ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Bereft of ability to provide decent refutation, eh, Clete?

Nang

Actually refutation/rebuttal is what you should have attempted. It would then have been my turn to offer what is termed a "rejoinder". As it is, you made no arguments; you simply interpreted Psalms 139 with your Calvinist classes on. I'm perfectly content to allow my post to stand as its own rebuttal to your post and let the readers decide who has been more faithful to the plain reading of the text and who has twisted the text into something that is faithful to their theological tradition.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Calvinists are generally in one of two doctrinal camps with respect to the divine decrees of God: supralapsarian and infralapsarian. By divine decrees, I mean: The decrees of God are His eternal purpose, according to the counsel of His will, whereby for His own glory He has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. The purpose of God’s decrees were for His own glory, honor, and power (see Rev. 4:11, Num. 14:21; Isa. 48:11; Ez. 20:9; 1 Cor. 1:26-31; Eph. 2:8-10).[/FONT]

The supralapsarian would believe that God’s ordained plan for the created world comprises His discretive decrees in the following order:

1. To elect some to salvation and to reprobate others to damnation for His glory (double predestination)
2. To create the world
3. Allow man to fall into sin through his own self-determination
4. To provide a savior for the elect in the atonement of Christ

The hyper-Calvinist position above is known as supralapsarian as it shows that election comes “before the fall” of mankind. For the hyper-Calvinist, God’s discretive will begins with predestination, and the second to fourth decrees are the means to that end. Thus, election and reprobation pertain to man as created, creation is for the sake of salvation/damnation and the fall of mankind serves God’s elective purpose. The supralapsarian doctrine of decrees would have one believe that mankind was created for the sake of election and reprobation—that God created in order to save and condemn. That sin becomes a necessary means to the fulfillment of God’s plan. That creation and the fall serve predestination.

The supralapsarian position was the work of Theodore Beza, Calvin’s son-in-law (and one of Jacob Arminius’ teachers), who formulated it after Calvin died in 1564. I don’t believe Beza would have succeeded in his efforts had Calvin been around. Unfortunately, Beza’s supralapsarianism is what most non-Calvinists think Calvinism represents. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

For the record, but not to start an intra-Calvinist argument, I hold to the Supralapsarian view, but I am NOT a hyper-Calvinist.

A hyper-Calvinist is one who does not believe in or practice evangelism.

Nang
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Actually refutation/rebuttal is what you should have attempted. It would then have been my turn to offer what is termed a "rejoinder". As it is, you made no arguments; you simply interpreted Psalms 139 with your Calvinist classes on. I'm perfectly content to allow my post to stand as its own rebuttal to your post and let the readers decide who has been more faithful to the plain reading of the text and who has twisted the text into something that is faithful to their theological tradition.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Fine with me . . .it makes it an easy (dumbed-down) choice for the readers.

Either Psalm 139 is about the Creator Jesus Christ or it is about embryology . . .in poetic genre, of course.

Nang
 
Last edited:

Nang

TOL Subscriber
1 Cor 2:14 cannot refer to the gospel, and thus does not support Total depravity.

Muz

Who are you replying to?

And "the things of the Spirit of God" does not include the gospel message of Jesus Christ?

Your version of this passage is all wet. But you have been told that already. You are blind to Paul's teachings to the Corinthian church.

May God open your eyes and give you the "mind of Christ" . . .

Nang
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Who are you replying to?

And "the things of the Spirit of God" does not include the gospel message of Jesus Christ?

Your version of this passage is all wet. But you have been told that already. You are blind to Paul's teachings to the Corinthian church.

May God open your eyes and give you the "mind of Christ" . . .

Nang

I think you should open your eyes and read the begining of the next chapter ... LOL

1 Cor 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able [to receive it]. Indeed, even now you are not yet able,

Notice that the Corinthian church was still unable to grasp the spiritual things of 1 Cor 2:14!

So, in order to claim that 1 Cor 2:14 includes the gospel, you have to say that the Church in Corinth wasn't yet saved... a contradiction in terms.

QED

Muz
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
I think you should open your eyes and read the begining of the next chapter ... LOL

1 Cor 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able [to receive it]. Indeed, even now you are not yet able,

Notice that the Corinthian church was still unable to grasp the spiritual things of 1 Cor 2:14!

So, in order to claim that 1 Cor 2:14 includes the gospel, you have to say that the Church in Corinth wasn't yet saved... a contradiction in terms.

QED

Muz

Muz,

The church at Corinth was mixed. There were true believers in her midst, and there were natural men who could not comprehend the gospel of Jesus Christ, because they were not born again (John 3:3), nor given the Spirit and "mind of Christ."

Paul addressed both saved and unsaved members of the church, as should any good Elder.

Nang
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Muz,

The church at Corinth was mixed. There were true believers in her midst, and there were natural men who could not comprehend the gospel of Jesus Christ, because they were not born again (John 3:3), nor given the Spirit and "mind of Christ."

Paul addressed both saved and unsaved members of the church, as should any good Elder.

Nang

ROFL! Unsaved members of the body of Christ? What a HUGE contradiction!

Paul is addressing the problem of people claiming "I am of Paul" or "I am of Apollos", and addresses them as all being of Christ. Paul also clearly says that he came to them preaching the gospel so that their faith would be based upon the power of God. Paul then tells them that there is a wisdom spoken of among the mature, and by extension he did NOT preach to them (because he said that he didn't come to them in wisdom or in persuasive speech), and the remainder of the chapter goes on to describe this wisdom spoken of among the mature.

Nowhere does Paul make a distinction between saved or unsaved when addressing them. Paul is chiding them for their lack of maturity in Christ, telling them that they have yet to progress beyond the elemental things of Christ, into the mature things spoken of in 2:6. 1 Cor 2:14 and 1 Cor 3:2-3 speak of these same things, and not the gospel.

I think the lengths that a Calvinist will go to try to explain away major problems with their proof texts is now very clear.

Muz
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
ROFL! Unsaved members of the body of Christ? What a HUGE contradiction!

Paul is addressing the problem of people claiming "I am of Paul" or "I am of Apollos", and addresses them as all being of Christ. Paul also clearly says that he came to them preaching the gospel so that their faith would be based upon the power of God. Paul then tells them that there is a wisdom spoken of among the mature, and by extension he did NOT preach to them (because he said that he didn't come to them in wisdom or in persuasive speech), and the remainder of the chapter goes on to describe this wisdom spoken of among the mature.

Nowhere does Paul make a distinction between saved or unsaved when addressing them. Paul is chiding them for their lack of maturity in Christ, telling them that they have yet to progress beyond the elemental things of Christ, into the mature things spoken of in 2:6. 1 Cor 2:14 and 1 Cor 3:2-3 speak of these same things, and not the gospel.

I think the lengths that a Calvinist will go to try to explain away major problems with their proof texts is now very clear.

Muz


This is simply naive on your part.

Do you truly believe that everyone who attends a Christian church, is thereby a Christian? Are we not warned that there would be tares amongst the wheat, and goats that would have to be separated from God's flock of sheep? What about the warnings of false teachers who would creep into the churches to deceive?

The divisions experienced at the church at Corinth were caused by natural men opposing spiritual believers. This is the cause of all dissension in the visible churches.

The true, spiritual "body of Christ" is invisible. These are the regenerated believers registered in heaven. Distinction must always be made when speaking of church bodies, as to whether one refers to the visible, corporate (earthly) church bodies, or the invisible, heavenly (eternal), spiritual body of Christ.

Nang
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
This is simply naive on your part.

Do you truly believe that everyone who attends a Christian church, is thereby a Christian? Are we not warned that there would be tares amongst the wheat, and goats that would have to be separated from God's flock of sheep? What about the warnings of false teachers who would creep into the churches to deceive?

Paul is writing to the CHURCH in Corinth. He has already assumed that they are members of the body of Christ, and should be maturing as members of that body. Clearly chapter 3 chides them for their failure to be mature.

Paul simply wouldn't be chiding the unsaved for their lack of maturity in Christ!

It's so painfully obvious, I'm dumbfounded that I actually have to say it!

Do you really think that Paul would be criticizing the unsaved for their lack of maturity in Christ, and waving "wisdom spoken of among the mature" in their face, after saying that he preached the gospel without it?

Amazing.

The divisions experienced at the church at Corinth were caused by natural men opposing spiritual believers. This is the cause of all dissension in the visible churches.

Sorry. The divisions in the church at Corinth were caused by people trying to assert spiritual superiority in a variety of ways, from the apostle that baptized them, to who was forgiven of the biggest sin, to who engaged the most spiritual gifts. The entire book is intended to get them away from trying to be superior to one another, and look to serve one another and live mature Christian lives.

The true, spiritual "body of Christ" is invisible. These are the regenerated believers registered in heaven. Distinction must always be made when speaking of church bodies, as to whether one refers to the visible, corporate (earthly) church bodies, or the invisible, heavenly (eternal), spiritual body of Christ.

Gee, Paul never makes that distinction.


Muz
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Paul is writing to the CHURCH in Corinth. He has already assumed that they are members of the body of Christ, and should be maturing as members of that body. Clearly chapter 3 chides them for their failure to be mature.

Lack of spiritual growth is usually indicative of having not the Spirit of Christ:

". . Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." Romans 8:9b
(Paul addressing the visible church at Rome!)

Paul simply wouldn't be chiding the unsaved for their lack of maturity in Christ!

That is exactly what Paul was doing. He was warning that "natural men" cannot comprehend "the things of God" (the gospel, Scripture, fruits, etc) because these Godly truths are only "spiritually discerned."

One cannot produce good spiritual fruit, and grow in maturity to conformance to the image of Christ, if one is bereft of His Holy Spirit; remaining still in natural flesh.



Do you really think that Paul would be criticizing the unsaved for their lack of maturity in Christ, and waving "wisdom spoken of among the mature" in their face,

Indeed I do. Paul warned them they were "still carnal. . . behaving like mere men." I Cor. 3:3


after saying that he preached the gospel without it?

Without what?

Paul was preaching the gospel by the Spirit of Christ (I Cor. 2:13), which many in the church at Corinth could not comprehend, because they functioned only according to "the wisdom of men." I Cor. 2:5.



Sorry. The divisions in the church at Corinth were caused by people trying to assert spiritual superiority in a variety of ways, from the apostle that baptized them, to who was forgiven of the biggest sin, to who engaged the most spiritual gifts. The entire book is intended to get them away from trying to be superior to one another, and look to serve one another and live mature Christian lives.

Sorry, but what you describe as the practice of "spiritual superiority" at the church at Corinth was actually the practice of "idolatry", which is a fruit of unsaved, carnal flesh:

"For the flesh lusts against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things thay you wish. . . Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." Galatians 5:16-21


This listing pretty much sums up problems existent within the visible church at Corinth, which Paul had to address and deal with as an Elder.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Fine with me . . .it makes it an easy (dumbed-down) choice for the readers.

Either Psalm 139 is about the Creator Jesus Christ or it is about embryology . . .in poetic genre, of course.

Nang

If it is fine with you then why do you feel the need to lie about my position (and your own for that matter)?

Portions of the Psalm talk directly about the process of fetal development within the womb but that is not what the Psalm is about. While the things said concerning fetal development apply to all mankind, the Psalm is primarily about the relationship between God and His children (i.e. believers).

And since you and the moron who brought it up both believe that the Psalm refutes the Open View, you must believe that the Psalm is about Predestination.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Lack of spiritual growth is usually indicative of having not the Spirit of Christ:

". . Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." Romans 8:9b
(Paul addressing the visible church at Rome!)

But that's not what Paul is addressing in Corinth. These are people who are already saved, but acting immaturely.

That is exactly what Paul was doing. He was warning that "natural men" cannot comprehend "the things of God" (the gospel, Scripture, fruits, etc) because these Godly truths are only "spiritually discerned."

That's not the preaching of the gospel. If they weren't saved, Paul would still be preaching the gospel to them, not beating them down.

One cannot produce good spiritual fruit, and grow in maturity to conformance to the image of Christ, if one is bereft of His Holy Spirit; remaining still in natural flesh.

Again, not the point of the passage. Paul is chiding them for a lack of maturity, which he clearly expected from them. One does not expect spiritual maturity from the unsaved.

Indeed I do. Paul warned them they were "still carnal. . . behaving like mere men." I Cor. 3:3

Exactly. Paul's expectation is that they would be more by now, but they were not. They were saved, but still fleshly, not spiritual.

