A carryover thread from 'The Children whom God hath given me .'

[revmwc]

revmwc

These men are real pastors who can read, teach, and preach from the greek text...unlike you and your partner:laugh:

I use an interlinear for the straight Greek translation also Vines, Strongs and Youngs as helps. Commentaries are the very last option for helps I teach every week four lessons a week as I pastor a church. I go back to the interlinear as I have in this thread and by the original the term "Sarkikos" man has been shown as to what Paul is speaking.

Calvin said they were "Hence, with the view of beating down so much the better their insolence, he declares, that they belong to the company of those who, stupefied by carnal sense, are not prepared to receive the spiritual wisdom of God. He softens down, it is true, the harshness of his reproach by calling them brethren, but at the same time he brings it forward expressly as a matter of reproach against them, that their minds were suffocated with the darkness of the flesh to such a degree that it formed a hindrance to his preaching among them."

That totally agrees with the believer being in a carnal state while still saved. Of course you seem to believe that a beliver must live in sinless perfection to be spiritual but scripture definitely doesn't teach that.

 

[DHK]

DHK

I read these threads very carefully.

Then you would realize that Paul, in almost every chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, addresses those who lived in sinful lifestyles of one sort or another: immorality, taking each other to court, drunkenness, gluttony, sacrificing to demons, etc. These things were lifestyles. Not all for all of them--but some were having a hard time with drink; others with immorality, others were taking one another to court. They lived sinful lifestyles as carnal Christians.
This is something Paul sets out very clearly in 1Cor.3:1-5, a passage you have continued to deny since you first started to post here. Yet I affirm the same truth, and you simply call me names. You can't refute the truth taught there, can you?

SG...was very kind, and patient with both of you. He clearly withstood both of you by simply responding solidly biblically to each point, without blemish.

We both had a civil discourse with each other.

Sure he did.....he is a very nice person. He stated his position clearly and answered clearly. When he saw that you two could not or would not address his points honestly.....he knew no more needed to be said.

This is where you are wrong. If you were right you would be able to address at least the last half dozen posts I have made. But you cannot.

No...he did not.He is very nice. That is where I step in DHK. I do not like how you treated him and others.....so I let you know it.

I treated him as he treated me--in a civil manner.
But you don't do that--not to me and not to others.

read through my posts.....If anyone just interacts with others I never come at them that way....even when we do not agree.

Your posts to others with whom you disagree are arrogant and caustic to say the least. For example:

Sorry I don't interact with false teachers who are too lazy to listen to correction by men who can preach from the greek text,

That's wonderful. No one has suggested you should.
Evidently you will not listen to biblical correction and would rather remain ignorant of truth and unteachable like your friend...he also rejects knowledge that would easily correct his error

Oh...do not concern yourself. These men are real pastors who can read, teach, and preach from the greek text...unlike you and your partner

You and your partner do not deal straight-forward however. You invite resistance by your M.O.

You said, "you never come at them 'that way'"??
What's that again?? What is your meaning in that statement?

It seems that way to you because of how you interact with me....a recent example is...rmac said something that I quoted, but did not get it to quote properly......[so it looked as if I made the statement.} you reacted strongly saying......whattttttt??????? when rmac explained his quote, you basically said...oh, nevermind!

So then move on. But to keep on calling someone a false teacher is unconscionable. You are in the wrong making such accusations over and over again. Another moderator would give you infractions for such allegations.

I can show step by step where you go wrong, but I am not sure you would read it.

No you can't. You can't respond to my last posts. You probably won't respond to the first part of this one that I gave you. The Corinthians (many of them) were carnal Christians. That is precisely the reason why Paul wrote the letter--to rebuke and correct their carnality. But in order to protect an errant theology, a theology that you cling to over and above what the Bible teaches, you have set the Bible aside and cling to your Calvinism first. That is a shame.

 

[Iconoclast]

I use an interlinear for the straight Greek translation also Vines, Strongs and Youngs as helps. Commentaries are the very last option for helps I teach every week four lessons a week as I pastor a church. I go back to the interlinear as I have in this thread and by the original the term "Sarkikos" man has been shown as to what Paul is speaking.

