Matthew 23:13

[InTheLight]

. The people of Matthew 23:13 were seeking God, and they were prevented from completing their entry into the kingdom of heaven because of false teaching, thereby demonstrating "irresistible grace" is also bogus doctrine.

I'm sorry to inform you but the Pharisees not allowing others to enter the kingdom of heaven in no way proves that irresistible grace is a bogus doctrine.

There is no correlation.

And I don't hold to irresistible grace, except in special circumstances (John the Baptist, Mary, mother of Jesus, Saul of Tarsus, Enoch, etc.)


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[InTheLight]

See post #3

Post #3 does not show the Pharisees used false teaching to prevent people from entering the kingdom of heaven.

A well known logical fallacy is personal incredulity, saying a person cannot understand preventing people from entry actually means preventing people from entry.

I'm not asserting anything like that.

At the end of the day, all the deniers of Matthew 23:13 is "taint so."

You keep saying that. Where does the Bible say the Pharisees used false teaching to prevent people from entering the kingdom of heaven?


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[Van]

I'm sorry to inform you but the Pharisees not allowing others to enter the kingdom of heaven in no way proves that irresistible grace is a bogus doctrine.

There is no correlation.

And I don't hold to irresistible grace, except in special circumstances (John the Baptist, Mary, mother of Jesus, Saul of Tarsus, Enoch, etc.)

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

Yes, I know you say you cannot grasp the obvious, that being prevented from entry doesn't invalidate the bogus idea of a compelled entry via irresistible grace. Personal incredulity is an argument from logical fallacy

 

[Van]

Post #3 does not show the Pharisees used false teaching to prevent people from entering the kingdom of heaven.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

Personal incredulity is an argument from logical fallacy.

 

[InTheLight]

There isn't one.

Please show how the verse says it PREVENTED people going into the kingdom. It doesn't say it. You add that in there.

It does seem to say that they are prevented from going into the kingdom of heaven in this verse in Matthew, but in the parallel account in Luke 11: 52 it is clear they don't prevent them from entering. They try to prevent them from entering but they only temporarily hindered them from entering.

“Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.”
Luke 11:52 NKJV



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[Reformed1689]

@Van how does the verse say they were PREVENTED from ever entering the Kingdom?

 

[Reformed1689]

It does seem to say that they are prevented from going into the kingdom of heaven in this verse in Matthew, but in the parallel account in Luke 11: 52 it is clear they don't prevent them from entering. They try to prevent them from entering but they only temporarily hindered them from entering.

“Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.”
Luke 11:52 NKJV



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

Which, of course, means Matthew didn't say they were prevented either.

 

[InTheLight]

Yes, I know you say you cannot grasp the obvious, that being prevented from entry doesn't invalidate the bogus idea of a compelled entry via irresistible grace. Personal incredulity is an argument from logical fallacy

Ah, I cannot grasp it. I cannot understand it.

So, good old #5 of the Calvinist arguments applied to a non-Cal doctrine. (see my signature.)

 

[Van]

@Van how does the verse say they were PREVENTED from ever entering the Kingdom?

Not what it says, thus yet another deflection

 

[InTheLight]

Which, of course, means Matthew didn't say they were prevented either.

Agreed, it doesn't say it in Matthew either, though it could be stated a bit clearer, like it is in Luke 11:52.

 

[InTheLight]

Yes, I know you say you cannot grasp the obvious, that being prevented from entry doesn't invalidate the bogus idea of a compelled entry via irresistible grace.

Compelled entry? Where is that discussed in Matthew 23:13?

A big ol' #4 for you!

Personal incredulity is an argument from logical fallacy

What in the world are you banging on about now?

 

[Van]

Ah, I cannot grasp it. I cannot understand it.

So, good old #5 of the Calvinist arguments applied to a non-Cal doctrine. (see my signature.)

You the one saying preventing entry does not mean preventing entry, and preventing entry does not teach the entry was not irresistibly compelled.

 

[InTheLight]

Personal incredulity is an argument from logical fallacy.

Your entire argument here is invoking personal incredulity, that's for sure!

 

[Van]

Compelled entry? Where is that discussed in Matthew 23:13?

A big ol' #4 for you!

What in the world are you banging on about now?

On and on they post bogus absurd and off topic posts.
Does "iresistible grace" say entry is compelled? Yes

 

[InTheLight]

You the one saying preventing entry does not mean preventing entry, and preventing entry does not teach the entry was not irresistibly compelled.

I'm not saying preventing entry doesn't mean preventing entry. I am saying the text says the Pharisees attempted to prevent entry, TO "THOSE WHO WERE GOING IN."

[Edited for clarity]

 

[Reformed1689]

Not what it says, thus yet another deflection

How was that a deflection? What does it say then? Where does it say prevented?

 

[Van]

Your entire argument here is invoking personal incredulity, that's for sure!

Totally absurd nonsense.

 

[Reformed1689]

You the one saying preventing entry does not mean preventing entry, and preventing entry does not teach the entry was not irresistibly compelled.

Where does it say prevent entry? Quote please.

 

[Van]

I'm not saying preventing entry means preventing entry. I am saying the text says the Pharisees attempted to prevent entry, TO "THOSE WHO WERE GOING IN."

Now we get the distinction without a difference nonsense. On and on they post.

 

[InTheLight]

On and on they post bogus absurd and off topic posts.
Does "iresistible grace" say entry is compelled? Yes

<Looks at thread title>

MATTHEW 23:13

Topic is Matthew 23:13. YOU started the thread. YOU are the one going on about irresistible grace means compelled entry. That idea is nowhere to be found in Matthew 23:13. Neither is the idea of irresistible grace.