If they were not saved, Paul wouldn't expect them to be anything more than "mere men."

Without what?

Widsom and persuasive words. See 2:1-5.

Paul was preaching the gospel by the Spirit of Christ (I Cor. 2:13), which many in the church at Corinth could not comprehend, because they functioned only according to "the wisdom of men." I Cor. 2:5.

2:13 and 2:5 have different contexts. In 2:5, Paul is still talking about them about when he came to them originally. Verse 6 talks about what Paul did NOT teach to them, namely the wisdom spoken of among the mature, and that context remains through chapter three. There is a contrast in v2:6.

Sorry, but what you describe as the practice of "spiritual superiority" at the church at Corinth was actually the practice of "idolatry", which is a fruit of unsaved, carnal flesh:

"For the flesh lusts against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things thay you wish. . . Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." Galatians 5:16-21

Um... those were the Galatians, not the Corinthians. If the Corinthians were worshiping idols, then they were worshiping Peter and Apollos and Paul.

Of course, they weren't worshiping them at all, but simply claiming superiority based upon who baptized them.

This listing pretty much sums up problems existent within the visible church at Corinth, which Paul had to address and deal with as an Elder.

Except that Paul never conveys the idea of a "visible" or "invisible" church. That's a Calvinist construct invented to try to refute Scripture.

However, you have left yourself twisting in the wind... again... Maybe you should pray about this.

Muz
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
But that's not what Paul is addressing in Corinth. These are people who are already saved, but acting immaturely.

"Natural men" are unsaved.

Many persons in all churches claim to be believing Christians, who are not. They are hypocrites who deceive themselves and attempt to deceive others. A good Elder will watch against empty confessions of faith, and deal with such; primarily by a continual preaching of the gospel . . .for only by hearing the gospel can such come to true saving faith. (Romans 10:9)



That's not the preaching of the gospel. If they weren't saved, Paul would still be preaching the gospel to them, not beating them down.

What I say. Paul was proclaiming the gospel truth throughout his teachings, because he was aware there were unsaved persons in the church at Corinth. He was not "beating them down," but revealing actual conditions within the church.



Again, not the point of the passage. Paul is chiding them for a lack of maturity, which he clearly expected from them. One does not expect spiritual maturity from the unsaved.

Anyone who confesses faith in Christ, who fails to grow into spiritual maturity, must continually be given the gospel message and chided as to their actual condition. A good Elder will not accept a confession of faith in Christ, that does not produce the fruits of the Spirit of Christ.



They were saved, but still fleshly, not spiritual.

No such thing. There is no such thing as a "carnal" Christian. Don't let people fool you with that bad teaching.

A good tree does not produce evil fruit, nor does a bad tree produce good fruit.

If they were not saved, Paul wouldn't expect them to be anything more than "mere men."

Paul exposes the unsaved as acting like "mere men," as being "natural," not spiritual and therefore unable to discern spiritual truths, because they functioned according to the "wisdom of men," rather than according to the indwelling Spirit of God.







2:13 and 2:5 have different contexts. In 2:5, Paul is still talking about them about when he came to them originally. Verse 6 talks about what Paul did NOT teach to them, namely the wisdom spoken of among the mature, and that context remains through chapter three. There is a contrast in v2:6.

I disagree with your exegesis.

Throughout Chapters One through Three, Paul compares carnality to spirituality; natural man versus spiritual believer; human wisdom rather than spiritual discernment. The reason he addresses and makes these comparisons is not all within the church had responded with true, saving faith to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not all had been given the "mind of Christ." And dissensions and divisions were the result.



Um... those were the Galatians, not the Corinthians. If the Corinthians were worshiping idols, then they were worshiping Peter and Apollos and Paul.

Paul's messages to the various visible churches is consistent. Even though circumstances might have been different from church to church, the gospel message is the same. And indeed, the Corinthians had made personal idols out of Peter, Apollos, and Paul, which required Paul's corrections and exhortations.

Except that Paul never conveys the idea of a "visible" or "invisible" church. That's a Calvinist construct invented to try to refute Scripture.

