Carnal or Lost

[RLBosley]

Anytime you think I have perverted scripture, you are welcome to show me how. But simply saying you disagree is not proof, you have to show where I actually interpreted scripture differently than what it plainly says.

In the meantime, many folks have made comments like this;

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2116260&postcount=64

Again, show me where I have interpreted scripture wrong. If you can convince me, I will apologize for my error. Believe me, I do not think I am infallible, FAR from it.

One poster. Who already agreed with you. Congrats

Anyway. I've shown you where you err. You don't accept it nor are even willing to consider it. You say you do not believe in your own infallibility but you don't demonstrate it.

 

[Winman]

One poster. Who already agreed with you. Congrats

Anyway. I've shown you where you err. You don't accept it nor are even willing to consider it. You say you do not believe in your own infallibility but you don't demonstrate it.

Actually, I get PMs from folks all the time who say my arguments are very compelling. Of course, when you simply interpret scriptures for what they literally say, they are compelling. The truth is it's own best defense.

And you have NOT shown me wrong. Saying "You are wrong" is not an argument, you need to show WHY I am wrong and you have never done that. When I asked you to show where you refuted me, you failed to show ANYTHING.

Talk is cheap.

 

[RLBosley]

Actually, I get PMs from folks all the time who say my arguments are very compelling. Of course, when you simply interpret scriptures for what they literally say, they are compelling. The truth is it's own best defense.

And you have NOT shown me wrong. Saying "You are wrong" is not an argument, you need to show WHY I am wrong and you have never done that. When I asked you to show where you refuted me, you failed to show ANYTHING.

Talk is cheap.

OK. Carry on great one. Also, while you are at it, respond to post 59 please.

 

[InTheLight]

As Zaac said 15-20 years or entire lives with ought growth isn't carnality. That's lostness.

Again, not a life of Carnality as the Carnal Christian myth teaches. A one time mistake does not equal a life of "walking after the flesh."

So what is the statue of limitations on non-lostness? Is it 14 years? 12 years? I rebelled against God during my 20's to early 30's. I'd say it was 13 years. Am I lost?

Webdog admitted to 20 years. I'm sure there are millions of Christians that had a lapse in their walk with Jesus lasting years. Are you going to pass judgment on all of these people?

What is it with Calvinists and their need to question someone's salvation? Not only that, but when the phrase carnal is actually used in the Bible they deny it, and insist on judging people.

 

[RLBosley]

So what is the statue of limitations on non-lostness? Is it 14 years? 12 years? I rebelled against God during my 20's to early 30's. I'd say it was 13 years. Am I lost?

Webdog admitted to 20 years. I'm sure there are millions of Christians that had a lapse in their walk with Jesus lasting years. Are you going to pass judgment on all of these people?

What is it with Calvinists and their need to question someone's salvation? Not only that, but when the phrase carnal is actually used in the Bible they deny it, and insist on judging people.

I'm sorry that what the Bible says about salvation offends you. Maybe Calvinists question people's salvation because we actually take scripture seriously and are disturbed that we see so many people who don't follow the scriptural pattern?

For the record, I had the same conviction, that the gospel will change someone, before I was a Calvinist. Just an FYI.

 

[DHK]

Yes. This.
That's not carnal in the way it is typically used by those who talk about Carnal Christians. That term is used to describe people who supposedly get saved and yet have no change in their life. As found in the Scofield:

This is an admission that you follow the doctrine of men and not of God, is it?
The Holy Spirit of God speaks of carnal Christians. That is plain to see in 1Cor.3:1-4. You deny this. In fact you just said "That is not carnal in the way it is typically used by those who talk about carnal Christians.
"By those" By who? Who is your authority? What group of men?
My authority is the Bible, not man. And the Bible speaks of "carnal Christians." Get over it!

Paul divides men into three classes: psuchikos, "of the senses" (Jas. iii:15; Jude 19), or "natural," i.e. the Adamic man, unrenewed through the new birth (John iii:3, 5); pneumatikos, "spiritual," i.e., the renewed man as Spirit-filled and walking in the Spirit in full communion with God (Eph. v:18-20); and sarkikos, "carnal," "fleshly," i.e. the renewed man, who walking "after the flesh," remains a babe in Christ (I Cor. iii:1-4)"

Kind of like dispensations isn't it? How many classes of men do you have?
three? five? ten? I am sure I kind find more than what you just gave me. That is your grouping. Paul wrote three groupings in another scripture:
They were these:
The Jew, The Gentile, and the Church of God.
You take upon yourself the same mistake that Winman often makes.
He gives a one word = one definition meaning to words irregardless of context and finds himself contextually wrong much of the time. The word "carnal" has more than one meaning depending on the context. If you ignore context you don't have the proper meaning much of the time.

That is not true. The gospel does change people.

I never said the gospel doesn't change people. It changed the people at Corinth. Paul called them saints. They were believers in Christ.
They were also carnal and backslidden Christians unable to take the meat of the Word of God. He chastised them.
God chastised them, and greatly so. Some were sick, some were weak and he killed others. That was God's judgment on those believers, carnal believers. They had come to Christ initially. They fell back into worldly ways, carnality, and were not living for the Lord. They faced the judgment of God, as every carnal Christian does.

 

[Zaac]

Are you sure about that?
Do you know what God says about such judgments>

Rom 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Rom 2:2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

I think I'll err on the side of making sure that someone is really showing a life of salvation and growth in Christ as opposed to seeing them go to hell.

And that again is referencing hypocritical and righteous judgment. Strongholds are one thing. But there is still growth in the midst of strongholds.

But if you got someone where there has been no growth in 15-20 years and they are living a life that shows no love for the things of Christ, then I'm gonna assume you don't know Christ and set about sharing the Gospel and telling you how to be saved.

If I'm gonna be wrong, I'd rather be wrong knowing that the loving Gospel of Jesus Christ has been shared.

 

[RLBosley]

This is an admission that you follow the doctrine of men and not of God, is it?
The Holy Spirit of God speaks of carnal Christians. That is plain to see in 1Cor.3:1-4. You deny this. In fact you just said "That is not carnal in the way it is typically used by those who talk about carnal Christians.
"By those" By who? Who is your authority? What group of men?
My authority is the Bible, not man. And the Bible speaks of "carnal Christians." Get over it!

I do not deny the word of God; I deny your flawed interpretation.

You do realize I said "by those" referring to people like you referring to your Carnal Christan" doctrine right?

Kind of like dispensations isn't it? How many classes of men do you have?
three? five? ten? I am sure I kind find more than what you just gave me. That is your grouping. Paul wrote three groupings in another scripture:
They were these:
The Jew, The Gentile, and the Church of God.
You take upon yourself the same mistake that Winman often makes.
He gives a one word = one definition meaning to words irregardless of context and finds himself contextually wrong much of the time. The word "carnal" has more than one meaning depending on the context. If you ignore context you don't have the proper meaning much of the time.

I never said the gospel doesn't change people. It changed the people at Corinth. Paul called them saints. They were believers in Christ.
They were also carnal and backslidden Christians unable to take the meat of the Word of God. He chastised them.
God chastised them, and greatly so. Some were sick, some were weak and he killed others. That was God's judgment on those believers, carnal believers. They had come to Christ initially. They fell back into worldly ways, carnality, and were not living for the Lord. They faced the judgment of God, as every carnal Christian does.

Hold on... before we go further. What is your definition of a Carnal Christian?

I think we are talking past each other since we have not agreed on definitions.

 

[Winman]

OK. Carry on great one. Also, while you are at it, respond to post 59 please.

I don't think I'm great. But I will say this about my approach to scriptures, I try to interpret them for what they SAY, not what is popular.

For instance, you will never see anyone who interprets the elder son in Luke 15 like me. Search high and low and see if you find anybody anywhere who believes as I do.

Yet, you can't refute it, because I simply believe what it directly says. Your argument would have to be that it doesn't mean what it plainly says, and that is a very poor argument.

Anyway, on to post 59 (which I had nothing to do with)...

I believe it's being said that there is o such thing as a carnal Christian in the way that many in the church use the term.

It's bandied around to cover unChristlike behavior and no growth of 15-20 years and even lifetimes. That's not carnality. That's lost.

Yes. This.

What do you want me to say? This is opinion. Nobody is stupid enough to say real Christians do not sin, so the question is, how much can we sin and still be saved? Or, how much sin proves someone was never saved?

And my answer would be, I don't know. All I know is that if someone says they trusted Jesus Christ to save them, I tend to believe them. Obviously, they know the scripture, and they say they believed. Why would they say that if they didn't believe?

How do you know they aren't saved? Can you see their heart?

That's not carnal in the way it is typically used by those who talk about Carnal Christians. That term is used to describe people who supposedly get saved and yet have no change in their life. As found in the Scofield:

Paul divides men into three classes: psuchikos, "of the senses" (Jas. iii:15; Jude 19), or "natural," i.e. the Adamic man, unrenewed through the new birth (John iii:3, 5); pneumatikos, "spiritual," i.e., the renewed man as Spirit-filled and walking in the Spirit in full communion with God (Eph. v:18-20); and sarkikos, "carnal," "fleshly," i.e. the renewed man, who walking "after the flesh," remains a babe in Christ (I Cor. iii:1-4)"

That is not true. The gospel does change people.

I'm not saying you become perfect, but slowly (or quickly!) you will change. As Zaac said 15-20 years or entire lives with ought growth isn't carnality. That's lostness.

Carnal means you pay more attention to the flesh than the Spirit. You spend all your time trying to gratify your flesh. It could be eating too much, smoking, drinking, gambling, sex, whatever... That doesn't mean you didn't truly understand you were a sinner and trusted Jesus to save you. And if you trusted Jesus to save you, he did save you.

But we still have the old man. Paul tells us to "put off" the old man. He would not have to do that if we did not still have to battle our flesh.

Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

Paul would not have to instruct us to "put off" the old man if we were on automatic.

See, this error stems from a wrong view of what it means to be a slave or servant to sin (or righteousness).

Calvinists see everything in light of "nature". They think the old man has a sin nature, and therefore man is compelled to sin. Likewise, if we have a new nature, it is only logical that we are compelled to do right.

But obviously this view is error, because it is evident to everyone that Christians continue to sin.

The correct view is that we used to BELONG to sin. He was our master, he owned us. But slaves do not have to obey their master. A slave can disobey, a slave can run away. Nevertheless, the master owns him and by force of law can recapture him and drag him home.

Likewise, when we become servants of righteousness, we can disobey our new master, we can even run away from our new master. Doesn't matter, he still owns us, and his gift is eternal life.

This is where YOU and all these Lordship Salvation guys go right off the tracks. Being a servant of sin does not mean you are compelled to sin, and being a servant of righteousness does not mean you are compelled to do right.

If your view were true, there would be absolutely no need for Paul and the other writers of the NT to constantly give us instructions and commandments to do good, we would automatically do them because we have a new nature.

The very fact the NT is loaded with instructions for us to obey shows that we do not automatically obey because we have a new nature.

Once you understand this the scriptures will make a lot more sense.

 

[RLBosley]

I don't think I'm great. But I will say this about my approach to scriptures, I try to interpret them for what they SAY, not what is popular.

For instance, you will never see anyone who interprets the elder son in Luke 15 like me. Search high and low and see if you find anybody anywhere who believes as I do.

Yet, you can't refute it, because I simply believe what it directly says. Your argument would have to be that it doesn't mean what it plainly says, and that is a very poor argument.

What? No one interprets scripture by "what is popular." That is simply a red herring. And what does Luke 15 have to do with anything? I wasn't talking about Luke 15.

Anyway, on to post 59 (which I had nothing to do with)...

I addressed you directly. You ignored that for some reason.

What do you want me to say? This is opinion. Nobody is stupid enough to say real Christians do not sin, so the question is, how much can we sin and still be saved? Or, how much sin proves someone was never saved?

And my answer would be, I don't know. All I know is that if someone says they trusted Jesus Christ to save them, I tend to believe them. Obviously, they know the scripture, and they say they believed. Why would they say that if they didn't believe?

