1 Corinthians 12:3

[Silverhair]

I only need to study scripture. It is easy to understand if you leave secular philosophy behind and trust God’s Word.

1 Corinthians 12:3 “no man can say Jesus is Lord, but by the Spirit”.

Very easy to understand without preconceived, secular bias.

peace to you

You keep saying it is easy to understand and yet you continue to miss what Paul was saying in those verses. Guess you need to spend more time in your studies.

 

[Silverhair]

No. It's not a contradiction. But verse 12 standing alone does not convey the complete meaning of the passage. The Greek definitions you provided work for me. (Pun intended) But I totally agree that verse 12 is true and literal and important. But without verse 13 you can get way off track in your doctrine.

Paul in vs 12 is bidding them to “learn to walk alone,” instead of leaning too much on his presence and personal influence. “Do not make me your proxy in spiritual duties which must be your own.”

Paul did not say "work for your salvation." We obtain salvation by receiving it as a gift through faith (Eph_2:8), but having received it freely we have a responsibility to grow in our faith. To grow in sanctification {Separation unto God}. But God has not left us alone in this, He has given us the ability to draw closer to Him in holiness as we strive to be more Christlike everyday.

 

[DaveXR650]

.So your going to justify the errors of Augustine and Calvinism by saying you should not commit adultery was a gnostic idea. Bit of a stretch there Dave.

We're not talking about adultery. We're talking about the idea the early church fathers had about sex being if not evil, at least of a lower nature and only acceptable for the procreation of children. It is where a lot of people think the idea of celibacy in the priesthood came from. It certainly didn't come from scripture. It was gnostic.

Funny you say Augustine "may (and I mean may) have been influenced" if he was not influenced by his prior learning then what did he do just grab them out of the air.

I say may because Augustine himself wrote a lot refuting the philosophical ideas you accuse him of and like I said, Wilson's premise is that he returned to them later on but I'm not seeing much agreement with anyone else on this and the book has been out five years or so. Augustine wrote both opinions so I have doubts. I don't want to sound cynical but grabbing things out of the air is not unheard of in theology when you really begin to look at it.

We are all affected by the prevailing philosophy of the day in which we find ourselves living. Your own theology does not just come from the Bible at all. Anyone can tell you are heavily influenced by our modern high view of ourselves, and our individual freedoms. I also notice that we are heavily influenced by the ideas of "fairness". We immediately question God if we perceive everyone doesn't get some kind of equal chance at salvation. The ancient peoples would have never been bothered by this. We also have a modern scientific view, at least those of us old enough not to be post modern, where we cannot tolerate paradox like the ancients did. Thus we cannot accept the view that free will and God's sovereignty over events can in any way be compatible. It's not our fault but it's not unique to Augustine either.

 

[DaveXR650]

But God has not left us alone in this, He has given us the ability to draw closer to Him in holiness as we strive to be more Christlike everyday.

Notice how you just can't bring yourself to come out and admit that God actually does something for you! We have to have some ability that is our own (because like I said above it has to be distributed in some way that satisfies your view of "fairness"). Welcome to the age of self esteem. If Augustine could see us now.

 

[canadyjd]

You keep saying it is easy to understand and yet you continue to miss what Paul was saying in those verses. Guess you need to spend more time in your studies.

We disagree. I believe I fully understand Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 12:3 and the context in which they were written, as I have repeatedly explained.

You have presented nothing that would change my mind from the plain reading of the text…

No man says Jesus is Lord, but by the Spirit.

Very simple statement with profound implications.

peace to you

 

[Silverhair]

We're not talking about adultery. We're talking about the idea the early church fathers had about sex being if not evil, at least of a lower nature and only acceptable for the procreation of children. It is where a lot of people think the idea of celibacy in the priesthood came from. It certainly didn't come from scripture. It was gnostic.

I say may because Augustine himself wrote a lot refuting the philosophical ideas you accuse him of and like I said, Wilson's premise is that he returned to them later on but I'm not seeing much agreement with anyone else on this and the book has been out five years or so. Augustine wrote both opinions so I have doubts. I don't want to sound cynical but grabbing things out of the air is not unheard of in theology when you really begin to look at it.

