1 Corinthians 12:3

[Van]

Yes!! The reformed view was held by Jesus, Paul and the early church.

Jesus taught it. The Apostles repeated it. The early church accepted it

Peace to you

Complete denial of truth. The reformed view changed the traditional view held before. To claim linkage when the view is contradicted by verse after verse, is perverse.

"In Galatians 5:16, Paul writes, “So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.” The expression walk by the Spirit is a metaphor that Paul uses to describe the way in which believers are called to live (cf. Romans 6:4; 2 Corinthians 5:7; Ephesians 2:10; 4:1; 5:15; Colossians 2:6)." [from the internet]

 

[canadyjd]

Complete denial of truth. The reformed view changed the traditional view held before. To claim linkage when the view is contradicted by verse after verse, is perverse.

"In Galatians 5:16, Paul writes, “So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.” The expression walk by the Spirit is a metaphor that Paul uses to describe the way in which believers are called to live (cf. Romans 6:4; 2 Corinthians 5:7; Ephesians 2:10; 4:1; 5:15; Colossians 2:6)." [from the internet]

You are in error because you don’t understand church history, nor do you understand scripture.

At the time of the reformers, the “traditional view” was Roman Catholic doctrine, which differed significantly from scripture and the first century church.

By focusing solely on scripture, the reformers reclaimed Truth and cast off error.

Your views cast off truth and clings to the error that only makes sense in your own mind.

peace to you

 

[Van]

You are in error because you don’t understand church history, nor do you understand scripture.

At the time of the reformers, the “traditional view” was Roman Catholic doctrine, which differed significantly from scripture and the first century church.

By focusing solely on scripture, the reformers reclaimed Truth and cast off error.

Your views cast off truth and clings to the error that only makes sense in your own mind.

peace to you

How many times is this poster going to change the subject away from truth? To walk, speak, or do anything "by the Spirit" means to act in accordance with the desires of the Spirit. This is the truth desperately trying to be hidden by constant off topic posts.

 

[canadyjd]

How many times is this poster going to change the subject away from truth? To walk, speak, or do anything "by the Spirit" means to act in accordance with the desires of the Spirit. This is the truth desperately trying to be hidden by constant off topic posts.

Context always determines meaning. The context of 1Corinthians 12:3 i“no man says Jesus is Lord but by the Spirit” is one of ability. No man is able without the Spirit.

For the record, you constantly change every topic into an attack in the doctrines of grace.

I could say “Jesus wept” and you would post a diatribe against the doctrines of grace.

Logs and splinters, gnats and camels.

peace to you

 

[Van]

Context always determines meaning. The context of 1Corinthians 12:3 i“no man says Jesus is Lord but by the Spirit” is one of ability. No man is able without the Spirit.

For the record, you constantly change every topic into an attack in the doctrines of grace.

I could say “Jesus wept” and you would post a diatribe against the doctrines of grace.

Logs and splinters, gnats and camels.

peace to you

To speak of context without speaking of the specific content of that context is to sprinkle faerie dust.

How many times is this poster going to change the subject away from truth? To walk, speak, or do anything "by the Spirit" means to act in accordance with the desires of the Spirit. This is the truth desperately trying to be hidden by constant off topic posts.

 

[DaveXR650]

"In Galatians 5:16, Paul writes, “So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.” The expression walk by the Spirit is a metaphor that Paul uses to describe the way in which believers are called to live

It is that. But that doesn't go far enough.

To walk, speak, or do anything "by the Spirit" means to act in accordance with the desires of the Spirit.

Here again, this is true, it's just not the whole explanation. Look at Romans chapter 8 where we are told to walk after the Spirit. Read the whole chapter and yes, that is the right way to walk and that is what we will do. But as verses 12-14 of chapter 8 say, you are being led by the Spirit, and you put to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit. And if you try to do it by yourself you will end up back in chapter 7 with Paul. So yes, that is the way believers are called to live, but the power and ability comes from the Spirit. So it is much more than a metaphor for how we should live.

 

[Van]

It is that. But that doesn't go far enough.

Here again, this is true, it's just not the whole explanation. Look at Romans chapter 8 where we are told to walk after the Spirit. Read the whole chapter and yes, that is the right way to walk and that is what we will do. But as verses 12-14 of chapter 8 say, you are being led by the Spirit, and you put to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit. And if you try to do it by yourself you will end up back in chapter 7 with Paul. So yes, that is the way believers are called to live, but the power and ability comes from the Spirit. So it is much more than a metaphor for how we should live.

Sorry but we who have been indwelt and thus not back in Chapter 7, can follow after the Spirit or not. The statement says doing something by the Spirit simply means we are following the leading by the Spirit, it does not mean we are compelled by the Spirit.

 

[canadyjd]

To speak of context without speaking of the specific content of that context is to sprinkle faerie dust.

