Do all christians grow spiritually in life?

[DHK]

Hello DHK

The thing is I do believe the bibles teaching on 1 Cor 3:1-5. I also understand what it teaches unlike you. The reason for that is simple. I have studied the passage myself, but I am not afraid to listen to God called men who understand the original languages.
I offered the sermons to you and anyone who wanted to listen.
YOU REFUSED. Instead you repeat false teaching that in truth denies the Spirit's work in progressive sanctification. That leaves me no choice but to openly oppose those falsehoods you post. Here are the sermons again....you are welcome to listen and learn;

I have listened to the truth of what the Holy Spirit has taught me. I have both preached and taught through that book and more than once. I have written my own commentary. I would rather listen to God then to men. I don't disdain men; I often learn from them. So don't get me wrong and start misquoting or misrepresenting my words.

Paul E. Little wrote two books: "Know What you Believe," and "Know Why you Believe."
I do.
I know what I believe, and why I believe it. I also can explain it to you in a rational, scriptural and logical way. That is something that you have trouble with. Apparently that is what the links are for. But this is a debate forum.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I have listened to the truth of what the Holy Spirit has taught me. I have both preached and taught through that book and more than once.

That's wonderful! That is a great book. How long did it take you to preach through this book each time approximately?

I have written my own commentary.

Are you going to have this published? How long is your commentary? Is it verse by verse?

I would rather listen to God then <sic> to men.

That sounds maverick, spiritual and all, yet God has ordained men whom He has spoken to who teach us. There are several of these men, many in fact whom I love and learn from.

I don't disdain men; I often learn from them.

I am not certain why it came out in all of this about you not holding disdain for men. We are called to love one another.

So don't get me wrong and start misquoting or misrepresenting my words.

Subjective

Paul E. Little wrote two books: "Know What you Believe," and "Know Why you Believe."
I do. I know what I believe, and why I believe it. I also can explain it to you in a rational, scriptural and logical way. That is something that you have trouble with. Apparently that is what the links are for. But this is a debate forum.

The red is untrue and not necessary. I've read what iconoclast has offered in threads, he has no trouble articulating biblical truth.

 

[DHK]

That's wonderful! That is a great book. How long did it take you to preach through this book each time approximately?

A lifetime and I will never be finished.

Are you going to have this published? How long is your commentary? Is it verse by verse?

At last count it was at least 700 and still counting. Yes, I preach verse by verse, and no I don't intend to publish it.

That sounds maverick, spiritual and all, yet God has ordained men whom He has spoken to who teach us. There are several of these men, many in fact whom I love and learn from.

I don't know why you are answering for Icon. He can answer for himself. God did not ordain those men to teach me. I can tell you that right now.
Neither did he ordain those who believe in Millennial Exclusion to teach me.
Neither does he ordain the Mormons and a host of others to teach me.

I am not certain why it came out in all of this about you not holding disdain for men. We are called to love one another.

Who said I didn't. It is you drawing false conclusions; entering into a debate and conversation you had no part of in the first place.

Subjective

Only because you don't know the history or context.

The red is untrue and not necessary. I've read what iconoclast has offered in threads, he has no trouble articulating biblical truth.

I have pointed this out to you before; I will do it again.

You have now been a member of this board for 11 whole days!
You have made a total of 161 posts up to this time, the time of this post.
That doesn't qualify you as to what was said as true or not. You don't know the history or the context.
You don't know the conversations that Icon and I have had in the past. It is not your debate or fight.
If you want to enter into debate, then do so. Address the OP.

 

[Internet Theologian]

The problem dhk is that you show contempt for iconoclast, other men, myself on a daily basis. All are held in disdain by you for whatever reason you deem convenient at any given moment. I feel sorry for you and for what you've posted above.

 

[Iconoclast]

I have listened to the truth of what the Holy Spirit has taught me. I have both preached and taught through that book and more than once. I have written my own commentary. I would rather listen to God then to men. I don't disdain men; I often learn from them. So don't get me wrong and start misquoting or misrepresenting my words.

Paul E. Little wrote two books: "Know What you Believe," and "Know Why you Believe."
I do.
I know what I believe, and why I believe it. I also can explain it to you in a rational, scriptural and logical way. That is something that you have trouble with. Apparently that is what the links are for. But this is a debate forum.

The links are for others like myself who enjoy hearing the word of God preached.
I listen to as many sermons as I can.
Sorry you limit yourself as you do but that is just you with a proud, unteachable Spirit.
You have never refuted any link I offered and you never will because these men that you despise are solid and expose your defective thoughts.
I enjoy being corrected scriptural ly as it leads to more obedience in my daily walk. Try it...you would benefit from it.

 

[agedman]

When I read through this thread it strikes me quite odd.

