John for JESUS wrote: Do you believe Jesus suffered the consequences of Herman's individual sins? Herman stole a cookie, so Jesus suffered eternal death and 50 lashes by God or whatever would pay retribution for that crime? I'll tell you right now that didn't happen.
Isaiah 53.5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities
2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many
By your beliefs you deny the substitutionary nature of Christ's death.
John for JESUS wrote: Connor7... No. Ahem... "The "things of God" means any spiritual truth concerning God. Unless you're saying that this does not include Christ and the gospel of grace, I'd say you're stuck between a hard place and a rock." We already know from Scripture that the natural man knows things about God. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, Romans 1:20 Talk about confusing! You believe the natural man cannot know things about God, even though the Bible says they do. Then you imagine the Holy Spirit enables some of them to receive the truth, even though the Bible explicitly states it is impossible for them to do so.
Check out the context of 1 Cor 2 - Paul is speaking of the gospel. The things revealed by the Spirit, which the natural man can neither understand nor receive.
But you contradict Paul and say that not only can he understand and receive but he can believe also.
John for JESUS wrote: Ahem.. You seem confused. A natural man is in a state of ignorance. It is not contradictory to say that the preaching of the gospel can inform the natural man as to Jesus Christ. His life, death, resurrection, and offer of salvation. The reason why the natural man cannot understand the things of the Holy Spirit is because the Holy Spirit isn't in him. Those are two different things that you are trying to equivocate. I am not trying to trick you. A "thing" is an object. Jesus is a person. The gospel of Jesus can still be revealed to a natural man, by your argument, because Jesus is not a thing!
More amazing confusion.
The "things of God" means any spiritual truth concerning God. Unless you're saying that this does not include Christ and the gospel of grace, I'd say you're stuck between a hard place and a rock. Lol
2 Timothy 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.
As much as you may hate this, it is the Lord who must give understanding in all things. Truth has to be revealed by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2.10) otherwise it remains foolishness to the natural man.
John for JESUS wrote: Ahem... Here is the real problem, a natural man never ever receives things from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, they can never be "enlightened" by the Spirit to believe. Don't you see? Calvinism teaches that a natural man is enabled by the Holy Spirit to the point that they will believe. This scripture says no. The natural man doesn't receive things or anthing from the Holy Spirit ever. You sir have a big problem! As I pointed out, the natural man is in a state of ignorance to Jesus. It's not that they have to become spiritual to believe. They must hear the gospel! How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? Romans 10:14 It doesn't say, how will they hear unless they become spiritual.
Did I read that right? Wow!
The natural man can never receive the things of God - agreed. But then you go and say that the preaching of God's word accomplishes something that the Holy Spirit cannot? That even a natural man can somehow believe even though he cannot understand or receive the things of God? Sorry John, but that is just about the dumbest thing I have read this year.
John for JESUS wrote: Ahem... But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. I Corinthians 2:14 It pretty clearly says the natural man cannot receive or know the things of the Spirit of God. That is because they don't have the Spirit. Therefore, they are unable to. You've heard of a noun before, right? It is a person, place, or thing. There is a distinction between a thing communicated to a believer by the Holy Spirit and the gospel of Jesus taught by a preacher.
I am amazed that you're still struggling to understand the problem let alone suggest a solution to it.
Back to my question, we have a stark contrast between the natural and the spiritual. The natural is that which is devoid of the Spirit. The spiritual are those who have the Spirit of God.
So if the natural can never understand or receive the things of God, how do they ever become spiritual so that they can understand and receive the things of God?
Merely saying that the Spirit communicates as opposed to a preacher still doesn't explain how a natural man can understand or receive the things of God because he is still natural.
John for JESUS wrote: 1) Correct, so I am trying to point out that the Holy Spirit only convicts believers. The preaching of the gospel convicts sinful unbelievers. It pierces the natural man. 2) It doesn't say that. A natural man doesn't understand the convictions and wisdom that comes from the Holy Spirit, which can only be understood by those who have the Spirit. That doesn't mean a unbeliever can't be convicted by someone preaching the gospel.
Read 1 Cor 2.14 again and tell me where it says that a person who cannot receive the things of God because they are not spiritual can nevertheless receive spiritual convictions. You're clearly not understanding the verse and its implications.
John for JESUS wrote: Ahem... 1) Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. II Corinthians 5:17 They must be in Christ. The natural man believes the truth and they become a new creation. That change is Jesus Christ inside of them convicting them and transforming them. 2) Through the preaching of the gospel. How can they believe on Him unless they've heard about Him? The natural man doesn't know of Jesus until they hear of Him. It is the word that convicts them of their sins and brings about repentance.
I can't make out whether you are being deliberately evasive or whether you are not comprehending the problem.
1. How can Christ be in them convicting them, if they cannot receive His Spirit until after they have believed? Being in Christ means that they are believers already. No natural man is ever in Christ!
2. You're still not getting to the problem. If the natural man cannot receive the things of God because he is not spiritual then you can preach all you want. How will he receive the things of God still being natural?
John for JESUS wrote: Ahem... That's because the natural man isn't indwelt by the Holy Spirit so how could he? The Spirit isn't convicting him or teaching him because He only fills believers. Christians still have a hard time understanding the things of the Spirit. And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I Corinthians 3:1
How can the natural ever become the spiritual, if the difference between them is the indwelling spirit?