Calvin said they were "Hence, with the view of beating down so much the better their insolence, he declares, that they belong to the company of those who, stupefied by carnal sense, are not prepared to receive the spiritual wisdom of God. He softens down, it is true, the harshness of his reproach by calling them brethren, but at the same time he brings it forward expressly as a matter of reproach against them, that their minds were suffocated with the darkness of the flesh to such a degree that it formed a hindrance to his preaching among them."

That totally agrees with the believer being in a carnal state while still saved. Of course you seem to believe that a beliver must live in sinless perfection to be spiritual but scripture definitely doesn't teach that.

Those tools can be helpful...however it does not substitute for a person who can read the text and know which words are used and in what tense it was written in....

If you have to pick only one message pick the third one on the link. It deals with your history question and then the Greek grammar.

 

[Iconoclast]

Then you would realize that Paul, in almost every chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, addresses those who lived in sinful lifestyles of one sort or another: immorality, taking each other to court, drunkenness, gluttony, sacrificing to demons, etc. These things were lifestyles. Not all for all of them--but some were having a hard time with drink; others with immorality, others were taking one another to court. They lived sinful lifestyles as carnal Christians.
This is something Paul sets out very clearly in 1Cor.3:1-5, a passage you have continued to deny since you first started to post here. Yet I affirm the same truth, and you simply call me names. You can't refute the truth taught there, can you?

We both had a civil discourse with each other.


This is where you are wrong. If you were right you would be able to address at least the last half dozen posts I have made. But you cannot.

I treated him as he treated me--in a civil manner.
But you don't do that--not to me and not to others.

Your posts to others with whom you disagree are arrogant and caustic to say the least. For example:
[/b]
You said, "you never come at them 'that way'"??
What's that again?? What is your meaning in that statement?

So then move on. But to keep on calling someone a false teacher is unconscionable. You are in the wrong making such accusations over and over again. Another moderator would give you infractions for such allegations.

No you can't. You can't respond to my last posts. You probably won't respond to the first part of this one that I gave you. The Corinthians (many of them) were carnal Christians. That is precisely the reason why Paul wrote the letter--to rebuke and correct their carnality. But in order to protect an errant theology, a theology that you cling to over and above what the Bible teaches, you have set the Bible aside and cling to your Calvinism first. That is a shame.

I will answer you fully tommorow when I can sit at my laptop.

I am not calling you names for the sake of name calling. I am describing what you two are doing. For a few years now you have been offered correction....I told you you cannot refute the truth on this.
You ignore what was offered and teach the direct opposite of what the section teaches.
Am I supposed to congratulate you?
Rmac said I do not believe Paul.....should I give him a prize?

I did not comment much on here...SG had it covered.....notice....I was not caustic to him as you say.....notice need to be.

You still ignore that two different words are used...you cannot come to truth that way.

You wrongly claim I cannot answer you....your error is easy because you repeat it over and over.....I will show you tommorow .

Again...you try and push your anti call agenda.Now when I answer you later on....keep in mind you requested the answer....

 

[DHK]

Those tools can be helpful...however it does not substitute for a person who can read the text and know which words are used and in what tense it was written in....

If you have to pick only one message pick the third one on the link. It deals with your history question and then the Greek grammar.

Instead of actually engaging in meaningful debate your infantile "go read my link" produces nothing of any value at all.
Why not simply reply to his post instead?

 

[Iconoclast]

Instead of actually engaging in meaningful debate your infantile "go read my link" produces nothing of any value at all.
Why not simply reply to his post instead?

The third sermon in the link that you call infantile destroys your error.
For you to say the exegesis of the text produces nothing of any value shows exactly why you do not understand the passage and shows you are.unteachable.

You ignored the fact that like you...rmac would not.listen to the sermon.he said...he would not listen...so I replied I would not interact with someone so lazy. ...I am telling both of you the third sermon answers everything you two asked about. ...anyone who did listen knows the truth of it now.

When you turn from light.....you go into darkness...

