I don't know why I continue to waste my time responding to your posts. Your juvenile behavior is becoming something of a classic on the BB.
You do realize in your post you are gossiping about me, right?
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is knowing Jesus as the Son of God a requirement to have eternal life or not?
- Thread starter zrs6v4
- Start date
- Status
You do realize in your post you are gossiping about me, right?
No, that is what YOU are saying he says. As is the norm, you cherry pick one thing and run wild with it. You are the only one that I know maintains these are "lost folks" he is speaking to. What he IS saying is the unregenerated "animal man" cannot understand, and if they were such would not be able to...BUT...these were men with the mind of Christ (Paul says so, not me) and they are without excuse for using such logic. Salvation is never in question here, but the "deeper things of God".
With your "I win, you lose" mentality you would love nothing more than for me to put my tail between my legs and whimper home. When you actually "win" at something, I'll be the first to let you know. Oh, and gossip is not becoming of a believer let alone a pastor with such vast immutable biblical knowledge...just saying.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not TO webdog- pay attention- ABOUT. Got it?
Every scholar I suppose on earth including the very Arminian scholar you keep appealing to, knows that 2:14 natural men ARE LOST MEN.
In all of your spinning you have yet to post a single scholar who agrees with you that the "natural man" of verse 14 is SAVED.
You keep posting things Clarke says that do not say what you so desperately need them to say.
But suffice it to say you have had to back down on your silly hyperbole. You began by insinuating that I was basically a hermeneutical moron and practically unfit for the pastorate because I could not tell that verse 14 is talking ABOUT saved folks- when clearly most SCHOLARS agree with me- or are they all hermeneutically handicapped too, in your opinon? Are you the only one on earth fit to interpret Scripture?
SIGH...Paul is speaking of a state of understanding spiritual matters. The natural man cannot, the spiritual man can. THESE are spiritual men WITH the mind of Christ...THAT is what Paul is saying. Their actions were those of natural men. Got it?
Do you have that poor of a grasp on context?!? Paul is not even addressing salvation! You respond to my posts without actually reading what I say, but what you want to hear! This is now the second time I'm saying this, but I guess you will respond yet again to something entirely different about how they are lost people and Paul was trying to teach them pre-faith regeneration yuckity-yuck.
Read DHK's post if you would like to understand this in context. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1613782&postcount=210
Last edited by a moderator:
Yea, me and every other scholar on earth Webdog- every one but you. Thank heavens you came along to straighten out two thousand years worth of Christian scholarship.
Verse 1 sets the stage for verse 14- WHEN I CAME...
What was their condition when he came to them, Webdog?
Have you given up on trying to make Clarke say what you want him to say, yet?
Verse 1 sets the stage for verse 14- WHEN I CAME...
What was their condition when he came to them, Webdog?
Have you given up on trying to make Clarke say what you want him to say, yet?
Care to actually address anything I or DHK said on this thread? Your "everyone but you" comment has been debunked on this very thread :laugh:
Nothing Clarke says disagrees with what I have said. Keep reaching...
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Verse 1. When I came to you] Acting suitably to my mission, which was to preach the Gospel, but not with human eloquence, 1 Cor. i. 17. I declared to you the testimony, the Gospel, of God, not with excellency of speech, not with arts of rhetoric, used by your own philosophers, where the excellence of the speech recommends the matter, and compensates for the want of solidity and truth: on the contrary, the testimony concerning Christ and his salvation is so supremely excellent, as to dignify any kind of language by which it may be conveyed. See the Introduction, sect. ii.
Paul was not speaking to lost church members, he was speaking to believers.
[/FONT]
Nothing Clarke says disagrees with what I have said. Keep reaching...
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Verse 1. When I came to you] Acting suitably to my mission, which was to preach the Gospel, but not with human eloquence, 1 Cor. i. 17. I declared to you the testimony, the Gospel, of God, not with excellency of speech, not with arts of rhetoric, used by your own philosophers, where the excellence of the speech recommends the matter, and compensates for the want of solidity and truth: on the contrary, the testimony concerning Christ and his salvation is so supremely excellent, as to dignify any kind of language by which it may be conveyed. See the Introduction, sect. ii.
Paul was not speaking to lost church members, he was speaking to believers.
[/FONT]
Last edited by a moderator:
Yea, for the second or third time- not TO but ABOUT.
He was talking to the Corinthians ABOUT the condition of unregenerate natural man. This is not that hard to understand, Webdog.