We are all affected by the prevailing philosophy of the day in which we find ourselves living. Your own theology does not just come from the Bible at all. Anyone can tell you are heavily influenced by our modern high view of ourselves, and our individual freedoms. I also notice that we are heavily influenced by the ideas of "fairness". We immediately question God if we perceive everyone doesn't get some kind of equal chance at salvation. The ancient peoples would have never been bothered by this. We also have a modern scientific view, at least those of us old enough not to be post modern, where we cannot tolerate paradox like the ancients did. Thus we cannot accept the view that free will and God's sovereignty over events can in any way be compatible. It's not our fault but it's not unique to Augustine either.

Yes I can imagine that some ideas did filter in from the gnostics like no free will, fate/determinism etc.
Actually if you have read Wilson's book then you are aware of all the various authors that he cited. So to say there in not much agreement is to be less than forthright on your part. I have not seen any books or articles that have refuted his conclusions. Have you?

You have made a serious misjudgement of me. I have a high regard for scripture and the fact that we all have a God given free will. That is why God will hold us responsible for the choices we make. As for fairness, no, I would say that all should be treated equally, with equal justice. That is what we see in scripture. Fair has nothing to do with it, God is just.

Why would you question God as to whether all get an equal chance at salvation? He has set the condition, trust in Him and He has provided the various means by which all can know Him. So equal opportunity for all. Now Calvinism is the view that removes that equal opportunity via their TULIP/DoG, a select few chosen prior to creation and divine determinism etc. So if you want to speak of something that is not fair then look at Calvinism and it's children.

I agree that the ancient people would never have thought God is just that is why we know it comes from God and not man. In their minds God was arbitrary and capricious.

God is sovereign and that is why I do not understand the Calvinist/reformed view that tries to overrule God. God in His sovereignty has given man a free will with which to make real choices and yet Calvinists' and reformed continue to deny this, strange really.

 

[Silverhair]

Notice how you just can't bring yourself to come out and admit that God actually does something for you! We have to have some ability that is our own (because like I said above it has to be distributed in some way that satisfies your view of "fairness"). Welcome to the age of self esteem. If Augustine could see us now.

God has done something for all of us, He has given us the ability to choose how we will freely respond to Him. That is something that you can not seem to wrap your head around.

The option you seem to favor is that God makes you love Him. And that is not real love is it. Real love has to be freely given.

 

[Silverhair]

We disagree. I believe I fully understand Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 12:3 and the context in which they were written, as I have repeatedly explained.

You have presented nothing that would change my mind from the plain reading of the text…

No man says Jesus is Lord, but by the Spirit.

Very simple statement with profound implications.

peace to you

And if you actually understood the context you would see that your position is not supported by the text.

I have presented various scholars that show your error but you just ignore them. It is sad to see that you are so prideful that you will not accept clear teaching that shows your error.

 

[percho]

Don't forget the very next verse though.

Look at the two verses before.

 

[DaveXR650]

God has done something for all of us, He has given us the ability to choose how we will freely respond to Him. That is something that you can not seem to wrap your head around.

If you think it is just a matter of your autonomous will evaluating the proposed promises of the gospel then no, I can't agree with that.

And if you think there is any way to claim "fairness" by our definition in the way Amalekites and Israelites were dealt with in scripture then go for it. What I think is happening is you are showing how you are influenced by current culture and trying to preserve some dignity for yourself in that you at least had the good sense to choose wisely.

According to your theology, it would be wrong, and almost sinful to pray for someone to be saved. After all. Do they or do they not already have the same equal chance as you to get saved. Then let them do it or not, according to their choice.

You know as well as I do that that is not the way it really works so to charge that all Calvinism is is refurbished Manicheism is ridiculous. Scripture is what says you were bought with a price and are not your own, not Greek philosophy.

 

[Silverhair]

If you think it is just a matter of your autonomous will evaluating the proposed promises of the gospel then no, I can't agree with that.

