me.

If you think Webdog is right on the context of 1 Corinthians 2:14 even though every other scholar on earth says he is wrong- then you probably have not been saved very long, you are still a babe in need of serious instruction.

I don't know how you "run a face" but if you're asking do I look men in the eye when I withstand them the answer is affirmative.

If you would like to test that, I'll send you my address.

 

[Luke2427]

And now you lie about it.

I'd say unbelievable, but, no, I believe it.

Gotta put you on ignore, friend. As soon as you grow up, and someone informs me of it, then we can talk.

The plain fact that you cannot admit you're wanting to and have in fact invited me to fight physically with you (which, by the way would be an utterly foolish thing for you to attempt for many reasons) and that you have lied about it, is all a mark on your honor, and testimony, son.

- Blessings

See post 244

 

[Luke2427]

Hey, guys lets leave the personal insults out of it. Nothing good comes from going down this road, and it really doesn't matter who said what first.

Agreed, but I will not let him twist a PM here and misrepresent me. I think it is crooked to even bring up in public what was discussed on a pm- but to misrepresent it is very problematic.

I apologize to you and others for this exchange. I hope post 244 clears it up and we do not have to do this anymore.

 

[annsni]

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]

Yes, he is clearly saying that the natural man (unregenerate man) cannot understand the things of God. That's it.

 

[annsni]

That is how I understand it as well. Even though we are indwelt with the Spirit and can understand the spiritual things of God, we sometimes think and act in the flesh. Our flesh is still active in desiring things we shouldn't. We didn't lose the flesh when we were saved. We still have to deal with it's sinful desires every day. Paul spoke about this clearly. "Oh who will save me from this body of death?"

But in 2:14, Paul is very clearly speaking that the unregenerate man (the natural man) cannot comprehend the things of God. Period. Yes, they were still acting "fleshy" but they had the Spirit so they COULD comprehend the things of God - but they were not thinking that way. But verse 14 is not addressing them as not being able to understand but is instead talking of the unregenerate. Paul was speaking to the regenerate ABOUT the unregenerate.

 

[preacher4truth]

But in 2:14, Paul is very clearly speaking that the unregenerate man (the natural man) cannot comprehend the things of God. Period. Yes, they were still acting "fleshy" but they had the Spirit so they COULD comprehend the things of God - but they were not thinking that way. But verse 14 is not addressing them as not being able to understand but is instead talking of the unregenerate. Paul was speaking to the regenerate ABOUT the unregenerate.

Good preaching Ann!

Let's take up a love offering!

:thumbs:

 

[Amy.G]

But in 2:14, Paul is very clearly speaking that the unregenerate man (the natural man) cannot comprehend the things of God. Period. Yes, they were still acting "fleshy" but they had the Spirit so they COULD comprehend the things of God - but they were not thinking that way. But verse 14 is not addressing them as not being able to understand but is instead talking of the unregenerate. Paul was speaking to the regenerate ABOUT the unregenerate.

YAY! That's it! I was just going to post the same thing after looking in a couple of my commentaries. :thumbs:

 

[webdog]

But in 2:14, Paul is very clearly speaking that the unregenerate man (the natural man) cannot comprehend the things of God. Period. Yes, they were still acting "fleshy" but they had the Spirit so they COULD comprehend the things of God - but they were not thinking that way. But verse 14 is not addressing them as not being able to understand but is instead talking of the unregenerate. Paul was speaking to the regenerate ABOUT the unregenerate.

He does address them as not being able to understand, THIS is the context of Paul speaking of the "natural" man.

"Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ."

Worldly is how the unregenerate live...the natural man.

"You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? (natural man)"

 

[Steven2006]

Paul was speaking to the regenerate ABOUT the unregenerate.

I can't speak for Amy but she might agree as long as you agree that this would be the the same as saying; Paul was speaking to the saved ABOUT the unsaved.

In reading this thread, isn't that what was is really being debated at this point, and how we got to this verse?

I agree that verse 14 was describing the unsaved, but I also agree with Amy that regeneration is being born again.

 

[webdog]

What believer here no longer has the "natural man", just curious. I do, and am ashamed to admit I allow my thinking to be governed by it much more than I wish. I look forward to the day my natural man perishes and I'm free of sin.

If natural man = unregenerate and spiritual man = regenerate, then no believer can live by the flesh anymore...there is sinless perfection.

 

[Amy.G]

I can't speak for Amy but she might agree as long as you agree that this would be the the same as saying; Paul was speaking to the saved ABOUT the unsaved.

In reading this thread, isn't that what was is really being debated at this point, and how we got to this verse?

I agree that verse 14 was describing the unsaved, but I also agree with Amy that regeneration is being born again.

Yes. I agree. Saved and unsaved.

The "natural" man is unsaved. But Paul was telling the Corinthians they were thinking like the unsaved/natural man because they were carnal or worldly in their thinking. He was not saying that they were unsaved.

 

[Steven2006]

He was not saying that they were unsaved.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone on this thread said Paul was addressing the unsaved.

But my main point was I agree with you about regeneration.

 

[Amy.G]

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone on this thread said Paul was addressing the unsaved.

But my main point was I agree with you about regeneration.

The reason for this whole Corinthian church debate was because Luke said Paul was addressing the unsaved.

 

[Steven2006]

The reason for this whole Corinthian church debate was because Luke said Paul was addressing the unsaved.

I might have missed it (and I could have with all these posts) but I understood him to say Paul was talking about the unsaved in verse 14. But regardless the point he was originally making to you about a person being regenerated for a long period of time, prior to a person being saved, is where I agree with you, and not him.

 

[preacher4truth]

:saint:

The reason for this whole Corinthian church debate was because Luke said Paul was addressing the unsaved.

Well, some good hermeneutics, weening oneself off of eisegetical interpretive habits, learning instead to exegete from the Scriptures, and having good contextual insight will prevent one from coming to this type of fallacious conclusion in the future.

The Scripture is plain. They were a born again body. It's not hard to miss that. That is who Paul is addressing here.

:saint:

 

[webdog]

The theme of this section of Paul’s letter is not “sinner” versus “saint,” or the “unregenerate” in contrast to the “regenerate.” Rather, as we have carefully documented above, the distinction is between “human wisdom” and “divine revelation.” In the original setting, the “spiritual” man was the one upon whom the gift of “inspiration” was bestowed. In principle, to us it would be the testimony of the Holy Writings (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
On the other hand, then, the “natural” man is the one who seeks whatever union he hopes to gain with the Creator by means of his own arrogant, self-serving intellect. And the kindred descendants of the ancient Greeks are legion.
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/643-who-is-the-natural-man-in-1-corinthians-2-14

 

[Luke2427]

YAY! That's it! I was just going to post the same thing after looking in a couple of my commentaries. :thumbs:

Thank heavens. We have an accord!:thumbs: