The effect of Free Will on Scripture.

[Wesley Briggman]

The Catholic Liturgical Library
"Dearly beloved, this child has been reborn in baptism. He (she) is now called the child of God, for so indeed he (she) is. In confirmation he (she) will receive the fullness of God's Spirit. In holy communion he (she) will share the banquet of Christ's sacrifice, calling God his (her) Father in the midst of the Church. In the name of this child, in the Spirit of our common sonship, let us pray together in the words our Lord has given us:"

The text quoted above is from the website listed. It clearly stated that the infant being baptized has been reborn and is now a child of God.

To my knowledge, this is not endorsed by Calvinism nor Armenianism. It is a stand alone lie of the Roman Catholic church.

The RCC goes so far as to, under special circumstances, to insert an instrument up the birth canal in an effort to baptize the unborn child to enable it, in case of death, to go to heaven as a child of God.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Baptism
"This leads to the baptism of infants in cases of difficult delivery. When the Roman Ritual declares that a child is not to be baptized while still enclosed (clausus) in its mother's womb, it supposes that the baptismal water can not reach the body of the child. When, however, this seems possible, even with the aid of an instrument, Benedict XIV (Syn. Diaec., vii, 5) declares that midwives should be instructed to confer conditional baptism. The Ritual further says that when the water can flow upon the head of the infant the sacrament is to be administered absolutely; but if it can be poured only on some other part of the body, baptism is indeed to be conferred, but it must be conditionally repeated in case the child survives its birth, It is to be noted that in these last two cases, the rubric of the Ritual supposes that the infant has partly emerged from the womb. For if the fetus was entirely enclosed, baptism is to be repeated conditionally in all cases (Lehmkuhl, n, 61)."

 

[utilyan]

Do you know many Armenians. My cousin's wife is Armenian and I doubt if she is calvinist.

Jacobus Arminius - Wikipedia

Jacob Arminius started "Armenians" He is a CALVINIST. And since him Calvinist have toted him as the only alternative to Calvinism in order to set up a false dichotomy. Most Calvinist arguments are based on false dichotomy. That is its either A or B with no other alternatives.

Franciscus Gomarus - Wikipedia

Franciscus Gomarus.
Was the Calvinist-Calvinist.


Most of you guys claim to have gone to seminary. How do you not know this stuff?

 

[Dave G]

That is its either A or B with no other alternatives.

There are no other alternatives.
Either God saves, or man helps / assists God to save.

"Arminianism" is a catch-all term for those who teach that man cooperates with God to save them.
"Calvinism" is a catch-all term for those who teach that salvation is a work of God, start to finish and is in no way dependent upon men to bring about.

 

[Particular]

The Catholic Liturgical Library
"Dearly beloved, this child has been reborn in baptism. He (she) is now called the child of God, for so indeed he (she) is. In confirmation he (she) will receive the fullness of God's Spirit. In holy communion he (she) will share the banquet of Christ's sacrifice, calling God his (her) Father in the midst of the Church. In the name of this child, in the Spirit of our common sonship, let us pray together in the words our Lord has given us:"

The text quoted above is from the website listed. It clearly stated that the infant being baptized has been reborn and is now a child of God.

To my knowledge, this is not endorsed by Calvinism nor Armenianism. It is a stand alone lie of the Roman Catholic church.

The RCC goes so far as to, under special circumstances, to insert an instrument up the birth canal in an effort to baptize the unborn child to enable it, in case of death, to go to heaven as a child of God.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Baptism
"This leads to the baptism of infants in cases of difficult delivery. When the Roman Ritual declares that a child is not to be baptized while still enclosed (clausus) in its mother's womb, it supposes that the baptismal water can not reach the body of the child. When, however, this seems possible, even with the aid of an instrument, Benedict XIV (Syn. Diaec., vii, 5) declares that midwives should be instructed to confer conditional baptism. The Ritual further says that when the water can flow upon the head of the infant the sacrament is to be administered absolutely; but if it can be poured only on some other part of the body, baptism is indeed to be conferred, but it must be conditionally repeated in case the child survives its birth, It is to be noted that in these last two cases, the rubric of the Ritual supposes that the infant has partly emerged from the womb. For if the fetus was entirely enclosed, baptism is to be repeated conditionally in all cases (Lehmkuhl, n, 61)."