 

[revmwc]

The third sermon in the link that you call infantile destroys your error.
For you to say the exegesis of the text produces nothing of any value shows exactly why you do not understand the passage and shows you are.unteachable.

You ignored the fact that like you...rmac would not.listen to the sermon.he said...he would not listen...so I replied I would not interact with someone so lazy. ...I am telling both of you the third sermon answers everything you two asked about. ...anyone who did listen knows the truth of it now.

When you turn from light.....you go into darkness...

First off you never told me who the speakers are and I will not listen or look to people I have no idea about. Would you listen or read Chuck Swindoll or Tony Evans when they speak or write of Carnal believers what about J. Vernon Magee?

Chuck Swindoll on Carnallity:
http://www.insight.org/resources/devotionals/the-downward-spiral-of-defiance.html

Tony Evans on Carnality today:
http://www.christianity.com/1332944/

They both prove you wrong would you take correction from them?


You see you call those who believe opposite of you false teachers, you make the accusations yet the doctrine you reject is preached and taught by many who are well known and followed by believers. Yet you seem to be too ashamed to even say who you are linking people too.

How about J. Vernon Magee

http://www.jesus.org/following-jesus/discipleship/what-is-a-carnal-christian.html

Then there's John Gill:

but as unto carnal: not that they were in a carnal state, as unregenerate men are; but had carnal conceptions of things, were in carnal frames of soul, and walked in a carnal conversation with each other; though they were not in the flesh, in a state of nature, yet the flesh was in them, and not only lusted against the Spirit, but was very predominant in them, and carried them captive, so that they are denominated from it:

even as unto babes in Christ; they were in Christ, and so were new creatures; they were, as the Arabic version reads it, "in the faith of Christ"; though babes and weaklings in it, they were believers in Christ, converted persons, yet children in understanding, knowledge, and experience; had but little judgment in spiritual things, and were unskilful in the word of righteousness; at least this was the case of many of them, though others were enriched in all utterance and knowledge, and in no gift came behind members of other churches.

All show Christians can become fleshly, they can serve sin even though they are believers and spiritually alive while either Temporally dead or Operationally dead.

So in yours is Spurgeon a false teacher:

1 Corinthians 3:3. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

A united church, you may conclude, is a growing church — perhaps a grown church; but a disunited church, split up into factions where every man is seeking position and trying to be noted such a church is a church of babes. They are carnal, and walk as men.

Or how about William Barclay:

1 Corinthians 3

Paul has just been talking about the difference between the man who is spiritual (pneumatikos, Greek #4152), and who therefore can understand spiritual truths, and the man who is psuchikos (Greek #5591), whose interests and aims do not go beyond physical life and who is therefore unable to grasp spiritual truth. He now accuses the Corinthians of being still at the physical stage. But he uses two new words to describe them.

In 1 Corinthians 3:1 he calls them sarkinoi (Greek #4560). This word comes from sarx (Greek #4561) which means flesh and is so common in Paul. Now all Greek adjectives ending in -inos mean made of something or other. So Paul begins by saying that the Corinthians are made of flesh. That was not in itself a rebuke; a man just because he is a man is made of flesh, but he must not stay that way. The trouble was that the Corinthians were not only sarkinoi (Greek #4560) they were sarkikoi (Greek #4550), which means not only made of flesh but dominated by the flesh. To Paul the flesh is much more than merely a physical thing. It means human nature apart from God, that part of man both mental and physical which provides a bridgehead for sin. So the fault that Paul finds with the Corinthians is not that they are made of flesh--all men are--but that they have allowed this lower side of their nature to dominate all their outlook and all their actions.

Here we see Charles Hodge (1797 - 1878)

Reproof of the Corinthians for Their Dissensions about Their Religious Teachers — 1 Corinthians

The apostle resumes the subject of the contentions in the church of Corinth. He passes to that subject from the defense of his mode of preaching by a natural association. One of the objections against him was, that his preaching was too simple. He answers, he could not make it otherwise, because they were there babes in Christ. The proof of their being in this infantile or carnal state was that strifes and divisions existed among them; one saying, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos, 1 Corinthians 3:1-4.