And if you think there is any way to claim "fairness" by our definition in the way Amalekites and Israelites were dealt with in scripture then go for it. What I think is happening is you are showing how you are influenced by current culture and trying to preserve some dignity for yourself in that you at least had the good sense to choose wisely.

According to your theology, it would be wrong, and almost sinful to pray for someone to be saved. After all. Do they or do they not already have the same equal chance as you to get saved. Then let them do it or not, according to their choice.

You know as well as I do that that is not the way it really works so to charge that all Calvinism is is refurbished Manicheism is ridiculous. Scripture is what says you were bought with a price and are not your own, not Greek philosophy.

Dave how many times must I repeat this before you actually understand it. God is sovereign and in His sovereignty He has chosen to give man a free will with which to make real choices regarding his salvation. God has set the condition of salvation, faith/trust in Him. God will save those that trust in Him those that reject Him will be lost. Man does not save himself, God saves.

What did you not understand about
"As for fairness, no, I would say that all should be treated equally, with equal justice. That is what we see in scripture. Fair has nothing to do with it, God is just."

GOD IS NOT FAIR HE IS JUST. Is that clear enough for you? It seems you need someone to think God is fair so you can build a strawman argument to justify your view. If so you will need to find someone else to accuse as it is a false accusation of what I think.

Where do you come up with these silly ideas? Of course I pray for people to come to salvation. God can and does use various means to influence people but in the end it is still the person that has to make the choice. As for all humanity having an equal chance to know God, well according to scripture they do so they have no excuse. But I have to ask why do you have such a low view of the love and sovereignty of God?

Now from you Calvinist perspective I can see why you would not pray about anything as in your theology God has determined everything that will happen. So I can see Calvinists just sit back and do nothing as it has all been determined in advance. So under Calvinism equal does not exist. Since you keep using the term I can see the charge of God not being "fair" {free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice:} leveled against Calvinism.
"God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass "
"Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, He is pleased in His appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call "
"This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone ...being wholly passive therein ...
he is thereby enabled to answer this call " LBCF

You can protest all you want but the reality is that Calvinism is just modified Manicheism. Augustine brought pagan philosophy into the church and Calvin just carried it forward and it is still the basis of Calvinist/reformed/PB theology.

Yes we are bought with a price and scripture is clear that all can be saved but Calvinism turns that on it's ear with their TULIP and determinism the basis of which comes from pagan philosophy.

GOD IS NOT FAIR HE IS JUST. So please get that straight.

 

[DaveXR650]

GOD IS NOT FAIR HE IS JUST.

Sorry. God is just which is why he would be perfectly just to not save anyone. This is the starting point of all Calvinistic theology or really any theology that begins with men in a justly "lost" condition. "Fairness" is what you set up where salvation is nothing more than a correct response on your part to some propositions. Your theology is what causes these logical problems instead of just being thankful for God's mercy to you which happened because of reasons outside of your control. To answer that you have to come up with an autonomous free will that is somehow outside of everything and can view all the gospel offers in a detached manner with totally clear reasoning. But everyone knows that is unbiblical, and unreasonable for anyone who just observes life. That type of free will is a fantasy of our modern age of self esteem.

God is sovereign and that is why I do not understand the Calvinist/reformed view that tries to overrule God.

That statement is just silly on it's face. Say what you want about Calvinism but not that it tried to overrule God. The whole basis for it is God working out his own will. In some metaphysical areas they may go too far but you go way too far the other way.

 

[canadyjd]

And if you actually understood the context you would see that your position is not supported by the text.

I have presented various scholars that show your error but you just ignore them. It is sad to see that you are so prideful that you will not accept clear teaching that shows your error.

Please provide the links for the scholars that show my error on this passage.

peace to you

 

[kyredneck]

Please provide the links for the scholars that show my error on this passage.

peace to you

I would like to see those links also.