Would you like to do a poll and see how many folks on here think that the "natural man" of 1 Corinthians 2:14 speaks of one pre-regeneration.
You speak highly of John, and I think rightly so. John ought to be a neutral party- if anything he ought to lean to you since he and I are embarking on a big debate- Would you like to ask John what he thinks the "natural man" refers to?
Would that satisfy you when all of these good folks say that the "natural man" is pre-regeneration that my hermeneutics is sound and, indeed, I am still fit for the pastorate? Or would you persist that you are the only person on earth who understands Scripture?
He was not speaking TO or ABOUT lost church members. He was speaking about who can understand the deeper things of God. The church he was addressing COULD, but instead were not...not because they were unable, but because they were relying on their prior philosophies and human wisdom.
He was talking ABOUT who can understand the deeper things of God. This is not hard to understand.
Unlike you I will not tell my fellow BB members what they can or cannot do
If you want to, go ahead...but we will have to see how unbiased you word it and what you are stressing.
Last edited by a moderator:
According to your commentary that you keep appealing to he was refering to people who were unregenerate and without spiritual mind.
It's as plain as the nose on your face, isn't it?
because the animal man-the man who is in a state of nature, without the regenerating grace of the Spirit of God, receiveth not the things of the Spirit-neither apprehends nor comprehends them: he has no relish for them; he considers it the highest wisdom to live for this world. Therefore these spiritual things are foolishness to him; for while he is in his animal state he cannot see their excellency, because they are spiritually discerned, and he has no spiritual mind.
When is a man WITHOUT THE REGENERATING GRACE OF GOD, Webdog?
Can a man be a Christian WITHOUT THE REGENERATING GRACE OF GOD??
On what planet can a Christian be WITHOUT THE REGENERATING GRACE OF GOD?
What kind of Christin HAS NO SPIRITUAL MIND???
Steven2006
New Member
I believe in 1 Cor 2:14 Paul is addressing Christians, but referring to (natural man) the unsaved.
preacher4truth
Active Member
Steven2006
New Member
Yes, he is addressing Christians.
If you are sitting in Church and in the sermon your preacher refers to the condition of man before being saved, does that mean you are not saved?
See what I mean? Paul was addressing Christians in verse 14, about the condition of "natural man".
preacher4truth
Active Member
Yep, he was. He didn't call them saints at first, then call them lost in another chapter. That would be to act like many on this board. I'm certain Paul was above 3rd grade in maturity, as opposed to whom I am referring to.
This is what some on this blog do, however, they love to judge, accuse, condemn, and slander, and call saints lost because they don't agree with everything they say. I certainly hope those on here who do this act differently to those they meet in person. Somehow I doubt it. Having no self control over the mouth, wonder what Scriptures says about these things?
:thumbs:
Everyone has said repeatedly I think that he is talking TO Christians. But he is talking TO Christians ABOUT people who are not Christians.
It is ok if you disagree with that. The problem I have at this point and the reason I am being a bit too overagressive perhaps is that when I said that Paul is talking TO Christians ABOUT unsaved people Webdog said that it is a shame that I am a pastor as hermenutically stupid as I am and you said "This guy is way off" and Amy said something like that.
I don't care if you disagree with me. I am perfectly capable of being wrong and I have to admit it often. That's how I became a Calvinist BTW- I had to admit I was wrong after fighting against Calvinism for years.
But for you guys to say that a person who has the backing of well nigh every Christian scholar in history has no hermeneutical ability and should not be pastoring and is WAY off- it is quite annoying- like buzzing gnats in your ear.
You are clearly wrong about this passage and you ought to admit it but at the very least you need to cease with the ad hominem and telling a pastor that he is unsuited for the ministry- or make a real case why he is WAY OFF or unsuited for the ministry.
You need to keep this kind of personal crud in the pm or set up a meeting with the person to hash it out. This kind of junk has no place here.
preacher4truth
Active Member
This is from the guy who invites me to physically fight, by sending me pm's on here, to request your address? Are you going to beat me up?
Sir, you have got to grow up someday. Why not start now?
:thumbs:
PM- and I did not invite you to fight- I actually think it is crooked for you to twist it that way. You asked me do I "run my face" to other people this way or just hide behind my monitor and do it.
I said when I withstand people I look them in the eye and that if you would like to test that I will give you my address.
I said nothing about fighting. For you to misrepresent what I said in a PM on this public forum is not right.
- Status