How many times is this poster going to change the subject away from truth? To walk, speak, or do anything "by the Spirit" means to act in accordance with the desires of the Spirit. This is the truth desperately trying to be hidden by constant off topic posts.

Is that all you got, @Van? Unfounded accusations and pitiful arguments?

The truth, in context, has been laid out in this thread several times. You are either unable, or unwilling, to actually read and respond to what has been said

Go away. You are a waste of cyber space.

Others are attempting to have meaningful, thoughtful conversations. You just blather the same old nonsense.

peace to you

 

[percho]

Does anyone actually believe the Calvinist interpretation of scripture arose "thousands" of years ago?
Or that the General Baptist distinctives are an invention of Van?

Bible study takes work, whereas posting "taint so" takes no study or knowledge.

I like that you question, so do I.

I like this verse.
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

I do not necessarily believe what has been believed and taught for a thousand years is truth. God's word is truth not necessarily what someone has told us concerning that word.

 

[Van]

To speak of context without speaking of the specific content of that context is to sprinkle faerie dust.

How many times is this poster going to change the subject away from truth? To walk, speak, or do anything "by the Spirit" means to act in accordance with the desires of the Spirit. This is the truth desperately trying to be hidden by constant off topic posts.

 

[DaveXR650]

Sorry but we who have been indwelt and thus not back in Chapter 7, can follow after the Spirit or not. The statement says doing something by the Spirit simply means we are following the leading by the Spirit, it does not mean we are compelled by the Spirit.

That's the whole point isn't it. If we follow after because we have been indwelt then there is much more going on than just doing what the Spirit desires. I thought your whole problem with the OP was that you take the position that one can simply choose on their own, by their own power, to do what the Spirit wants. Then the question would be "why be indwelt". Does that mean anything? As to whether you can refuse the Spirit's leading or not, you certainly didn't if you are saved. Did you?

 

[DaveXR650]

I like this verse.
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Don't forget the very next verse though.

 

[Silverhair]

Yes!! The reformed view was held by Jesus, Paul and the early church.

Jesus taught it. The Apostles repeated it. The early church accepted it

Peace to you

Calvinist/reformed/PB theology has it's foundation in pagan philosophy that Augustine brought into the church and that Calvin carried forward and in still foisted on the unlearned that still follow that errant philosophy.

Those that hold to Calvinism/reformed/PB views are ill-informed or just choose to ignore this truth as they will not take the time to actually study the foundations of their theology.

When you see such false statements as @canadyjd has made in his post then it is clear that he has not studied the history of the Calvinism/reformed/PB philosophy he holds to.

 

[canadyjd]

Calvinist/reformed/PB theology has it's foundation in pagan philosophy that Augustine brought into the church and that Calvin carried forward and in still foisted on the unlearned that still follow that errant philosophy.

Those that hold to Calvinism/reformed/PB views are ill-informed or just choose to ignore this truth as they will not take the time to actually study the foundations of their theology.

When you see such false statements as @canadyjd has made in his post then it is clear that he has not studied the history of the Calvinism/reformed/PB philosophy he holds to.

That is simply nonsense. Reformed theology is based on scripture alone. Every doctrine is carefully supported by scripture.

You are correct in one point, however. I haven’t studied the history of “Calvinism” in great depth.

Everything I believe come straight from scripture.

And, again, I don’t need a lecture in theology from someone that believes “many are saved having never heard the gospel.

For you, the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified isn’t enough. God must have another plan.

You simply cannot believe that Almighty God is capable, in His sovereignty, to bring ever person He intends to be saved into a relationship with Himself ONLY through the gospel of Jesus.

Your posts demonstrate you are unlearned in scripture and prone to secular thinking which leads to serious error, such as “many are saved having never heard the gospel”

peace to you

 

[Silverhair]

Don't forget the very next verse though.

The next verse in English can cause a misunderstanding of what Paul was saying to the Philippians and by extension to all believers.

We need to look at the Greek to clear up this confusion:
A clue to why the message is not a contradiction lies in the Greek words translated “work”.
In verse 12 “work out G2716 (G5737) means {continue a task; carry it out to completion.}
In verse 13 "God who works G1754 (G5723) in you” means {provides the ability and means, the energy}

The secret to understanding Paul's message is that in the original language, these are two different words, not one.

 

[Silverhair]

That is simply nonsense. Reformed theology is based on scripture alone. Every doctrine is carefully supported by scripture.

You are correct in one point, however. I haven’t studied the history of “Calvinism” in great depth.

Everything I believe come straight from scripture.

And, again, I don’t need a lecture in theology from someone that believes “many are saved having never heard the gospel.

For you, the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified isn’t enough. God must have another plan.