I do so enjoy what BOTH Iconoclast and DHK post when discussing Scriptures.

Though they often seem at odds, there are nuances of agreement that I perceive and more than once (if I remember correctly) have commented that they seem to state similar views on various topics.

The approach to the topic (like the OP) may be a difference, but neither would deny that believers - that are true believers - will not ultimately grow and mature. And, neither would deny that sinfulness have consequence more especially for the believer.

That they are contentious with each other, I attribute to history and rubbing the rough edges off each other exposing some raw nerve endings.

The OP is good, because it asks the questions that believers should attend.

However, there is a warning (imo) that in such questioning, the salvation question is to be left up to God's judgment. We should judge ourselves, and not look upon carnality or worldliness (fleshly) as that person who once believed is not a true believer. God will deal with His own. If they are not His own, then rebuke is already upon them.

Will believers grow? Certainly, (think of the parable of the seed) all believers will grow, but so will some unbelievers. It is that which actually matures that is beneficial and harvested. All others are cast aside.

Will believers be "carnal?" Certainly, but either they will repent (as already mentioned in posts) or they will die (as all ready mentioned in posts). Believers cannot expect to live in the flesh and receive anything from the Holy Spirit in the way of mature gifts.

There are other parts of the OP that I will respond to when I get more time. (hope to anyway)

 

[percho]

I have a question for both DHK and Iconoclast. ----- A scripture.

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Why did they continue not in the first covenant? The law. The law which is spiritual, Rom. 7:14.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. ----- What is soul,living? --- Two translations of the same scripture. Lev 17:11

KJV: For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood thatmaketh an atonement for the soul.
Darby: for the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.

The word in bold is nephesh - The KJV translates Strongs H5315 in the following manner:soul (475x), life (117x), person (29x),mind (15x), heart (15x), creature (9x), body (8x), himself (8x), yourselves (6x), dead (5x), will (4x),desire (4x), man (3x), themselves (3x), any (3x), appetite (2x), misc (47x).

Is not soul living, the flesh God formed from the dust of the ground of which he had created, breathed into it, spirit life from Himself, circulated through the blood? Was the man created, made fleshly, that is carnal, and or another word Paul, by the Holy Spirit, uses, natural (ψυχικός psychikos) soul-ish?

Was not the newly created man, of the flesh, carnal, natural? Was he not: Because of Adam being flesh, did that not make the command of God weak? As stated here: For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, Rom 8:3

Was the first man Adam not sold under sin, being created flesh and blood with his, being, in his blood for the purpose of being, born again, redeemed by the sinless Son of God who came in the likeness of that same sinful flesh?

Now I would like to ask. Is the second, the new covenant made with those whose, being, is still in their blood or will it be made with those who; Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. Luke 20:36 Is that when they are, as this? For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. Heb 8:10-12

Are we saving ourselves? Or does God through his Son Jesus save us? Was the resurrection of Jesus the Son of God important to our salvation? In order for us to be ultimately saved must we absolutely be resurrected and or changed to where our, being, is from other than our blood? To be saved, past tense, must we, be clothed with our house from heaven?

What part does the earnest of our inheritance, the Holy Spirit, play is this taking place. What part do we play? Why are we, of the flesh? Why will we be, of the Spirit?

BTW I believe if the Holy Spirit has set you apart, you are set apart. 1 Peter 1

 

[DHK]

The problem dhk is that you show contempt for iconoclast, other men, myself on a daily basis. All are held in disdain by you for whatever reason you deem convenient at any given moment. I feel sorry for you and for what you've posted above.

Your opinion, (as above), is of no relevance to me. If you want to debate then debate the OP, not the hurt of other people's feelings or sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong. If you thing you have a legitimate claim report it.
Otherwise stick to the OP and debate it. This is a debate forum not a complaint forum. People's feelings are bound to get hurt. If you can't take the fire get out of the frying pan.

 

[Iconoclast]

Your opinion, (as above), is of no relevance to me. If you want to debate then debate the OP, not the hurt of other people's feelings or sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong. If you thing you have a legitimate claim report it.
Otherwise stick to the OP and debate it. This is a debate forum not a complaint forum. People's feelings are bound to get hurt. If you can't take the fire get out of the frying pan.

Very loving post....I like your imput INTT do not be weary in well doing.

 

[DHK]

I have a question for both DHK and Iconoclast. ----- A scripture.

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

The first covenant was made with Israel when they came out of Israel. It was the Law. And no man can keep the Law.
Exodus 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.
Exodus 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
--They said they would be obedient to the law and they were not.
Paul testifies of the same thing as you have quoted below:

Why did they continue not in the first covenant? The law. The law which is spiritual, Rom. 7:14.

The law is always spiritual. It is not the law that is the problem. It is man's problem.
We are sinners. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The law is perfection. We cannot keep the law.