 

[Silverhair]

Sorry. God is just which is why he would be perfectly just to not save anyone. This is the starting point of all Calvinistic theology or really any theology that begins with men in a justly "lost" condition. "Fairness" is what you set up where salvation is nothing more than a correct response on your part to some propositions. Your theology is what causes these logical problems instead of just being thankful for God's mercy to you which happened because of reasons outside of your control. To answer that you have to come up with an autonomous free will that is somehow outside of everything and can view all the gospel offers in a detached manner with totally clear reasoning. But everyone knows that is unbiblical, and unreasonable for anyone who just observes life. That type of free will is a fantasy of our modern age of self esteem.

I am always amazed at how hard you fight to deny mans' God given free will. But since you do then you have to accept the truth of your stated theology that God is responsible for all the sin and evil in the world as He has to control/determine it all. That is the flaw in your theology and you continue to deny this reality. You continue to argue for fairness in salvation but the bible does not say God is fair but it does say God is just. God is just when He saves those that trust in Him and condemns those that reject Him. If He determined who would be able to trust in Him, as Calvinism posits, then to condemn the rest of humanity for not trusting in Him would actually make God unjust. Which is just the position that Calvinism has put God in through their TULIP. So Calvinism is in fact trying to overrule God through it's flawed theology. The fact you cannot or rather will not see this is why I say you should spend more time reading scripture and less reading those Calvinist authors as they have clouded your ability to think logically.

This is why I say you need more bible time Dave, you do not seem to realize that scripture says "...I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes..." and " you having heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also having trusted, were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise" and "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Why do you think the Holy Spirit had those included in scripture if man could not freely respond? And if we went by your view of no free will but the Calvinist determinism. Why would the Holy Spirit bother putting those verses in scripture?

The one thing I am sure to see from any Calvinist is that they will try to use over the top arguments to support their case. I know I have told you this before but again you ignore it, God provides various means to draw/influence man. This can be creation, conviction of sin, the gospel etc. and God actually expects man to be able to make real choices although I am sure a deterministic Calvinist like yourself will deny this biblical truth.
"But everyone knows that is unbiblical, and unreasonable for anyone who just observes life.". That has to be the most ridiculous statement I have seen you make. Look around Dave, people make free will choices everyday, you even made one when you chose to respond to my post. By your logic you are saying that it was determined by some outside force that you would be a Calvinist. Your logic is flawed from the start.

The fact that you continue to deny clear scripture just shows it is Calvinism not the bible that is your foundation.

That statement is just silly on it's face. Say what you want about Calvinism but not that it tried to overrule God. The whole basis for it is God working out his own will. In some metaphysical areas they may go too far but you go way too far the other way.

You can deny history but you cannot change it. Calvinist TULIP is mans' why of trying to tell God whom and how He can save. Calvinism says God can work out His will as long as His will agrees with their view of scripture. Or are you going to deny what Calvinism teaches. Election, determinism, no free will, total inability, limited atonement, irresistible grace and the list could go on.

 

[DaveXR650]

I'll try once again to explain.

I am always amazed at how hard you fight to deny mans' God given free will. But since you do then you have to accept the truth of your stated theology that God is responsible for all the sin and evil in the world as He has to control/determine it all.

The choice you lay out is not the choice. Man's free will and the work of the Spirit are both in play.
"John Calvin does not hesitate to speak of regeneration and repentance being the result of faith. (Inst. B. III.)... In stating one side of the truth, these divines did not set aside the other. They taught renovation through the truth and through faith, and they also taught renovation by the power of the Holy Ghost. They taught man's need of the spirit in order to faith, and they also proclaimed the gift of the Spirit as a result of faith. from Horatius Bonar. (a Calvinist).

The above is contrary to the view you are trying to present as Calvinism. Now I know that there is right now a thread going on where if you want you can watch a guy go on for an hour about the false gospel of Arminianism. He even criticizes Baptist churches for singing Wesley's hymns. He doesn't like the idea of a real "offer of the gospel" to everyone who hears it. He, and those who believe in a meticulous direct causal sovereignty by God over every molecule are as far away from me as you are the other way. I've said before that I don't believe in a limited atonement, and I believe grace is often resisted by men. But many of the Calvinist writers I read I find to be closest to the truth as I see it. The fact is, you don't get to define what system I have to believe.

