Results 1 - 11 of 11
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | John Reformed | 76907 | ||
Dear Disciplerami, I appreciate the fact that you derive your doctrine from the text itself, and appeal to context for it's validity. Unlike some others, you do not abandon Scripture and fly to human reason as a defense. But, I still think you err in your interpretation. The following are the reasons why I cannot except that Paul is referring to born again believers as "natural man" in 2:14. If context is to be adhered to, we must consider Paul's estimation of his readers in chapter 1. "To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours..." Paul identifies those to whom he direct his teaching as "saints" i.e. bonified born again christians. They have been raised from spiritual death to spiritual life and are true temples of the Spirit of God. The "sanctified... saints" of Corinth had recieved grace in Christ (1 Cor 1:4 I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus...); They had been enriched in "all speech and in all knowledge" (v.1:5); They had spiritual gifts and were assured by Paul of their salvation and calling (vs. 7-9). Paul's asessment of the spiritual condition of the saints at Corinth does not agree with his asessment of the spiritual condition of "natural man" in 2:14. Verses 1-9 of 1 cor, must have been wonderfully uplifting and of tremendous encouragement to them, especially when we know the of the doctrinal divisions that had flared up between them. Paul, after he lifting them up and setting their feet on on solid ground, now gets directly to the problem; Division between the saints in Corinth over baptism. It seems as if a false doctrine regarding by whose name (name meaning, by whose authority) baptism should be considered legitimate. Paul, not wanting to see the church splinter into competing factions, chastizes them by exhorting them to re-focus on that which does not divide, Jesus Christ. It was Christ who was crucified so that they all may be one in Him. (Note: This is as important today as it was 2,000 years ago and we saints on the forum should keep it in mind as we seek the truth together.) In verses 18-31, Paul points out that it was not their wisdom or strength which accounted for their salvation; It was the all-powerfull choice of God: 1 Cor 1:30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, Well, my wife has things for me to help her with, but God willing I'll conclude in my next post. In the meantime I hope you will re-visit chapter 1. God Bless, John |
||||||
2 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | disciplerami | 76928 | ||
Hi John, this response is very much appreciated. The only issue I differ with from the first paragraph is where you say, "Paul's asessment of the spiritual condition of the saints at Corinth does not agree with his asessment of the spiritual condition of "natural man" in 2:14." I disagree because Paul’s assessment of the Corinthian church is dire. As you point out, there is division in the church. This division is a carnal, fleshly activity. The splintering along party lines [I'm not sure that the division was only over baptismal formula, i.e whose name was pronounced, etc] was caused by not following the Word of God. In chapter 4:6, Paul says he only figuratively used his and Apollos' name (in chapter 1 and 3:22,23) to show that the word of God should not be exceeded. I would make the case that people who are 'templess of the Holy Spirit' [and much evidence shows that the spirit indwells] are quite capable of defiling the temple [chapter five points to the ‘man who had his father’s wife.’ It was really happening, but he action by Paul and the church seems to have brought the man to repentance. See 2 Corinthians 2:6; 7:10,11). Paul wrote in his first epistle, "Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her?...But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him....Or do you not knnow that your body is a temple of the Holy spirit who is in your, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body." This is all connected. The family of God has gone to seed. It has turned back to the world and is in serious spiritual trouble. Chapter Six begins with a chastizement over their going to court: brother against brother. His rebuke: "I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren,..." The church looks really bad at this point. With your final paragraph, I have no problem, except for a clarification. In fact, I might say the very same words as your have them there, but I might mean something slightly different. Semanatics are a scary endeavor, so hopefully what I'm about to say will be well grounded in truth. Salvation in Jesus Christ is the result of the all powerful choice of God, as you stated. 1 Corinthians 1:30 is an excellent verse. I have no doubt that the Corinthians who were reading this epistle were Christians [some might be in danger of losing their salvation; I know, that one may send our conversation off in the wrong direction], but, they need to repent. Let me put it like this: it is the all powerful will of God that Christians live holy, sanctified lives ('for this is the will of God, your sanctification' 1 Thes.4:3), but rather than forcing Christians into this mold, He pokes, prods, pricks, exhorts, chastizes, appeals, and warns. His children in Corinth need to heed the warnings of the past: 1 Cor 10:1-6 "For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness. Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved." There is an implied, if not explicit, message that the Corinthians really need to turn their ship around. May God bless you, Disciplerami |
||||||
3 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | John Reformed | 76932 | ||