No, it is not. This truth is found in Scripture in many places. Examples are revealed throughout the O.T. starting with Cain and Abel. Paul teaches about the contrast between the earthly son and the spiritual son, both born of Abraham:

"He who was of the bondwoman (Ishmael) was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman (Isaac) through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar . . for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children . . but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. . .Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. . . So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free." Galatians 4:23-31

The spiritual seed of Abraham constitute the invisible body of Christ, and this passage details the inhabitants of invisible church:

"You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of justified men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel." Hebrews 12:22-24

This is the city (the kingdom of God) that Abraham sought by faith:

"For he (Abraham) waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God . . .For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them." Hebrews 11:16

"Then I, John, saw the holy city, 'New Jerusalem', coming down from out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, 'Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God." Rev. 21:2&3

These are a few descriptions of the existent, invisible, heavenly church body of Jesus Christ.

However, you have left yourself twisting in the wind... again... Maybe you should pray about this.

Muz

Why don't we pray about these things together? O.K.?

Nang
(not twisting at all)
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Nang said:
"Natural men" are unsaved.

This is your imposition on the text. This is not what is exegeted from Scripture. Paul say that the Corinthians were in the state of the natural man, because they were fleshly and carnal.

The difference between the "natural" and "spiritual" in this case, is not saved or unsaved, but the difference between someone who pursues the desires of the flesh, in this case superiority over other, rather than the desires of the spirit, which would be to mature in Christ.

Many persons in all churches claim to be believing Christians, who are not. They are hypocrites who deceive themselves and attempt to deceive others. A good Elder will watch against empty confessions of faith, and deal with such; primarily by a continual preaching of the gospel . . .for only by hearing the gospel can such come to true saving faith. (Romans 10:9)

And Paul doesn't preach the gospel to these people. He chides them for their immaturity! You've just made my point, unless you're going to claim that Paul was a bad apostle!

\Anyone who confesses faith in Christ, who fails to grow into spiritual maturity, must continually be given the gospel message and chided as to their actual condition. A good Elder will not accept a confession of faith in Christ, that does not produce the fruits of the Spirit of Christ

Again you're making my point for me! Paul does not preach the gospel to them, but chides them for failing to reach their expectations!

No such thing. There is no such thing as a "carnal" Christian. Don't let people fool you with that bad teaching.

A good tree does not produce evil fruit, nor does a bad tree produce good fruit.

That verse refers to false teachers, not people in general. Look up your verses before you quote them.

I disagree with your exegesis.

Throughout Chapters One through Three, Paul compares carnality to spirituality; natural man versus spiritual believer; human wisdom rather than spiritual discernment. The reason he addresses and makes these comparisons is not all within the church had responded with true, saving faith to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not all had been given the "mind of Christ." And dissensions and divisions were the result.

Again, you make my point for me. Paul expects these Christians to be mature, to be prepared for spiritual meat, and they are not ready, because they are immature. If they were not Christians, Paul would not expect maturity from them.

Paul's messages to the various visible churches is consistent. Even though circumstances might have been different from church to church, the gospel message is the same. And indeed, the Corinthians had made personal idols out of Peter, Apollos, and Paul, which required Paul's corrections and exhortations.

LOL... Now you're just inserting into the text to save your theology. They are never referred to as "idols", nor is that the implication.

No, it is not. This truth is found in Scripture in many places. Examples are revealed throughout the O.T. starting with Cain and Abel. Paul teaches about the contrast between the earthly son and the spiritual son, both born of Abraham:

OK, you've turned "invisible" into "heavenly"


I find it kinda funny that every time you try to explain this, you just continue to make my point. These are Christians Paul is writing to. He expects maturity from them, and Paul would only expect maturity from Christians. He doesn't continue to preach the gospel to them, but chides them for failing to mature in the faith that they already have.

Maybe, now that you find yourself in a hole, you should stop digging.

Muz
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Maybe, now that you find yourself in a hole, you should stop digging.

I am not twisting in the wind, nor have I dug an inescapable hole. You simply wish I would go away, I know. But when someone declares himself victor over me, when he isn't, it only eggs me on.

Paul say that the Corinthians were in the state of the natural man, because they were fleshly and carnal.

What I say.

