John 12:32 in context

Again, it seems that you've completely missed the significance of Paul addressing them as brethren in verse 1, which means that they were born-again or "regenerate".

" And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, [even] as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are ye able.
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?" ( 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 )

For reference, who is the letter of 1 Corinthians addressed to?

" unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:" ( 1 Corinthians 1:2 ).

Believers, not unbelievers.
One of the characteristics of a believer, a saved person, is that they are born-again ( John 3:3 ).

Paul is not speaking to someone who is not saved in 1 Corinthians...he is only addressing God's children.

 

Let's try it again, MB.
We'll use Scripture this time.
I thought the analogy fitting, but apparently you missed what he was referring to.

Does "world" mean "every single person who ever lived" in every passage of Scripture in God's word?
Here are some for consideration:

" The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him." ( John 12:19 ).

" Now if the fall of them [be] the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?" ( Romans 11:12 )

" Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." ( 1 John 2:15 )

" Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." ( James 4:4 )

" Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?" ( 1 Corinthians 6:2 ).



Do you see the nuances, or do you see "world" as meaning every man, woman and child?

 

I have never intended to change any of God's words at all.
But the understanding of them, now that is something that must be granted to someone:

"He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." ( Matthew 13:11 ).
" Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures" ( Luke 24:45 )

A person's understanding is closed to the Scriptures by default ( 1 Corinthians 2:14 ), until and unless they are born-again.

I hope, by God's grace, that that has happened for you, MB.
It's a rare and humbling gift for someone to know the living God and His Son ( Matthew 7:14, Matthew 7:21-23, John 17:2-3 ) and to understand His words.
A person must be "of God" in order to do so ( John 8:47 ), and they must be one of His sheep in order to hear His voice and to follow Him ( John 10:27 ).


This is my last reply to you in this thread.

Best wishes to you and yours, and may God, in His wisdom, grant you many good things.

 

EXACTLY That is what I have been saying for days now. There ARE other words in this case. CONTEXT

 

". . . all men will believe on him: . . ." -- John 11:48. . . .παντες . . .
And John 12:32, . . . παντας . . . .

 

Ah yes, my translation said everyone, I apologize. But that still doesn't change the context of the passage. Which you never addressed.

 

On and on the nonsense is posted. For those of a particular viewpoint, all scripture must be viewed in the context of the TULIP.

Yelping context, context is just another deflection ploy. Denying 1 Corinthians 3:1 teaches men of flesh can understand spiritual milk is ridiculous.. Instead what was the "contextual" understanding, why the men of flesh had been regenerated. See the ploy?

James 2:5 teaches conditional election, but the TULIP context, why it does not mean what it says.

On and on, nothing means what it actually says, everything must be rewritten to agree with the context of the TULIP.

 

No not TULIP, the context of the passages themselves. The only one trying to deflect is you by bringing up an irrelevant point and twisting people's statements.

 

Dave, I quoted my source, and you pretended a metaphorical meaning is not given in lexicons. Deflection, sir, pure and simple. Why waste everyone's time.

 

More deflection, more change of subject. The issue is not whether the new Christians were regenerate, the issue is Paul talked to them "as men of flesh." Thus "men of flesh" can understand and respond to milk.

 

You can deny it till the cows come home, if you reach a well studied contextual understanding of 1 Corinthians 3:1, you will say "men of flesh" can understand spiritual milk, and therefore the "T" is unbiblical.

 

Not the way I see it, sir.

The issue is precisely whether new Christians are regenerate, because to me, you are confusing "as men of flesh" with "as men of spirit".
In other words, your entire assertion that "men of flesh" can respond to milk is in error, because the people Paul was addressing were AS ( "like, similar to" ) men of flesh...not "men of flesh".

See Romans 8:5-11.

There is a big difference between born-again believers who behave like the world, and unregenerate, not-born-again unbelievers who behave that way naturally, with no conscience towards God ( Ephesians 4:17-24 ).

Scripture says otherwise:

1 Corinthians 1:18
1 Corinthians 2:14.
2 Corinthians 4:3-4.

 

Only if you take that 3 word phrase out of the context of the whole. Do you understand the concept of context?

 

What translation are you using, and why? I perfer the KJV over the modern critical or eclectic text translations (NT).

Because of the context being argued, I had addressed what is a larger context, John 11:48, John 11:53, John 12:32-33. And John 12:23, does read "will draw all." So what in the over all context are you refering to? I am evidently missing the point of disagreement between you and MB over context. Please be brief.