I've time for a short Q: You said "I disagree because Paul’s assessment of the Corinthian church is dire." My question is what changed from his assessment in chapter 1 to justify comparing them to unregenerate "natural" mankind? I do enjoy sharpening my iron against yours. I hope you have benefited as well. If nothing else, we have proven that two christians may disagree without becoming disagreeable. I will address your posts as God permits. John Reformed |
||||||
4 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | disciplerami | 76960 | ||
Hello John, Take your time, I look forward to receiving your response. To answer the one question. Paul followed a typical pattern by giving introductions and then getting to his point. Not everyone at Corinth needed chastizement. At the least, Chloe's people were probably doing ok. It was the one's who Chloe's people informed Paul of, who needed the correction and would be characterized as 'natural.' Have a nice Sunday. Disciplerami |
||||||
5 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | John Reformed | 77060 | ||
Dear Disciplerami, Your answer to my question is: "Paul followed a typical pattern by giving introductions and then getting to his point. Not everyone at Corinth needed chastizement. At the least, Chloe's people were probably doing ok. It was the one's who Chloe's people informed Paul of, who needed the correction and would be characterized as 'natural.'" I'm sorry but I can't agree with your answer. First of all Paul directs his letter to the "saints".Saints would include all christians regardless of their development in the understanding of sound doctrine. It is safe to assume that Paul's letter was read aloud to the church when they met as a body. Therefore, Chloe's household; those involved in quarrels; and the remainder of the church all recieved the same message. Chapter 1 (as well as that which follows) is aimed at them all! His exhortation addresses them all: 1 Cor 1:10 "Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment." The term "brethren" refers back to his greeting in verse 2. 1 Cor 1:11 For I have been informed concerning YOU, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among YOU.( Notice that their is no change of the object "saints" from v. 1 cor 1:2 through 2:5 .You, Brethren, us, all refer to the saints.) No difficulty arises until we come to 2:6 when the pronoun "we" appears for only the 2nd time. The first time is in 1:23 "but we preach Christ crucified". Even if Paul was referring to "we" as the apostles and himself, it does not relegate the "saints" to an infrerior group. 1 Cor 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,". Was Paul excludng the saints from those who recieved "the Spirit that who is from God"? Of course not! And why was the Spirit given to all who in Christ? To enlighten them to the wisdom and mysteries of God, But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. What Paul says about the natural man cannot be said of any person who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. It absolutely excludes the the reception of the things of the Spirit and even the possibility of those things being understood. WHY? "because they are spiritually appraised". The natural man is not capable of spiritual appraisel for a very good reason. He still is possessed of the spirit of the world Paul has drawn a sharp distinction between the natural man as compared to the spiritual man. The natural man is composed of body (flesh) and thought life (soul) but is spiritually dead. This state of being is that which we were raised from by the resurrecting power of the Holy Spirit. Christions are NEW CREATURES! While it is true that we all too often act and think as if we were natural men, nevertheless, we retain the ability to understand spiritual things for we are never devoid of the influence and power of the in dwelling Spirit of God. John |
||||||
6 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | disciplerami | 77116 | ||
" Even if Paul was referring to "we" as the apostles and himself, it does not relegate the "saints" to an infrerior group." I would not say they were 'inferior' because they did not hold apostolic or prophetic office. And why couldn't the letter be read alound, and the saints decide if "the shoe fits, wear it." Some of the saints were undoubtedly unspiritual. Chapter five is where Paul rebukes the church for tolerating "the man who had his father's wife." So those people are saints and they are acting in a manner unbecoming of a Christian. You ask, "the Spirit that who is from God"? Of course not!" I would disagree because, while it is true that all saints receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, not all had the supernatural gifts of prophecy, revelation, tongues. etc. It doesn't make them inferior, but less informed until they receive the epistle. About the 'enligtening' from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not 'enligthen' separate and apart from the 'sword of the Spirit', the Word. It behooves every believer to equip himself with the Word of God, or there is no enlightenment. It appears that the 1 Corinthian letter served to enlighten the Corinthians, judging by the tone of the 2 Corinthian letter. You write, "What Paul says about the natural man cannot be said of any person who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit." I have to agree with Tim Moran that Paul does refer to the Corinthians in this manner (1 Cor 3:1). Tim writes the following: Here is where context helps answer the question. The word 'spiritual', or 'pneumatikos', is used 4 times in 1 Cor. 2-3. Twice in 1 Cor. 2:13 - "This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words." Once in 1 Cor. 2:15 - "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man?s judgment:" And, once in 1 Cor. 3:1 - "Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly?mere infants in Christ." 1 Cor. 2:13 and 2:15 bracket the verse you quoted, and form a contrast between 'spiritual' and 'natural'. Yet, in 1 Cor. 3:1, Paul says that he could not address them as 'spiritual'. We are agreed that Paul was writing to Christians. So, why couldn't he address them as 'spiritual'? Because, they were acting 'worldly', and not 'spiritual'." This last statement of yours indicates the weakness in your argument: "While it is true that we all too often act and think as if we were natural men, nevertheless, we retain the ability to understand spiritual things for we are never devoid of the influence and power of the in dwelling Spirit of God." Exactly right! The Corinthians, NEW CREATURES that they were, were acting unspiritual. They needed to repent and begin discerning the matters of life with spiritual emphasis. I'm glad to have your response. Have a good day. Disciplerami |