How does a person who is dead in sins and trespasses, who hates God and is averse to the things of God suddenly become interested and then convinced, convicted, believe and repent all the time he is a natural being?
How does the transition from natural to spiritual work in your thinking?
Remember 1 Cor 2.14 says that no natural person, all the time he remains a natural person, can ever receive the things of God because they are foolishness to him!
Connor7 wrote: ***** " textual criticism is about putting the conjectures of sinful human beings on the same footing as authoritative scripture and that is why there is such pride on display by those who engage in it." So then you'd condemn Erasmus who engaged in it? And he asked his friend to look in the Vatican Vulgate to see if there was verse that supported a certain reading? And Mr. Ahem, is it your belief that English-speaking Christians did not have the word of God until 1611?
Apples and Oranges.
Comparison of texts in the same family to determine possible scribal errors and/or the level of support for a particular variant is not the same as rejecting the majority for 2 supposedly ancient texts which are considered superior due to their age!
And no I am not a KJVO supporter and therefore do not believe that the 1611 KJV was the first that gave English speaking Christians the Word of God.
Connor7 wrote: ****** How am I not in that trap? Well, I'm not defending a translation as if it was a perfect translation/on equal grounds as the originals, the people of God have had the word of God throughout the ages, there has never been a time in history where the church has "lost" the word of God
I would agree that the people of God have had the Word of God throughout the ages. Textual critics are the ones who argue that it has not been pure since we do not have the autographs.
But since we do not have the autographs how will anyone ever determine what the autographs contained where manuscripts differ? No matter what anyone says textual criticism is about putting the conjectures of sinful human beings on the same footing as authoritative scripture and that is why there is such pride on display by those who engage in it.
The ecclesiastical text which is preserved in the vast majority of manuscripts (aka Byzantine texts) is the correct text and the 2 interlopers from the 19th century should have been abandoned as they were long ago by the early church as corruptions.
Connor7 wrote: James let's put it in perspective, 1. The English language came into existence about 1,000 years ago. 2. If you say Wycliffe bible was corrupt, that Tyndale really didn't have it all that right, and neither did the Geneva Bible, then the English-speaking people did not have a perfect Bible until 1611 that would mean that the English-speaking people of God did not have the full word of God until 1611, and even then there are differences in which KJV you use, the Oxford and the Cambridge are not not identical, so if a KJVonlyist is to be consistent, we have to ask, "Which of the KJV do you hold to and why?" Another problem is, if you don't understand a word in the KJV, which English dictionary do you consult? Because you can't go to the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, that'd undercut KJVonlyism, and the closest dictionary we have to 1611 is the 1825 discretionary, which is 200+ years away from the 1611
By your own account since the 2 manuscripts upon which the majority of Bible translations now heavily rely weren't found until the 19th century the people of God didn't have the Word of God until the late 1800s. I suggest your predicament is even deeper than that of the KJVO camp.
Frank wrote: You mean when JohnUK called me a slammer and primarily a heresy hunter, he meant that? My goodness, how could someone who is filled with such love say that about, Ladybug and I. JohnUK, if you are still reading this thread, please clarify this. I know you never apologized for saying those things to me, but I just thought that perhaps you misspoke.
And of course John UK never does what he now condemns, ahem!
I remember a spat with one Troll Spotter where John and Michael went to town on him and seemed to hound him off the board.
John UK wrote: This is a very clever move, Ahem. Congratulations! If you do not regard me as a Christian brother but a Jesuit troll, that means that you don't have to love me like you love the saints. Yes, I am full of admiration for your tactics. However, the LIVING Lord Jesus is not impressed, and I trust he will have words with you, lest you go down deeper into the pit you are making for yourself. I would not wish to see that happen, because I am filled with joy of the Holy Ghost and desire your blessing and sanctification, even though you would have me separated from my brethren and sisters on this site.
Funny how you use a deplorable tactic and then turn on someone else when they point it out. Real cute!
Obviously, this hyped up holier than thou gives you a real buzz buddy, because you use it at every opportunity to run people down, now even speaking for God himself. Wow! How special are you?
As for your further tripe I think you've damaged your own reputation and don't need help to self destruct, especially when you've got your goad mate to help.
John UK wrote: I realise Ahem has behaved like Joseph's brethren, but then I expect that of him.
Nice tactic learned from the devil viz. label someone to distance yourself and make sure the label is one that the other person you're trying to draw to yourself would not want to associate with so that he distances himself too.
You're beginning to post like a Troll and a Jesuit one at that.
John UK wrote: Ahem, do you see the difference? Brother Saint Michael from across the pond blesses me, and I am blessed. But when I am blessed, you do not rejoice but call me a wiseguy. It's as if you do not like to see people blessed. Is something wrong? If so, why not mention it and we can all pray for you.
Don't you ever tire of your holier than thou tripe?!
Building strawmen arguments, committing logical fallacies, diving down rabbit holes is all you're good for - you and your buddy Michael H. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who doesn't believe a fraction of your self professed love and service to the Savior.
Appears to me that even the sisters on this board have seen through you wise guys.
John UK wrote: To Ahem and Analysis, I am filled with joy of the Holy Ghost.
Another fallacy viz. claiming exclusivity to a blessing and thereby assuming that others do not enjoy this, or that they must be incorrect doctrinally. Mr wiseguy would do well to take a chill pill and step back from the affray to examine himself before his pride cause him a mighty fall.