Interpreting Scripture

[Van]

The dark side often charges their opponents with whatever the dark side is actually engaged in. Thus for example the side attacking Democracy charges the other side with attacking Democracy.

Or using Bible Doctrine disputes, one side will say the other side "took the word, phrase, verse or passage out of context." Usually this charge does not actually make a chase for just what is "in context" thus the charge is used just to disparage a point of view.

 

[Van]

I will not be surprise if an advocate of false doctrine starts claiming a refutation from scripture is a "cheap fake."

 

[kyredneck]

Because for the first 28 years of my life as a believer, I was taught the very same things it seems you have been.

IMO, probably 98% of 'Sovereign Gracers' began their Christian journey as 'Free Willers'.

 

[Van]

The issue is not what one theologian or his followers think, or what another faction believes, but what was God's intended message! The idea we make "free" decisions without the influence of our prior experience is nonsense. Likewise, the idea that our decisions are compelled by our experiences or fallen nature is nonsense. In spite of our predisposition to sin, we could in our lost state, set our minds upon Godly spiritual things. For example, we were knowledgeable about God from what He has made.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of humanity, His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse.​

Thus the claim 1 Corinthians 2:14 refers to all spiritual things contradicts both the immediate context (1 Corinthians 3:1) and the balance of scripture.