How do you know they aren't saved? Can you see their heart?

People are dishonest. People are deceived. People are confused.

Mormons say they trust in Jesus to save them. Are they saved?
Benny Hinn says he is trusting in Jesus to save him. Is he saved?
70+% of this country claims to be trusting in Jesus to save them. Are they all saved?

Carnal means you pay more attention to the flesh than the Spirit. You spend all your time trying to gratify your flesh. It could be eating too much, smoking, drinking, gambling, sex, whatever... That doesn't mean you didn't truly understand you were a sinner and trusted Jesus to save you. And if you trusted Jesus to save you, he did save you.

But we still have the old man. Paul tells us to "put off" the old man. He would not have to do that if we did not still have to battle our flesh.

Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

Paul would not have to instruct us to "put off" the old man if we were on automatic.

See, this error stems from a wrong view of what it means to be a slave or servant to sin (or righteousness).

Calvinists see everything in light of "nature". They think the old man has a sin nature, and therefore man is compelled to sin. Likewise, if we have a new nature, it is only logical that we are compelled to do right.

But obviously this view is error, because it is evident to everyone that Christians continue to sin.

The correct view is that we used to BELONG to sin. He was our master, he owned us. But slaves do not have to obey their master. A slave can disobey, a slave can run away. Nevertheless, the master owns him and by force of law can recapture him and drag him home.

Likewise, when we become servants of righteousness, we can disobey our new master, we can even run away from our new master. Doesn't matter, he still owns us, and his gift is eternal life.

This is where YOU and all these Lordship Salvation guys go right off the tracks. Being a servant of sin does not mean you are compelled to sin, and being a servant of righteousness does not mean you are compelled to do right.

If your view were true, there would be absolutely no need for Paul and the other writers of the NT to constantly give us instructions and commandments to do good, we would automatically do them because we have a new nature.

The very fact the NT is loaded with instructions for us to obey shows that we do not automatically obey because we have a new nature.

Once you understand this the scriptures will make a lot more sense.

This is why I think we are talking past each other here. I have no major problems with what you've said. I would probably nuance it differently, but the essence I think would be the same. What you describe - intentionally submitting to Christ, seeking to obey NT warnings and commands, trying to live a life of holiness - is the essence of the Lordship view. I would only add that since the gospel really does change people, all true believers will accomplish this, however imperfectly. Those who don't change prove that they were not redeemed.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

I don't make things up. I quote to you the Word of God.

Winman says the same thing DHK

I have shown to you that four times Paul states, affirms, and even scolds the Corinthians that they are carnal.

No you have not shown this at all. You made this claim

[you have not proven it biblically as you have not offered on the originals which are essential to understand the text as actually written].
..yes you did. However since you failed to listen and read all the links you are not aware of your continuing error.

It is the very reason that he could not feed them the meat of the Word but had to feed them milk, another indication that they were Christians--yet carnal Christians.

They were Christians....but they were acting as unsaved, fleshly persons, not as they were in truth....spiritual men.

You have rejected the Word

,

You are bearing false witness DHK...I fully believe the word of God, and know what it teaches here. make no mistake about it DHK....I REJECT your false teaching on these verses...everytime you post it.

perhaps only because it is my explanation of the Word, and your pride won't allow you to accept "my" explanation.

Your explanation is wrong and damages souls...so for that reason it is openly opposed and rejected. It is not a matter of "pride" as you seek now to attack me....it is your pride to not humble yourself and listen to men who can help you on this as they actually know what it says. I have explained this to you 5 times now...but like winman...you resist the word.

That is sad.

It is sad that you do not desire truth here.

The only rebuttal you can give. "These other men say..." That is also sad.
You can't give any answer of your own.

Another foolish objection. These are men who taught Greek and Hebrew....they know what the text actually says, unlike you who boast about how in the English it says 4x.......you fail to connect the dots with what we call chapter two.....the text does not make youe error....but you do not care.
Not aproblem DHK many fundy's make this similar error on many portions of scripture.