As their dissentions had reference to their religious teachers, the apostle endeavors to correct the evil by presenting the ministerial office in its true light:

Here are 7 noted men who show exactly what I and others have stated which you call false teaching. Yet you offer proof by whom? You won't say!

 

[DHK]

The third sermon in the link that you call infantile destroys your error.
For you to say the exegesis of the text produces nothing of any value shows exactly why you do not understand the passage and shows you are.unteachable.

You ignored the fact that like you...rmac would not.listen to the sermon.he said...he would not listen...so I replied I would not interact with someone so lazy. ...I am telling both of you the third sermon answers everything you two asked about. ...anyone who did listen knows the truth of it now.

When you turn from light.....you go into darkness...

Let me put it another way:
Your childish way of debate is this:
Someone gives you a well-reasoned out argument on any given subject.
Instead or responding with any degree of intelligence, you childishly say:
"Go read my link."
That is child's play.

In the Other Religion's Forum, there is a rule against that.
When debating some person of another religion they are not allowed to give URL's to their faith's website. It is considered propaganda. It is prohibited. They must explain their own position. For example, there are no links allowed to RCC apologetic websites.

 

[Iconoclast]

Let me put it another way:
Your childish way of debate is this:
Someone gives you a well-reasoned out argument on any given subject.
Instead or responding with any degree of intelligence, you childishly say:
"Go read my link."
That is child's play.

In the Other Religion's Forum, there is a rule against that.
When debating some person of another religion they are not allowed to give URL's to their faith's website. It is considered propaganda. It is prohibited. They must explain their own position. For example, there are no links allowed to RCC apologetic websites.

Like this makes me think that you have secretly listen to the sermons .
You realize that you cannot answer them and now you look to diminish the sermons
There is nothing special about me putting teaching in my own words that others have said very clearly and and very well .
I do I don't have to credential it with my own my own thoughts I just have to know where to find the truth.
and you consistently turn against the links that I offer because I know for a fact you cannot begin to even answer them whether it's the confession whether it's the catechism no matter what link I offer you try to shoot it down rather than if someone was really interested in truth they would look to find as much as they can in any form

 

[DHK]

Like this makes me think that you have secretly listen to the sermons .
You realize that you cannot answer them and now you look to diminish the sermons
There is nothing special about me putting teaching in my own words that others have said very clearly and and very well .
I do I don't have to credential it with my own my own thoughts I just have to know where to find the truth.
and you consistently turn against the links that I offer because I know for a fact you cannot begin to even answer them whether it's the confession whether it's the catechism no matter what link I offer you try to shoot it down rather than if someone was really interested in truth they would look to find as much as they can in any form

When a person has said something better than I can express in my own words I simply take that portion of what he has said and put in quotes, as revmwc has done countless of times for you. Very few people here have the time to sit down and listen to hours of sermons. I for one don't have the time.

A debate is to interact with another person not with another "link".

 

[revmwc]

revmwc



Sorry I don't interact with false teachers who are too lazy to listen to correction by men who can preach from the greek text,



That's wonderful. No one has suggested you should.
Evidently you will not listen to biblical correction and would rather remain ignorant of truth and unteachable like your friend...he also rejects knowledge that would easily correct his error



Oh...do not concern yourself. These men are real pastors who can read, teach, and preach from the greek text...unlike you and your partner:laugh:

So who says the it is correction? I don't listen to anyone until I can read a bio on them or find their personal doctrinal statement or had someone I trust recommend them. Don't you do the same? Why won't you say who they are, are you ashamed to let people know? Anyone who will blindly listen to any preacher/teacher without checking them out is seeking to be lead astray!

 

[Iconoclast]

So who says the it is correction? I don't listen to anyone until I can read a bio on them or find their personal doctrinal statement or had someone I trust recommend them. Don't you do the same? Why won't you say who they are, are you ashamed to let people know? Anyone who will blindly listen to any preacher/teacher without checking them out is seeking to be lead astray!

They are internationally known and respected teachers...who have Pastored churches and have over 80 yrs ministerial experience. Both know and teach from the Greek text.

Both are on sermonaudio....You sound like those in Corinth. Are you of Apollos? Swindoll? Or Evans?......do a Google search....they will come up.....