I have seen the result of man centered theology. I've seen it with an almost idolatrous emphasis on symbols and I've seen it reduced to a mere recital of creeds. I've also seen the type of "soul winning" antics that occur when you have too high a view of man's free will and your ability to convince men to get saved. My conclusion is that a moderate Calvinism or maybe even a classic Arminian or Wesleyan view if probably nearest to the truth. I have read enough Calvinist preachers to understand that they were not strictly preaching the metaphysical aspects of Augustinian Calvinism. In practice, what it amounts to is an honest unembellished preaching of the gospel along with a reliance on the Holy Spirit for actual results.

The fact that you continue to deny clear scripture just shows it is Calvinism not the bible that is your foundation.

The fact is there are clear scriptures indicating God being sovereign even in who gets saved, and there are scriptures indicating that at some point men choose either to accept or reject Christ. Both are taught and both are claimed by the Calvinists I read.

 

[Silverhair]

Please provide the links for the scholars that show my error on this passage.

peace to you

The context shows that it is only Christians that can truly say "Jesus is Lord" contrary to what you claimed in your OP post. "Paul is stating God Holy Spirit is essential for each and every person to be saved to be ABLE to say “Jesus is Lord” leading to salvation.."

You have persisted in denying what the context shows. The context has nothing to do with salvation but with the inability of Christians to curse Jesus and the ability of them to say "Jesus is Lord"

Paul is speaking to believers as is clear from the context and which I have pointed out to you numerous times.

Once again, context matters.
"Paul states that he does not want the readers to be ignorant (v. 1 Corinthians 12:1).
Then he asserts that they know their religious past (v. 1 Corinthians 12:2).
And finally he declares that he makes known to them how to profess that Jesus is Lord (v. 1 Corinthians 12:3)."
"It means that in the Corinthian context we are able to separate the past (v. 1 Corinthians 12:2) from the present (v. 1 Corinthians 12:3). Paul is now speaking about the spiritual life of the believers in Corinth. He says that he is going to make something known to them (compare 1 Corinthians 15:1; 2 Corinthians 8:1; Galatians 1:1)" Baker's New Testament Commentary

Paul is telling the Corinthians "Now that they are saved, the believers must know how to judge all spirit-manifestations, that is, how to discern between the voice of evil spirits and the authentic voice of the Holy Spirit. The crucial test is the testimony that is given concerning the Lord Jesus. If a man says, “Jesus is accursed,” you can be sure that he is demon-inspired, because evil spirits characteristically blaspheme and curse the name of Jesus. The Spirit of God would never lead anyone to speak of the Savior in this way; His ministry is to exalt the Lord Jesus." BELIEVER'S BIBLE COMMENTARY

None have the Holy Spirit but true Christians; true believers in, and disciples of, the Lord Jesus; and all such have the Spirit, at least in his enlightening and sanctifying graces. Joseph Benson's Commentary

Because such was your condition, and there still seems to linger in your minds some of the ignorance which belonged to such a state, I make known unto you the one great test of your possession of the Holy Spirit. If any man say “Jesus is anathema,” that is a proof that he has not that Spirit. If any man say “Jesus is Lord,” that is a proof that he has that Spirit. Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

St. Chrysostom well observes, that the phrase of saying that Jesus is the Lord, or the Messiah, must be supposed to proceed from true faith in him; and the expression is used to import a man’s being a true Christian, A Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Paul was writing to believers in Corinth. He was telling them how to determine whether one was a Christian or not by how they spoke of Christ.

Your view that the Holy Spirit is essential for each and every person to be saved to be ABLE to say “Jesus is Lord” leading to salvation is not supported by the text, it is something that you have to read into those verses to support your Calvinst/reformed/PB theology

 

[Silverhair]

I'll try once again to explain.