I have answered on my own DHK...but what you fail to understand is it is God's word...not mine.....The concern should be what does God say...not what does DHK, or icon say.....

And yet the Bible says:
"But sanctify the Lord in your heart and be ready always to give an answer to every man..."
--It doesn't say, "Be ready to give a "link" to every man, but an answer, which you are unable to do. That again is sad.

The links I offer are full of scripture correctly used and applied.You do not want to deal with them because they expose your stubborn error.:wavey:

 

[Winman]

What? No one interprets scripture by "what is popular." That is simply a red herring. And what does Luke 15 have to do with anything? I wasn't talking about Luke 15.

It most certainly is not. Luke and Iconoclast constantly accuse me of not being "orthodox". They do not care what scriptures appear to say, but what Reformed "scholars" SAY they mean. If you haven't noticed this you are completely unaware.

Iconoclast is constantly appealing to Reformed scholars.

I addressed you directly. You ignored that for some reason.

Then show me again, because I have no idea what you are talking about, and neither does anyone else. Why can't you simply show that?

People are dishonest. People are deceived. People are confused.

Mormons say they trust in Jesus to save them. Are they saved?
Benny Hinn says he is trusting in Jesus to save him. Is he saved?
70+% of this country claims to be trusting in Jesus to save them. Are they all saved?

No they don't. Ask any Mormon what they have to do to go to heaven and they will tell you you have to do good. They are trusting in their own good works, not Jesus to save them.

I have no idea what Benny Hinn believes, so I can't comment on him.

No they don't. Ask nearly everybody why they should go to heaven and they will say, "Because I am a GOOD PERSON". They are not trusting Jesus to save them at all, they are trusting in their own good works and righteousness to save them. This is exactly what the false converts in Matthew 7 claimed, and what the Pharisee in Luke 18 claimed.

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Boy, these are Lordship Salvationists if ever there was one. Look at the great emphasis Jesus put on how these folks called him, Lord, Lord.

So calling Jesus "Lord" does not make you saved. But note what their claim to salvation is, they prophesied in Jesus's name, they cast out devils (Charismatic) in Jesus's name, and did MANY WONDERFUL WORKS (Catholic, Lordship Salvation) in Jesus's name.

These folks were depending on THEMSELVES to get to heaven, they were boasting what they DID. This is WORKS. And they were as lost as a turkey on Thanksgiving Day.

We see the same in Luke 18;

Luk 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Did the Pharisee believe in God? YES. But did he trust God to save him? NO. He trusted in his own good works, he was not an extortioner, or unjust, or an adulterer, he fasted, he tithed.

You see, he boasted of his own goodness and WORKS, and he was LOST.

The publican on the other hand made no boasts whatsoever. He freely admitted he was a terrible sinner and cast himself completely on God's mercy. This is what it means to believe on Jesus, it means to cast ourselves on his mercy and completely depend on him and the work he did for us to save us.

So, you better watch out about Lordship Salvation, just because you go to church, pay tithes, read your Bible and talk about Jesus being your Lord doesn't mean anything.

What matters is if you truly trusted Jesus to save you as the poor publican did.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

This is an admission that you follow the doctrine of men and not of God, is it?
The Holy Spirit of God speaks of carnal Christians. That is plain to see in 1Cor.3:1-4. You deny this. In fact you just said "That is not carnal in the way it is typically used by those who talk about carnal Christians.
"By those" By who? Who is your authority? What group of men?
My authority is the Bible, not man. And the Bible speaks of "carnal Christians." Get over it!

:laugh::laugh:...you lifted out the notes from the Scofield bible, did not give him credit for it......hypocrisy much....lol
then you say we follow men.....give us a break DHK...you are not the only person who had a scofield bible with his"man made notes"

real clown move DHK others have seen this ...

Scofields notes are not scripture DHK lol
http://solochristo.com/theology/Salvation/reisinger-1cor2.14.htm

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman

It most certainly is not. Luke and Iconoclast constantly accuse me of not being "orthodox". They do not care what scriptures appear to say, but what Reformed "scholars" SAY they mean. If you haven't noticed this you are completely unaware.