||||||
7 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | John Reformed | 77133 | ||
According to your interpretation of the "natural man" in 1 Cor 2:14, it would be impossible for those caught up in sin and error to repent! Why? Because the things of God are foolishness to them and they CANNOT recieve them (even if they would accept what they consider to be nonsense in the first place) because they are SPIRITUALLY discerned. By definition, the natural man does not possess spiritual life. I understand your (shall we say) reluctance. If you or Tim were to accept the plain reading of the text, your freewill doctrines would have to be abandoned. A daunting prospect indeed! Only God Himself is able to give one the courage to take that step. God Bless, Disciplerami, John Reformed |
||||||
8 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | disciplerami | 77143 | ||
Hi John, "According to your interpretation of the "natural man" in 1 Cor 2:14, it would be impossible for those caught up in sin and error to repent! Why?" I'm having trouble communicating my position and that's my fault. I don't believe it would be impossible because the 'natural man' is not the 'depraved, hostile, alienated' person he is depicted to be. The 'natural' man is the person who has a choice, to "no longer go on presenting himself as a slave to unrighteousness" (Romans 6:12ff), and has chosen to put "man's interest before God's". The natural man can be the young Christian who temporarily lapses back into his sinful ways. With the rebuke of a caring brother (Matthew 18:15-18), he can be won back. See the problem with your position is that you say that God alone is able to give the courage to recognize that Tim and I don't have freewill. You mean that God has given you the courage to recognize that you don't have freewill? Why is it important that I recognize that I don't have freewill? Why does it take courage; and if it does, why doesn't God give it to me? Have a good day. |
||||||
9 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | John Reformed | 77163 | ||
Dear Disciplerami, If I became convinced by Scripture through the enlightening of the Holy Spirit, and had to abandon a cherished doctrine which I now percieved as erroneous...I must confess: I would need God-given courage to do so. Thus far the doctrines which I have embraced as sound, have not come easily. I fought against them for quite some time before surrendering to the Word of God. I have come to love them as I have grown in knowledge of them. Your question "Why is it important that I recognize that I don't have freewill?", is a perfect example of a question I would have asked four years ago. I believe that all persons DO have the liberty to choose or to refuse the offer of the gospel. They are absolutely free to exercise their wills freely, and according to the desires of their hearts. John |
||||||
10 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | disciplerami | 77245 | ||
Hi John, Ok, I'm not nitpicking, I'm really trying to get to the bottom of this issue. Please bear with me. There is no harm done, I hope, in our continued dialogue. You stated in an earlier posts, that Tim and I need the courage from God to accept that we don't have freewill, as you put it, if we follow the plain reading of the text, "your freewill doctrines would have to be abandoned." But now, you say that it would take God-given courage to accept our position. I guess I can understand what you are saying then. No matter which way is right, you must have the courage of conviction to stand in the right place. You close this last post by saying that men are "absolutely free to exercise their wills freely, and according to the desires of their hearts." I'm curious, does this statement of yours represent a slight change in your ideas, or is there a subtle idea in those words that I'm not catching? Again John, Your responses to me have been among the best I've received from anyone on this site. I have nothing against you whatsoever. I'm always learning because I sincerely want to bring glory to God. I have no pride, no ego, that needs stroking. So give me your best and I'll do the same. Remember what Proverbs says, "as iron sharpens iron, so..." Good day to you. Disciplerami |
||||||
11 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | John Reformed | 77264 | ||
Dear Discilerami, Thank you for your generous remarks. We all should be so gracious. I must admit to a bit of subtlety. :-) I said "I believe that all persons DO have the liberty to choose or to refuse the offer of the gospel. They are absolutely free to exercise their wills freely, and according to the desires of their hearts." I believe the Bible teaches that we are born in sin and are hearts are of stone and naturally desire that which is wicked or evil. I don't mean to say that man is as wicked as he possibly could be, but that in his totality, man is bent toward evil. Ezek 36:26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh." The sense in which man is free, is that he is free to choose that which his heart desires. A wicked heart produces sinfull desires. Therefore, for a man to desire Christ, he must first have been given a heart transplant by God. A question I have asked in the past on the forum is: Is a man free to choose in opposition to the strongest desire of his heart? I look forward to your answer. John |
||||||