Featured Matt. 23:13 (again!)

Folks, all they have is slander, false charges and ad homenim arguments. Note no rebuttal to the fact fallen people were entering heaven, thus seeking God. Therefore total spiritual inability is mistaken doctrine. And if you refuse to change the subject to how neo-platoism affected Augustine, why you are a hypocrite. LOL

Four lines of evidence have been provided, (1) no scripture actually supports the bogus doctrine of total spiritual inability, not 1 Corinthians 2:14, not Romans 3:11 and not Romans 8:7. Then (2) several passages teach us fallen people were seeking God, such as Matthew 23:13, Matthew 13:1-23, Romans 9:30-33 and so forth. Third, Jesus would not have needed to teach in parables to prevent understanding if His audience could not receive the milk of the gospel. And Fourth, God would not have needed to harden the hearts of unbelieving Jews (Romans 11) to facilitate the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles.

 

No rebuttal? Really? All you have gotten was people exposing your error(s).

 

Van, you show no understanding or discernment. You have pride in your vain wisdom and you can't bear the thought of acknowledging your follies.

 

Should be 'Van wisdom' in that which I bolded.

 

Excellent. Acts is full of 'the dragon chasing the woman' to no avail. The more they tried to stamp out the Christian cult the more it spread.

 

Four lines of evidence have been provided,

(1) no scripture actually supports the bogus doctrine of total spiritual inability, not 1 Corinthians 2:14, not Romans 3:11 and not Romans 8:7.
Then (2) several passages teach us fallen people were seeking God, such as Matthew 23:13, Matthew 13:1-23, Romans 9:30-33 and so forth.
Third, Jesus would not have needed to teach in parables to prevent understanding if His audience could not receive the milk of the gospel.
And Fourth, God would not have needed to harden the hearts of unbelieving Jews (Romans 11) to facilitate the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles.​

 

You continue to deny the authority of the Scriptures.

1 Cor. 2:14 : The person without the spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

The above is exceedingly clear to all Bible believers. The individual above does not possess the Holy Spirit --a non-believer. It is impossible for this person to understand anything of God because those things are only understood through the Holy Spirit.

Romans 3:11 : there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God

That is an absolute statement and is as clear as a bell to any Christian.

Romans 8:7 : The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.

Verse 6 says "the mind governed by the flesh is death." That is referencing non-believers. Verse 7 cited above is also referencing non-believers. A non-believer cannot submit to God's law.

The Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ are one and the same as verse 9 brings out. One without the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Christ.

This person not only does not submit to God's law, but cannot do so.

All three passages entirely refute your theologically preposterous position. For you to use them to defend your doctrine is galling.​

 

Maybe he needs these?

 

Oh, Van's selfie.

 

More absurdity. 1 Corinthians 2:14 does not say it is "impossible to understand anything of God." Yet that claim is made. All you bible students listen up. These 5 pointers are adding "all" to the verse and ignoring the context which teaches those not indwelt can understand spiritual milk. Then they add "at any time" to Romans 3:11. Finally, they deny that Romans 8:7 addresses individuals with their mind set on the flesh. Three for three, exegetical nonsense. What ever happened to study to show yourself approved. Instead, they hurl insults because total spiritual inability has no support in scripture.

Matthew 23:13 demonstrates fallen unsaved unregenerate, not indwelt people can set their minds of godly things because they were entering heaven. Those that deny this obvious truth are wandering stars.

 

I didn't know Pelagianism was tolerated on here.

 

Yet another slander, another effort to change the subject, another dodge. Folks, when all they offer are insults, you should figure their position has been exposed as bogus.

Matthew 23:13 demonstrates fallen unsaved unregenerate, not indwelt people can set their minds of godly things because they were entering heaven. Those that deny this obvious truth are wandering stars.

Suppose a trial was held and these 5-pointers were charged with eisegesis, which is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text.

Did the add "all" to 1 Cor. 2:14? Yes. Strike one. Did they add "at any time" to Romans 3:11? Yes. Strike two. Did they add "always" to "those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the flesh?" Yes. Strike 3. Your honors, they are guilty of Eisegesis in the First degree.

 

You have been corrected numerous times and you don't want to admit you're mistaken. The text does not say "heaven" but the kingdom of heaven. A believer goes to heaven upon death. These people were alive. You edit the Bible time and time again.

Now that's a dumb remark.

You're turning this into a Cal-versus.non-Cal issue. I haven't seen any non-Cal commentary with your incredibly lame interpretation.

Your efforts at editing the Bible into the Vanversion are duly noted.

 

More mindless twaddle, avoiding any on topic content. More drawing non-existent distinctions between entering heaven and entering the kingdom of heaven. Good grief.

Matthew 23:13 demonstrates fallen unsaved unregenerate, not indwelt people can set their minds of godly things because they were entering heaven. Those that deny this obvious truth are wandering stars.

Suppose a trial was held and these 5-pointers were charged with eisegesis, which is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text.

Did the add "all" to 1 Cor. 2:14? Yes. Strike one. Did they add "at any time" to Romans 3:11? Yes. Strike two. Did they add "always" to "those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the flesh?" Yes. Strike 3. Your honors, they are guilty of Eisegesis in the First degree.

 

False on two counts. You have been taken to task by everyone and yet refuse to admit your errors because of your stubborn pride.

You maintain that you are a believer. Right Van? Are you in now Heaven communicating with us? I think you are still on the earth. You haven't died yet. If you are a believer you are in the Kingdom of Heaven/God. You are not in Heaven at this point. And that is all-too-obvious since you would not be holding to so many heterdox views if you were actually a resident of glory now.

Stephen, who was being stoned, was at the point of death when he "looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. "Look," he said, "I see heaven opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." (Acts 7:55b-56)

Stephen was not yet in Heaven itself but would soon be. Before his death he was in the Kingdom of Heaven as the rest of us can plainly see.

You keep repeating that nastiness. Can you be so unaware of what you so casually type. We are getting some new mods/administrators. I would hope that one will delete your sinful repeated remarks and give you fair warning about it.

 

Folks, Mr. Rippon, biblical scholar and pundit, now asserts when God transfers us into the kingdom of His Son, that is not heaven, the kingdom of God, the spiritual realm of God. This of course is totally false but lets see if any of the 5 pointers will stand up for biblical truth. I expect not.

Matthew 23:13 demonstrates fallen unsaved unregenerate, not indwelt people can set their minds of godly things because they were entering heaven. Those that deny this obvious truth are wandering stars.

Suppose a trial was held and these 5-pointers were charged with eisegesis, which is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text.

Did the add "all" to 1 Cor. 2:14? Yes. Strike one. Did they add "at any time" to Romans 3:11? Yes. Strike two. Did they add "always" to "those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the flesh?" Yes. Strike 3. Your honors, they are guilty of Eisegesis in the First degree.

Four lines of evidence have shown that "total spiritual inability" is bogus doctrine. And the response, absurdity, falsehood and slander. Go figure.

 

So how much prejudgment is required for you to assume that the kingdom is equated with heaven? Did any 2nd temple Jew ever believe that?

By the way, you do know that the concept for the Greek word often translated "kingdom" has more to do with the reign of the king than it does of the realm right?