Iconoclast is constantly appealing to Reformed scholars.

Yes...because they have it correct and you have it wrong .....all the time...

You are sincere...sincerely wrong, Bosley, Biblicist, Archangel, Rippon correct you but you mock the correction:wavey::thumbs::wavey:

 

[InTheLight]

I'm sorry that what the Bible says about salvation offends you.

I'm not seeing where I said I was offended by what the Bible says about salvation. Could you point out where I said that, please?

Maybe Calvinists question people's salvation because we actually take scripture seriously and are disturbed that we see so many people who don't follow the scriptural pattern?

Yes, and maybe many Calvinists are arrogant, bitter, judgmental people that aren't happy unless everyone else walks in lockstep with their theology. Maybe they shouldn't judge peoples salvation. Matt. 7:1-2.

For the record, I had the same conviction, that the gospel will change someone, before I was a Calvinist. Just an FYI.

For the record, my life was changed when I became a Christian on March 13, 1971, when I was 13 years old. Then in my 20's I didn't attend church much, didn't pray much, and didn't read the Bible much. But God changed my heart and I came back to Him in my early 30's.

So what's the statue of limitations on non-lostness?

 

[Iconoclast]

InTheLight

What is it with Calvinists and their need to question someone's salvation? Not only that, but when the phrase carnal is actually used in the Bible they deny it, and insist on judging people.

Calvinists understand the passages involved, the different words used...you do not.
Calvinists obey scripture on being their brothers keeper.

 

[Winman]

Winman

Yes...because they have it correct and you have it wrong .....all the time...

You are sincere...sincerely wrong, Bosley, Biblicist, Archangel, Rippon correct you but you mock the correction:wavey::thumbs::wavey:

And someday you are going to discover that you have been led by the blind.

Good luck.

 

[DHK]

I think I'll err on the side of making sure that someone is really showing a life of salvation and growth in Christ as opposed to seeing them go to hell.

And that again is referencing hypocritical and righteous judgment. Strongholds are one thing. But there is still growth in the midst of strongholds.

But if you got someone where there has been no growth in 15-20 years and they are living a life that shows no love for the things of Christ, then I'm gonna assume you don't know Christ and set about sharing the Gospel and telling you how to be saved.

If I'm gonna be wrong, I'd rather be wrong knowing that the loving Gospel of Jesus Christ has been shared.

It is not my business to be right or wrong. That is what I don't get about you guys. You set yourselves up as gods judging others.

My business as a pastor/counselor is to take the Word of God and apply it to that person's life no matter where he is at this point. The Word of God will reveal where he is--saved, carnal, backslidden, unsaved, etc. That is not my business. It is God's. I am a vessel to be used for God, a conduit for His Word, a counselor with enough wisdom to point him in the right direction. God does the work, not me.

Why do you people want to play God, when that is the obvious duty of the Holy Spirit working through the Word of God?
Truly Amazing!!

 

[Iconoclast]

And someday you are going to discover that you have been led by the blind.

Good luck.

Sure Winman...I should have read your posts instead:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

DHK

:laugh::laugh:...you lifted out the notes from the Scofield bible, did not give him credit for it......hypocrisy much....lol
then you say we follow men.....give us a break DHK...you are not the only person who had a scofield bible with his"man made notes"

I haven't read Scofield on this subject; didn't even know he had anything to say on it. I am glad you did. Did you learn anything from him?

BTW, that was a false allegation.
In one of your posts you called me out for heresy.
In another one you said I was doing spite to the Spirit of God.

Those are serious allegations. Don't be surprised if you start receiving some infractions for such statements. It definitely is against the rules for questioning another's salvation, calling them unsaved, accusing them of heresy, when all is, is a difference of opinion on one passage of Scripture.
Be more careful in your choice of words Icon.

real clown move DHK others have seen this ...

Scofields notes are not scripture DHK lol
http://solochristo.com/theology/Salvation/reisinger-1cor2.14.htm

Yes, I looked at.
My conclusion:
Start with a false premise and you end with a false conclusion.
That was easy.