You simply cannot believe that Almighty God is capable, in His sovereignty, to bring ever person He intends to be saved into a relationship with Himself ONLY through the gospel of Jesus.

Your posts demonstrate you are unlearned in scripture and prone to secular thinking which leads to serious error, such as “many are saved having never heard the gospel”

peace to you

Actually your reformed theology is just calvinism by another name. The basis of that errant theology is paganism and you would do well to actually study that for yourself but you are to prideful to do that as then you would have to admit your error.

Strange that you say I am wrong when I say "many can be saved who never heard the gospel" which means you deny the sovereignty of God. Then you say I cannot believe what Almighty God is capable of. I am the one that says God can save all those that are drawn to Him and you restrict that to only those that hear the gospel. Why do you try to limit God?

You deny God the ability to save who He chooses to save.

 

[DaveXR650]

We need to look at the Greek to clear up this confusion:
A clue to why the message is not a contradiction lies in the Greek words translated “work”.
In verse 12 “work out G2716 (G5737) means {continue a task; carry it out to completion.}
In verse 13 "God who works G1754 (G5723) in you” means {provides the ability and means, the energy}

The secret to understanding Paul's message is that in the original language, these are two different words, not one.

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.

 

[DaveXR650]

The basis of that errant theology is paganism and you would do well to actually study that for yourself but you are to prideful to do that as then you would have to admit your error.

If you mean Ken Wilson's "The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism then I have. I actually think he makes some good arguments. However; if you read many of the Reformers, which for some reason you constantly talk against doing because you only read the Bible, except I guess, when it is a book attempting to undermine Reformed theology, which is then important to read in addition to the Bible, well, you would realize that there are a multitude of Reformed theologians who disagreed with Augustine on many points. I tried to read Augustine, not just books about him. He was all over the place, totally ignorant in many areas, and yet you have to admire him for his time and the resources he had. Yes, I think he was influenced by philosophers of his day, just like the early church fathers. Where do you think they got the ideas that sex was inherently sinful, to be tolerated only in marriage, and then for the purpose of creating offspring. It was gnostic, not scriptural. Maybe they didn't have Song of Solomon.

The fact is, while Augustine may (and I mean may) have been influenced by philosophy in the areas especially of fate, predestination, the necessity of actions occurring as they do, and so on, the majority of what we call Reformed theology is definitely based in scripture and it's ludicrous to keep making that argument when the writers documented everything with scripture. How do you think they broke away from Rome with the cry of scripture being supreme? Which brings up my last point which is that if you want to start a fight with a Catholic just try to claim Augustine for your own side.

 

[canadyjd]

Actually your reformed theology is just calvinism by another name. The basis of that errant theology is paganism and you would do well to actually study that for yourself but you are to prideful to do that as then you would have to admit your error.

Strange that you say I am wrong when I say "many can be saved who never heard the gospel" which means you deny the sovereignty of God. Then you say I cannot believe what Almighty God is capable of. I am the one that says God can save all those that are drawn to Him and you restrict that to only those that hear the gospel. Why do you try to limit God?

You deny God the ability to save who He chooses to save.

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

 

[Silverhair]

If you mean Ken Wilson's "The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism then I have. I actually think he makes some good arguments. However; if you read many of the Reformers, which for some reason you constantly talk against doing because you only read the Bible, except I guess, when it is a book attempting to undermine Reformed theology, which is then important to read in addition to the Bible, well, you would realize that there are a multitude of Reformed theologians who disagreed with Augustine on many points. I tried to read Augustine, not just books about him. He was all over the place, totally ignorant in many areas, and yet you have to admire him for his time and the resources he had. Yes, I think he was influenced by philosophers of his day, just like the early church fathers. Where do you think they got the ideas that sex was inherently sinful, to be tolerated only in marriage, and then for the purpose of creating offspring. It was gnostic, not scriptural. Maybe they didn't have Song of Solomon.

The fact is, while Augustine may (and I mean may) have been influenced by philosophy in the areas especially of fate, predestination, the necessity of actions occurring as they do, and so on, the majority of what we call Reformed theology is definitely based in scripture and it's ludicrous to keep making that argument when the writers documented everything with scripture. How do you think they broke away from Rome with the cry of scripture being supreme? Which brings up my last point which is that if you want to start a fight with a Catholic just try to claim Augustine for your own side.

Actually I read Ken Wilson's "The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism for the history on the foundations of Calvinism since I was told numerous times on here that I did not understand Calvinism. I do not bother with the reformed writers as I am not interested in that view of scripture. As for them using scripture, if it is used in line with scripture that's good but when they misuse it to support calvinism/reformed/PB then not so.

Of course they would disagree with Augustine but they then turn around and follow his errant theology. Calvin said as much in his institutes. The reformers were correct when they said we had to go back to scripture but errored when they then used Augustines' ideas.

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.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.