Perfect example of false teaching based upon nothing found in the Bible.

 

[Particular]

Jacobus Arminius - Wikipedia

Jacob Arminius started "Armenians" He is a CALVINIST. And since him Calvinist have toted him as the only alternative to Calvinism in order to set up a false dichotomy. Most Calvinist arguments are based on false dichotomy. That is its either A or B with no other alternatives.

Franciscus Gomarus - Wikipedia

Franciscus Gomarus.
Was the Calvinist-Calvinist.


Most of you guys claim to have gone to seminary. How do you not know this stuff?

FYI, Armenian is different than Arminian. Re-read the post to which you are referring. You'll see your error.

 

[Van]

No, just spiritual things.
SNIP
Now, let's read 1 Corinthians 3:1-3:

" And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, [even] as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"

Here Paul is telling the Corinthians that they are yet immature...babes in Christ.
He cannot speak to them as mature believers, but as "carnal"...
As spiritual children.

He tells them that he has fed them with milk and not with meat...because they were not able, and they are still not able.
They are walking as men, not as the sons of God that they are.

Finally, please read my prior post to you ( # 71 ) and answer it, if you are so inclined.
Again, thanks in advance.

I have answered the issue of your post 71 many times. The things of the Spirit, does not say "all" the things, because men of flesh can receive and respond to spiritual milk. Pretending I have not addressed this time and again is not useful.

The issue is not that the new Christians could not receive spiritual meat (solid food) or that they could receive spiritual milk, but whether the lost "men of flesh" can receive spiritual milk. All these other points are simply sidestepping.

Paul spoke to the new Christians as men of flesh. Therefore men of flesh can receive and understand spiritual milk. Your effort to rewrite the verse to say Paul spoke to born anew believers who were "in the flesh" is nonsense.

So once again we have a verse which demonstrates your views are unbiblical, and once again you deny the obvious.

 

[David Kent]

Jacobus Arminius - Wikipedia

Jacob Arminius started "Armenians" He is a CALVINIST. And since him Calvinist have toted him as the only alternative to Calvinism in order to set up a false dichotomy. Most Calvinist arguments are based on false dichotomy. That is its either A or B with no other alternatives.

Franciscus Gomarus - Wikipedia

Franciscus Gomarus.
Was the Calvinist-Calvinist.


Most of you guys claim to have gone to seminary. How do you not know this stuff?

Armenians come from Armenia . Arminians are followes of Aminius. C'est tout.

 

[David Kent]

"This leads to the baptism of infants in cases of difficult delivery. When the Roman Ritual declares that a child is not to be baptized while still enclosed (clausus) in its mother's womb, it supposes that the baptismal water can not reach the body of the child. When, however, this seems possible, even with the aid of an instrument, Benedict XIV (Syn. Diaec., vii, 5) declares that midwives should be instructed to confer conditional baptism. The Ritual further says that when the water can flow upon the head of the infant the sacrament is to be administered absolutely; but if it can be poured only on some other part of the body, baptism is indeed to be conferred, but it must be conditionally repeated in case the child survives its birth, It is to be noted that in these last two cases, the rubric of the Ritual supposes that the infant has partly emerged from the womb. For if the fetus was entirely enclosed, baptism is to be repeated conditionally in all cases (Lehmkuhl, n, 61)."

That shows how false Catholicism is.

Baptismal regeneration is absolutely against scripture.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Armenians come from Armenia . Arminians are followes of Aminius. C'est tout.

Thanks for the clarification. Hopefully, I can keep it straight!!!

 

[Dave G]

I have answered the issue of your post 71 many times.

Respectfully, not since I've been here in the way that I'm asking you to.
In addition, I've never seen you explain any passage, line by line, breaking it down so that the reader can see how you arrive at your understanding of it.

The things of the Spirit, does not say "all" the things, because men of flesh can receive and respond to spiritual milk.