Thus God made a new covenant with Israel.
Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
--This will have it ultimate fulfillment in the Millennial Kingdom, however, as Gentiles we partake of some of its blessings even now.

The Savior passed the cup to his disciples and said:
1 Corinthians 11:25 ... This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

That is as much time as I have to answer your post. If I have time I will try to answer the rest.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Very loving post....I like your imput INTT do not be weary in well doing.

No weariness here brother and thanks for the encouragement.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am a little puzzled by the distinction between 'believers' and 'disciples.'

Acts 11:26. 'And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.'
So presumably the believers were not called Christians. Does this mean that we should not call new believers Christians? What should we call them? Do we have to wait until they pass some exam or other before they can be classed as disciples and then be referred to as Christians?

Just wondering.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I am a little puzzled by the distinction between 'believers' and 'disciples.'

Acts 11:26. 'And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.'
So presumably the believers were not called Christians. Does this mean that we should not call new believers Christians? What should we call them? Do we have to wait until they pass some exam or other before they can be classed as disciples and then be referred to as Christians?

Just wondering.

Excellent point. I've read that Lewis Sperry Chafer began this distinction between disciples/believers which, in my opinion, facilitated the carnal 'christians' allowance, and that these can expect eternal life while living a lifestyle of iniquity. Zane Hodges carried forth this error at Dallas Theological Seminary which was highly influenced by Chafer. Now we have those in ministry who have taken this baton, one such as dhk who also has been influenced by this error and teaches the false dichotomy, all the while thinking he came to this conclusion on his own via Scripture.

The point is that this theology makes the distinction in order that a believer can be recognized as one who lives a carnal lifestyle, and can even be a 'child of the devil' while a disciple is one who actually obeys and follows Christ, bearing evidence of conversion.

 

[DHK]

I am a little puzzled by the distinction between 'believers' and 'disciples.'

Acts 11:26. 'And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.'
So presumably the believers were not called Christians. Does this mean that we should not call new believers Christians? What should we call them? Do we have to wait until they pass some exam or other before they can be classed as disciples and then be referred to as Christians?

Just wondering.

The verse means that they were being recognized more and more as a "sect" of their own and not simply a branch of Judaism. At that time the word "Christian" held no honor. It was given out of stigma by their enemies.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That is of course exactly what it means. But you are the one who has introduced the separation of 'believers' and 'disciples.' So again I ask; were the believers not called Christians?

 

[Internet Theologian]

That is of course exactly what it means. But you are the one who has introduced the separation of 'believers' and 'disciples.' So again I ask; were the believers not called Christians?

Yes, I have introduced that false dichotomy which is being propagated in Christendom.

Can you show me where the Apostles went about to make believers, or, that the Great Commission send us out to make believers? I recall Paul going back to cities seeking out disciples. A believer is of course given the benefit of the doubt at profession of faith. Time will tell whether or not they truly were believers. John 8:30 and following give a good account of this. I also like the parable of the wine skins illustration by way of application.

It matters not whether one is called a believer, it is whether one actually has been born again. A person may be called one initially and may have never been one at all. Calling the tail on a dog a leg means the dog still only has four. One cannot start out as a genuine believer and not end up as one, nor is this distinct from being a disciple.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes, I have introduced that false dichotomy which is being propagated in Christendom.

I'm sorry. I was replying to DHK, not you. I should have made that clear.

Can you show me where the Apostles went about to make believers, or, that the Great Commission send us out to make believers? I recall Paul going back to cities seeking out disciples. A believer is of course given the benefit of the doubt at profession of faith. Time will tell whether or not they truly were believers. John 8:30 and following give a good account of this. I also like the parable of the wine skins illustration by way of application.

It matters not whether one is called a believer, it is whether one actually has been born again. A person may be called one initially and may have never been one at all. Calling the tail on a dog a leg means the dog still only has four. One cannot start out as a genuine believer and not end up as one, nor is this distinct from being a disciple.

You are exactly right. Those who believe become disciples (Acts 2:41-42).

 

[Internet Theologian]

I'm sorry. I was replying to DHK, not you. I should have made that clear.


You are exactly right. Those who believe become disciples (Acts 2:41-42).

Sorry brother I thought this was meant for me. Thanks for the kindness.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

I am a little puzzled by the distinction between 'believers' and 'disciples.'

Acts 11:26. 'And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.'
So presumably the believers were not called Christians. Does this mean that we should not call new believers Christians? What should we call them? Do we have to wait until they pass some exam or other before they can be classed as disciples and then be referred to as Christians?

Just wondering.

Brother,

I believe all born again children of God become disciples, but I maintain regeneration precedes gospel conversion, thus can one be called an "unconverted disciple" (by disciple here I mean a "true" disciple, not like Judas), I think that would be an oxymoron. I believe discipleship starts upon gospel conversion and not prior to.