The difference between the "natural" and "spiritual" in this case, is not saved or unsaved, but the difference between someone who pursues the desires of the flesh, in this case superiority over other, rather than the desires of the spirit, which would be to mature in Christ.

I disagree with your stretch to make this passage fit your stubborn ideas. A natural man is one who cannot comprehend the spiritual things of God, which includes the gospel message.



And Paul doesn't preach the gospel to these people. He chides them for their immaturity! You've just made my point, unless you're going to claim that Paul was a bad apostle!

Do you go to a church that does not preach the gospel continuously?







Again, you make my point for me. Paul expects these Christians to be mature, to be prepared for spiritual meat, and they are not ready, because they are immature. If they were not Christians, Paul would not expect maturity from them.

You are hung up on the "maturity" bit, while Paul tells these they are natural and act like "mere men."






He doesn't continue to preach the gospel to them, but chides them for failing to mature in the faith that they already have.

Well, the passage does not say so, and you continue to deny the Scriptures. What to do with you? Only God can correct your view.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
I am not twisting in the wind, nor have I dug an inescapable hole. You simply wish I would go away, I know. But when someone declares himself victor over me, when he isn't, it only eggs me on.

Not at all. You're doing a great job of exposing the Calvinist error in exegeting this position. I just want to be sure that you know where you are.

What I say

All hail the almighty Nang.

I disagree with your stretch to make this passage fit your stubborn ideas. A natural man is one who cannot comprehend the spiritual things of God, which includes the gospel message.

LOL.. except that that exegesis doesn't fit the context. You can't assume the conclusion, and then think you're right!

Do you go to a church that does not preach the gospel continuously?

But Paul isn't preaching the gospel in this passage. That's the point. You must think that Paul is a bad apostle for not preaching the gospel to these poor souls! LOL.

You are hung up on the "maturity" bit, while Paul tells these they are natural and act like "mere men."

He also tells them that they have been feeding on spiritual milk, and are not ready for solid food. They have been saved, but are still acting in many ways like those who are not, and thus have not matured. if you actually read the text, Paul refers to maturity in 2:6, and that concept is reflected again right here in 3:1-3, with the comparison between milk and solid food!

So, Paul is the one "hung up" on this maturity bit. I'm just following him.

Well, the passage does not say so, and you continue to deny the Scriptures. What to do with you? Only God can correct your view.

Your own evidence points to this fact. If they were unsaved, and Paul were a "good" apostle, he'd preach the gospel to them. But that's not what he's doing, here!. He's chiding them, because he expects those that are baptized into Christ to mature and the Corinthians are not!

Thus, based upon the contextual evidence, the "spiritual things" of 2:14 cannot refer to the gospel.

Muz
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
As an open theist I am willing to admit that God knows more than me. And I don't know any OVer who disagrees with that.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
If they were unsaved, and Paul were a "good" apostle, he'd preach the gospel to them. But that's not what he's doing, here!

Paul taught, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words; lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect . . we preach Christ crucified . . in Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God . . and righteousness and sanctification and redemption . . ." I Cor. 1:17, 23a, 30

That is the gospel, Michael.

That is the basic gospel message; the milk of the word that, when applied by the Holy Spirit, regenerates and saves sinners. From faith in this basic good news, should come growth and further understanding of deeper teachings ("meat"), which evidences spiritual maturity.

But within the church at Corinth, there were persons not able to proceed on to "solid food" for lack of discernment or comprehension of "the spiritual things of God." Jesus taught the same thing . . .unless one is born again from above, he cannot see (comprehend) the kingdom of God. (John 3:3)

[/i]. He's chiding them, because he expects those that are baptized into Christ to mature and the Corinthians are not!

Hallelujah! We agree. They had heard the gospel, been baptized, become members of the church, been treated as "babes," but they had not matured on to more "solid food" because they proved to still be in the flesh and carnal. They were not spiritual, because they did not produce the fruits of the Holy Spirit. They did not evidence the "mind of Christ."

Thus, based upon the contextual evidence, the "spiritual things" of 2:14 cannot refer to the gospel.

Muz

I would be interested for you to list the "spiritual things" that could be taught in the church, without proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. What exactly do you think Paul was teaching these people?

Or maybe I should ask you what you consider to be the gospel message.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top