Not according to 1 Corinthians 2:14 they can't.

Pretending I have not addressed this time and again is not useful.

Let's say for the sake of clarification, that it would be extremely helpful for you to address it again, thoroughly, for any new readers that are joining us.

From my observations, there are a least 10 people that have joined in the past several months...
Perhaps they'd like to see more than simply a summary?

With that said, I'm requesting that you address it again according to what I've laid out in post # 71.
Line by line, in your own words, please.

That way the readers here can all see how you arrive at your understanding of the passage in question, and how I arrive at it.
After that, we can then let them decide who is correct.

The issue is not that the new Christians could not receive spiritual meat (solid food) or that they could receive spiritual milk, but whether the lost "men of flesh" can receive spiritual milk.

I agree.

The issue is whether or not men that are in active rebellion to God ( mankind in his natural state, dead in trespasses and sins, see Ephesians 2:1, Colossians 2:13 ) can indeed, receive ( or welcome ) the things of God, outside of God causing them to be born again.

In other words, the issue is whether or not man's will is indeed freed to believe by God before the new birth, or whether our will is in bondage to sin, and becomes free to believe when we are born again.

Are you following?

 

[Dave G]

All these other points are simply sidestepping.

I disagree.

In fact, I have no reason to sidestep anything you want to discuss...
and quite thoroughly, if that is what you wish.

Paul spoke to the new Christians as men of flesh.

I agree.

Therefore men of flesh can receive and understand spiritual milk.

No they cannot.

The difference is, the Corinthians had already believed and been indwelt with the Holy Ghost.
They were already born again, and were new creatures in Christ.

Because of that, I do not see where you connect the two.
The saved believe God's words, and the lost reject it ( John 8:47, 1 Corinthians 1:18 ).

Your effort to rewrite the verse to say Paul spoke to born anew believers who were "in the flesh" is nonsense.

Again, I disagree.

I see it clearly, but I'm not sure why you do not.
You call it "nonsense", I call it completely reasonable.

What's more, I gave you my view of the words, line by line, as I see them stating.
If you disagree, I'm perfectly willing to have you tell me where, in my commentary, that you believe that I am wrong in post # 71.

All you have to do is quote it, and then dissect it with your own corrections within the body of the text.
Tell my how and why my understanding of the very words, differs from yours.

So once again we have a verse which demonstrates your views are unbiblical, and once again you deny the obvious.

Once again, it appears that you are not willing to indulge me by breaking down the passage found in 1 Corinthians 2:11-16, line by line, and show the reader how you are getting your understanding of it.

I have done that.
Is there some reason that you are unwilling to do so?

Furthermore, I think that when you can do that, it will go a long way towards everyone who is reading this thread, being able to carefully compare how I see the passage, with how you do.
Simply giving us a brief summary isn't doing the job, in my estimation.
I'm also fairly certain that many people who read this thread are curious as to how, exactly, you see the passage.

Line by line, word for word.

Once again, thanks in advance for your forthcoming reply.

 

[Van]

I disagree.
SNIP
No they cannot.

The difference is, the Corinthians had already believed and been indwelt with the Holy Ghost.
They were already born again, and were new creatures in Christ. SNIP
.

Once again Dave sidesteps the issue, again referring the new Christians, and not the lost men of flesh.
Paul spoke to the new Christians "as to men of flesh." Therefore "men of flesh" can understand and grow on spiritual milk.

Simply posting "no they cannot" evades the fact Paul spoke to them as to men of flesh. All they can do is deny the truth of scripture and change the subject, typically with a false charge aimed at me.

Note the pattern of denial:
1) The verse says Paul spoke to them as to men of flesh.
2) No reason is given for Paul speaking to them as to men of flesh.
3) Instead, the issue is dodged by saying Paul was speaking to new indwelt Christians, ignoring the issue.

But the obvious truth remains, men of flesh (the lost) can receive some of the things of the Spirit, spiritual milk. The effort to change "the things" to "all the things" in 1 Cor. 2:14 does not reflect the context of 1 Corinthians 3:1.

 

[Dave G]

Once again Dave sidesteps the issue, again referring the new Christians, and not the lost men of flesh.