By the way.....Swindoll did not have any relevance to the discussion...I will comment more on all of them later......Barkley agrees with my position.....

 

[revmwc]

They are internationally known and respected teachers...who have Pastore churches and have over 80 yrs ministerial experience. Both know and teach from the Greek text.

Both are on sermonaudio....You sound like those in Corinth. Are you of Apollos? Swindoll? Or Evans?......do a Google search....they will come up.....


By the way.....Swindoll did not have any relevance to the discussion...I will comment more on all of them later......Barkley agrees with my position.....

Barclay states:

It means human nature apart from God, that part of man both mental and physical which provides a bridgehead for sin. So the fault that Paul finds with the Corinthians is not that they are made of flesh--all men are--but that they have allowed this lower side of their nature to dominate all their outlook and all their actions.

That is the Sarkikos man the third man that DHK and I have been talking about. The Carnal Christian who has "allowed this lower side of their nature to dominate all their outlook and all their actions." Sarkikos!

 

[revmwc]

They are internationally known and respected teachers...who have Pastore churches and have over 80 yrs ministerial experience. Both know and teach from the Greek text.

Both are on sermonaudio....You sound like those in Corinth. Are you of Apollos? Swindoll? Or Evans?......do a Google search....they will come up.....


By the way.....Swindoll did not have any relevance to the discussion...I will comment more on all of them later......Barkley agrees with my position.....

I would look them up if I knew who they were!

 

[Iconoclast]

I would look them up if I knew who they were!

I gave a link....it has their names and sermons.....the grace gems link.

I am not able to get online right now....to repost the link....it is on page 14,15,or 16...I forget.

Page 17.....post 164......sermon treasures link on the bottom of the post.

 

[DHK]

They are internationally known and respected teachers...who have Pastore churches and have over 80 yrs ministerial experience. Both know and teach from the Greek text.

You want him to listen to a guy who has over 80 years ministerial experience!
When did he start? When he was 20?
Sounds a bit fabricated to me.

 

[Iconoclast]

You want him to listen to a guy who has over 80 years ministerial experience!
When did he start? When he was 20?
Sounds a bit fabricated to me.

Try and follow DH K......I know it is hard for you...there are two men both in their 70s one was a pastor for 46 yrs....the other still is after 42 years.....do I have to add the numbers for you...:laugh:

 

[DHK]

Try and follow DH K......I know it is hard for you...there are two men both in their 70s one was a pastor for 46 yrs....the other still is after 42 years.....do I have to add the numbers for you...:laugh:

Perhaps that's why he wanted some more clarification.
After all you could have been referring to 80 speakers all having one year experience. Details are important. Is it any wonder that he insists on some biographical information!!

 

[Iconoclast]

Perhaps that's why he wanted some more clarification.
After all you could have been referring to 80 speakers all having one year experience. Details are important. Is it any wonder that he insists on some biographical information!!

80????

I said BOTH twice;

Both know and teach from the Greek text.

Both are on sermonaudio....

both


/bōTH/


predeterminer, determiner, & pronoun

determiner: both; pronoun: both



1. used to refer to two people or things, regarded and identified together

 

[Iconoclast]

I would look them up if I knew who they were!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg1ab4vvFI0


DR. W. R. DOWNING, PASTOR

Pastor William R. Downing is the founding pastor of Sovereign Grace Baptist Church. Prior to his call to the gospel ministry in 1963, he worked as a commercial deep sea diver, construction worker and truck driver. By the grace of God he has faithfully served the Lord as a pastor in six different congregations since entering the ministry . He has also served as a credentialed school teacher and as a professor in several educational institutions, teaching at the college, seminary and graduate school level. His academic degrees include an M.A. in Ed., a Th.M., a Ph.D. in New Testament Studies, and an honorary D.D. He has authored fourteen books and several pamphlets and papers. Pastor Downing married Adeline Mary "Cookie" Mica in 1967, and they have three children and eleven grandchildren.


https://banneroftruth.org/us/about/banner-authors/a-n-martin/

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&Keyword=Albert^N.^Martin