Nathaniel was born again before he was he was made a disciple. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! " (John 1:47).

Also, I think it is important to note disciples are not "super Christians". I found this online and thought I would share as I believe it contains Biblically based truth.

'Disciples are not an elite order of especially consecrated believers because disciples are too often sadly lacking in consecration. Disciples can be chastened as those of “little faith” (Matthew 8:23-27) and can fail to have the kind of faith that is associated with God’s powerful working (Matthew 17:14-21; Mark 9:14-29; Luke 9:18-19). They can act in pride (Mark 9:31-34). They can require Christ’s correction (Matthew 19:13-14; 26:8-10) and rebuke (Luke 9:54-55), because they make Him “much displeased” (Mark 10:13-14). Disciples can fear to boldly confess Christ (John 19:38) although their faith does not stay perpetually hidden (19:39-40). Disciples can sleep instead of pray, give in to temptation and fear, and fail to unflinchingly stand for Christ (Matthew 26:40, 45, 56; Luke 22:45-46; John 18:15-27), although their faith does not fail and their repentant return to their Redeemer is as certain as are the answers to Christ’s prayers for His own as High Priest (Luke 22:32) since Christ powerfully works in them through His Word to bring them back to Himself when they sin (22:60-62). Disciples can fail to grasp spiritual truth as they ought (Mark 7:18-19; 8:16-21; 9:32; John 4:31-35; 9:2-3; 11:11-13; 12:16) and even fail to pursue understanding as they ought when they fail to grasp it (Luke 9:45). While disciples—since they are believers and are therefore the recipients of a new heart—are going to be different from the unregenerate, they are not an elite subcategory of especially consecrated Christian. No text indicates that a special post-coversion act of consecration makes a believer into the higher category of disciple, nor that a certain amount of sin makes a disciple lose his status and return to a lower subcategory of believer. Rather, all believers, with both their Spirit-wrought change and their remaining indwelling sin, are identified as disciples."

I do not agree with the a lot in the article, but I do with the paragraph above and believe the author is spot on.

Here is the source for the article http://faithsaves.net/all-believers-disciples/

 

[tyndale1946]

Brother,

I believe all born again children of God become disciples, but I maintain regeneration precedes gospel conversion, thus can one be called an "unconverted disciple" (by disciple here I mean a "true" disciple, not like Judas), I think that would be an oxymoron. I believe discipleship starts upon gospel conversion and not prior to.

Nathaniel was born again before he was he was made a disciple. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! " (John 1:47).

Also, I think it is important to note disciples are not "super Christians". I found this online and thought I would share as I believe it contains Biblically based truth.

'Disciples are not an elite order of especially consecrated believers because disciples are too often sadly lacking in consecration. Disciples can be chastened as those of “little faith” (Matthew 8:23-27) and can fail to have the kind of faith that is associated with God’s powerful working (Matthew 17:14-21; Mark 9:14-29; Luke 9:18-19). They can act in pride (Mark 9:31-34). They can require Christ’s correction (Matthew 19:13-14; 26:8-10) and rebuke (Luke 9:54-55), because they make Him “much displeased” (Mark 10:13-14). Disciples can fear to boldly confess Christ (John 19:38) although their faith does not stay perpetually hidden (19:39-40). Disciples can sleep instead of pray, give in to temptation and fear, and fail to unflinchingly stand for Christ (Matthew 26:40, 45, 56; Luke 22:45-46; John 18:15-27), although their faith does not fail and their repentant return to their Redeemer is as certain as are the answers to Christ’s prayers for His own as High Priest (Luke 22:32) since Christ powerfully works in them through His Word to bring them back to Himself when they sin (22:60-62). Disciples can fail to grasp spiritual truth as they ought (Mark 7:18-19; 8:16-21; 9:32; John 4:31-35; 9:2-3; 11:11-13; 12:16) and even fail to pursue understanding as they ought when they fail to grasp it (Luke 9:45). While disciples—since they are believers and are therefore the recipients of a new heart—are going to be different from the unregenerate, they are not an elite subcategory of especially consecrated Christian. No text indicates that a special post-coversion act of consecration makes a believer into the higher category of disciple, nor that a certain amount of sin makes a disciple lose his status and return to a lower subcategory of believer. Rather, all believers, with both their Spirit-wrought change and their remaining indwelling sin, are identified as disciples."

I do not agree with the a lot in the article, but I do with the paragraph above and believe the author is spot on.

Here is the source for the article http://faithsaves.net/all-believers-disciples/

Well according the title of the OP they do if they follow the instructions of Peter some more some less... Those are my thoughts what are you adding to what you already have?... Brother Glen

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

1:6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

1:7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

1:8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.