Van,
Is there some reason that you are reluctant to deal with the passage in 1 Corinthians 2:11-16 in the manner that I've requested?

To my way of thinking, it should pose no problem for someone like yourself that seems so very confident of their position and their understanding of the Scriptures.
Once again, what I'm asking for is really not that hard...
Simply list the passage, and give me the breakdown in your own words, line by line.

Here...
I'll start by listing the passage in question ( but let's go back a bit to include verses 9 and 10 ):

" But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." ( 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 )

I will of course give you my breakdown, word for word ( as I did in post # 71 ) as soon as you respond to mine.
Then we can compare them together so that the readers can see how the words themselves are understood by each of us.

Whenever you are ready, sir...
And I thank you once again, for your replies.

 

[Van]

Van,
Is there some reason that you are reluctant to deal with the passage in 1 Corinthians 2:11-16 in the manner that I've requested?

To my way of thinking, it should pose no problem for someone like yourself that seems so very confident of their position and their understanding of the Scriptures.
Once again, what I'm asking for is really not that hard...
Simply list the passage, and give me the breakdown in your own words, line by line.

Here...
I'll start by listing the passage in question ( but let's go back a bit to include verses 9 and 10 ):

" But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." ( 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 )

I will of course give you my breakdown, word for word ( as I did in post # 71 ) as soon as you respond to mine.
Then we can compare them together so that the readers can see how the words themselves are understood by each of us.

Whenever you are ready, sir...
And I thank you once again, for your replies.

Once again, deflection and no effort to explain why Paul spoke to them as to men of flesh. Obviously men of flesh can respond to spiritual milk.

By the numbers

1) 1 Corinthoians 2:14 says "the things" not "all the things" so what things might natural men understand?
2) Spiritual milk, the fundamentals of the gospel are "the things" of the Spirit that men of flesh can understand as shown in 1 Corinthians 3:1.
3) Therefore scripture teaches here and elsewhere that "total spiritual inability" is bogus. The effort to change "the things" to "all the things" in 1 Cor. 2:14 does not reflect the context of 1 Corinthians 3:1.

 

[Particular]

Once again, deflection and no effort to explain why Paul spoke to them as to men of flesh. Obviously men of flesh can respond to spiritual milk.

By the numbers

1) 1 Corinthoians 2:14 says "the things" not "all the things" so what things might natural men understand?
2) Spiritual milk, the fundamentals of the gospel are "the things" of the Spirit that men of flesh can understand as shown in 1 Corinthians 3:1.
3) Therefore scripture teaches here and elsewhere that "total spiritual inability" is bogus. The effort to change "the things" to "all the things" in 1 Cor. 2:14 does not reflect the context of 1 Corinthians 3:1.

You know, Van, everyone sees that you are the one deflecting from Dave's proposal.
Until you go through the proposed scripture, verse by verse and line by line, it is you who is deflecting. Face it and admit it.

 

[Revmitchell]

Once again, it appears that you are not willing to indulge me by breaking down the passage found in 1 Corinthians 2:11-16, line by line, and show the reader how you are getting your understanding of it.

The problem with your request is that the proof text you want to deal with is far to narrow to be understood in context.

Looking at the chapter as a whole from verse one we see that Paul is talking about and making a comparison of worldly wisdom verses spiritual wisdom. We see this when Paul says "And my speech and my preaching human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,". Of course this is carried over from chapter one where Paul corrects them for the divisions within the church. In this same chapter is where Paul begins his comparison of worldly wisdom and spiritual wisdom. We see this in verses 20 and 21 when Paul said "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."

What I find interesting in these two chapters is that now where does Paul say that one must be regenerated in order to understand the wisdom of God. If such a doctrine even existed this would have been an appropriate place to bring it up. Further, Paul said " Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." Now if one must be regenerated in order to understand spiritual things then that verse would not even be necessary in this context. What it does not say is that there is a complete inability to understand spiritual things outside of regeneration. What it does suggest is that the least little and insignificant thing that God knows is far greater than the greatest and most profound thing the word knows. It also suggests that men who do not care about the wisdom of God will struggle to understand spiritual things because they are looking at things through the wrong lens.