The choice you lay out is not the choice. Man's free will and the work of the Spirit are both in play.
"John Calvin does not hesitate to speak of regeneration and repentance being the result of faith. (Inst. B. III.)... In stating one side of the truth, these divines did not set aside the other. They taught renovation through the truth and through faith, and they also taught renovation by the power of the Holy Ghost. They taught man's need of the spirit in order to faith, and they also proclaimed the gift of the Spirit as a result of faith. from Horatius Bonar. (a Calvinist).

The above is contrary to the view you are trying to present as Calvinism. Now I know that there is right now a thread going on where if you want you can watch a guy go on for an hour about the false gospel of Arminianism. He even criticizes Baptist churches for singing Wesley's hymns. He doesn't like the idea of a real "offer of the gospel" to everyone who hears it. He, and those who believe in a meticulous direct causal sovereignty by God over every molecule are as far away from me as you are the other way. I've said before that I don't believe in a limited atonement, and I believe grace is often resisted by men. But many of the Calvinist writers I read I find to be closest to the truth as I see it. The fact is, you don't get to define what system I have to believe.

I have seen the result of man centered theology. I've seen it with an almost idolatrous emphasis on symbols and I've seen it reduced to a mere recital of creeds. I've also seen the type of "soul winning" antics that occur when you have too high a view of man's free will and your ability to convince men to get saved. My conclusion is that a moderate Calvinism or maybe even a classic Arminian or Wesleyan view if probably nearest to the truth. I have read enough Calvinist preachers to understand that they were not strictly preaching the metaphysical aspects of Augustinian Calvinism. In practice, what it amounts to is an honest unembellished preaching of the gospel along with a reliance on the Holy Spirit for actual results.

The fact is there are clear scriptures indicating God being sovereign even in who gets saved, and there are scriptures indicating that at some point men choose either to accept or reject Christ. Both are taught and both are claimed by the Calvinists I read.

The only view I present of Calvinism is the one that has been presented to me on this and other boards. How many times have I been told I do not understand the TULIP or DoG or even the WCF or LBCF. Those are not mystery texts written in some strange language. Anyone can read them and see what they say in clear text. I can even quote Calvinists and get told that is wrong.

What I find strange is that most Calvinists try to change what those texts say so as to make them sound more biblical. If Calvinists actually believed in mans' free will then there would not be the great disagreement that we see. How can man's free will align with the idea of election prior to creation or limited atonement or irresistible grace. They cannot.

While you may hold to a moderate Calvinism many on here do not as can be seen from how they hold to the traditional view of the TULIP.

I have always maintained that God is sovereign and that man has a free will. BTW I am not trying to dictate what you what system you should believe. You say you are a Calvinist so I approach your posts as you are writing from that view.

How many times have you spoke about God being fair. You still bring up the canard even though I have said more than once God is just, not fair.

As you said God is sovereign and man has a free will. If those Calvinists you read agree with those points then I have to ask why are they Calvinists? Why not just trust scripture without the baggage of Augustine and Calvin?

 

[David Lamb]

Why not just trust scripture without the baggage of Augustine and Calvin?

But "TULIP" only came about as a result of the teachings of Arminius. Calvinists/believers in the doctrines of grace could equally ask, "Why not just trust scripture without the baggage of Arminius?"

 

[Silverhair]

But "TULIP" only came about as a result of the teachings of Arminius. Calvinists/believers in the doctrines of grace could equally ask, "Why not just trust scripture without the baggage of Arminius?"

So I have heard. But does that really matter? When the TULIP is compared to scripture it fails the test. The bible is the standard not what some man or men say.

Yes I understand that TULIP was formulated to respond to Arminian teachings. But I am not comparing Calvinism with Arminianism but rather both of them with the Bible.

The bible is the standard.

I had been a Christian for over 55 yrs before I even heard of the C vs A fight.

What I have found over the last 10 yrs or so is that Calvinism via their TULIP/DoG calls the character of God into question.

P.S. The Calvinist baggage they have never addressed is the pagan foundations of that philosophy. Augustine went astray when he ran back to his pagan philosophy and it has just been carried forward to today via the TULIP/DoG.