Now what do I mean by that? It is much like those who hold to evolution. When they look at the creation account that interpret scripture through the lens of evolution rather than let scripture interpret itself. There is not an inability to understand the creation account properly but so long as the view things through the lens of evolution then they will always misunderstand the creation account. That is an example of worldly thinking verse spiritual thinking. But...there is no inability it is just a different mindset that gets in the way.

As Paul goes on in chapter two he continues his comparison of worldly thinking verse spiritual thinking starting in verse four. Then in verse 6 Paul says "However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing." I find it interesting here that he doesn't say those who are regenerated but he says those who are mature. Again, by the use of the word "mature" he shows his intent is that it take a certain mind set to understand these things. This completely goes against any idea that our lack of understanding comes from not be regenerated first.

Then comes verse 10. The wisdom of God is revealed by the Holy Spirit who gave authors of scripture an understanding of the mystery of God that the Jews did not understand else they would not have put Christ on the cross. But now we all benefit from that wisdom, which was given to us by the Holy Spirit and we can read in His word. If it does not mean this then we would all have to claim that God gives us personal revelation. Then we get to the proof text that calvies love so much. Verse 14 which in no way suggests or says anything about total inability. It just continues to confirm what I have already shown goes back to chapter one, which is that those who see things through the lens of worldly wisdom will struggle to understand godly wisdom in the same way that those who view the creation account through the lens of evolution struggles to understand it correctly.

So worldly wisdom

 

[Van]

You know, Van, everyone sees that you are the one deflecting from Dave's proposal.
Until you go through the proposed scripture, verse by verse and line by line, it is you who is deflecting. Face it and admit it.

Yet another off topic ad hominem post, address my supposed flawed behavior rather than the topic.

Returning to topic:

1) 1 Corinthians 2:14 says "the things" not "all the things" so what things might natural men understand?
2) Spiritual milk, the fundamentals of the gospel are "the things" of the Spirit that men of flesh can understand as shown in 1 Corinthians 3:1.
3) Therefore scripture teaches here and elsewhere that "total spiritual inability" is bogus. The effort to change "the things" to "all the things" in 1 Cor. 2:14 does not reflect the context of 1 Corinthians 3:1.

 

[Particular]

Yet another off topic ad hominem post, address my supposed flawed behavior rather than the topic.

Returning to topic:

1) 1 Corinthians 2:14 says "the things" not "all the things" so what things might natural men understand?
2) Spiritual milk, the fundamentals of the gospel are "the things" of the Spirit that men of flesh can understand as shown in 1 Corinthians 3:1.
3) Therefore scripture teaches here and elsewhere that "total spiritual inability" is bogus. The effort to change "the things" to "all the things" in 1 Cor. 2:14 does not reflect the context of 1 Corinthians 3:1.

LOL

 

[Van]

LOL

Yet another off topic deflection. Personal incredulity is a logical fallacy used to hide the inability to defend what is obviously false.

Returning to topic:

1) 1 Corinthians 2:14 says "the things" not "all the things" so what things might natural men understand?
2) Spiritual milk, the fundamentals of the gospel are "the things" of the Spirit that men of flesh can understand as shown in 1 Corinthians 3:1.
3) Therefore scripture teaches here and elsewhere that "total spiritual inability" is bogus. The effort to change "the things" to "all the things" in 1 Cor. 2:14 does not reflect the context of 1 Corinthians 3:1.

 

[Particular]

Yet another off topic deflection. Personal incredulity is a logical fallacy used to hide the inability to defend what is obviously false.

Returning to topic:

1) 1 Corinthians 2:14 says "the things" not "all the things" so what things might natural men understand?
2) Spiritual milk, the fundamentals of the gospel are "the things" of the Spirit that men of flesh can understand as shown in 1 Corinthians 3:1.
3) Therefore scripture teaches here and elsewhere that "total spiritual inability" is bogus. The effort to change "the things" to "all the things" in 1 Cor. 2:14 does not reflect the context of 1 Corinthians 3:1.

LOL