perspicuity of Scripture. A doctrine maintaining that the gospel of Jesus Christ and the *salvation obtained through him are clearly presented in Scripture. In protest against a common view at the time prior to the *Reformation that Scripture is too complicated for ordinary people to understand apart from church *tradition and the mediation of priests, *Luther and other Reformers argued for biblical perspicuity. The doctrine influenced both their passion for Bible *translation and their preference for simple *preaching in the vernacular. Affirming perspicuity does not eradicate the need for skilled biblical interpretation or imply that every part of Scripture is plain and clear. Rather, it affirms that the message of Scripture is presented with enough clarity that it can be understood, at least at a basic level, without advanced theological or exegetical training.
Kelly M. Kapic and Wesley Vander Lugt, Pocket Dictionary of the Reformed Tradition (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 86.
Sethproton
Well-known member
This is just my opinion, but I think the more you present scriptural arguments that they recognize on some level are true, the more they will ugly personal with you. Press on in love where you can
Sethproton
Well-known member
Theo, you missed the point.
You, Theo, were rude to me, and when i called you on it, you claim I am rude.
This has been your pattern here for years
Theo1689
Well-known member
No, YOU are the one "confused".
YOU are the one constantly attacking others, and then whining when they call you out on it.
Where was I ever "rude" to you?
You see, that's another PERSONAL ATTACK on your part, which (as you LOVE to point out) is against the rules.
Sethproton
Well-known member
"pitting scripture against scripture" has been one of the standard cries of Calvinists when they have nothing they can say about the meaning of scrpture.
Instead of that cop out, explanations would be profitable
Sethproton
Well-known member
Laugh out loud. Theo makes a rude statement, and when called on it, he claims it is rude to call him out
So should I say that he is rude to call me rude, etc. etc. etc.
Theo1689
Well-known member
So you keep making the false accusation (which as you WELL KNOW is AGAINST the rules), but you can't provdie any evidence...
Why are we not surprised?
LOL
You can't destroy anything by refusing to address scripture
he ignored every verse as you do as well
Whom did God love?
lol, no one said there was since this was post cross. Good one Now in verse 12 how does one come to understand the the things of God? Come one Mr. Scripture Give it up as I had stated Sorry there is nothing about having the spirit with them in 1Cor 2 enabling truth Again, if you are going...
forums.carm.org
Sethproton
Well-known member
I did not say that. I don't believe that.
You might want to go back and see what I wrote and try to figure out how you saw me saying that saving faith is a gift.
I was actually agreeing with you on that aspect of faith, and bringing in another aspect of it
Sethproton
Well-known member
I will now escape this endless loop
Sethproton
Well-known member
So per usual Civic, your posts are just personal slams. No scripture no substance and yet you claim to be a great teacher of this forum
Your words
Surely you are not promoting salvation that happens minus God's pesonal interaction with you to give you faith?
Of course we have to act on that faith, but initially it is a gift from God.
You need to rephrase your comments
Theo1689
Well-known member
Another personal attack on Civic.
Double standards much?
Another personal attack on Civic.
Double standards much?
In point of fact, civic IS a great teacher.
You? Not so much.
Once again:
James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.
G
guest1
Guest
Can you tell all of us what 2 John 1:7 means ?
Can you exegete the passage with lexicon definitions and any source anywhere that agrees with your exegesis ?
Let’s see who knows the truth and who believes a lie seth .
Next
Sethproton
Well-known member
MAybe i could rephrase, but you made a statement I absoulutely did not make and attributed it to me.
But here is part of what I see in scripture on this.
Hebrews 11 says that it is by faith we understand many things about God. That faith is a gift from God, but that faith does not save; it enlightens.
To be saved, you must know what was delivered by faith and then entrust yourself to Jesus for salvation.
Theo1689
Well-known member
Wrong again.
Heb. 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Wrong again.
It does NOT say "that faith does not save".
Sethproton
Well-known member
Yes Civic, I can explain what the verse discusses.
I know that you have laid onto this verse your own doctrine, twisting the words to suit your position
We both know the phrase you are interested in the NASB is "as coming in the flesh"
This refers to Christ being born as a man thru Mary, in fact most understand that is the teaching here.
What you teach, which is not in the verse, is that the words "as coming" mean that He will always be flesh, based on the verb tense.
I think I have asked you to show some other verbs in the NT, that carry the same meaning that once something has come. it will always be here.
So that would be first thing you could do, maybe just reference three verses that use the same Greek for "as coming" to show that what has come remains forever.
Theo1689
Well-known member
Then why don't you?
Instead of actually EXPLAINING the verse, you try to "poison the well" by projecting an interpretation by civic, and then trying to attack THAT.
Again, all you're doing is mud-slinging at civic's position, rather than providing your OWN.
And you have ZERO evidence for this (unBiblical) ASSUMPTION.
The phrase, "as coming", is a "present participle" (which Mounce prefers to call "continuous participle", since Greek participles don't have a temporal aspect, only aspects such as "continuous", "undefined", etc.)
If John was ONLY referring to Christ "being born as a man thru [sic] Mary", he would have used the aorist participle, not the "continuous" participle. So you can claim anything you want, but you don't seem able to back it up.
You keep trying to shift the burden of proof.
You are UNABLE to exegete this verse.
Simply admit it.
Again, you're shifting the burden of proof.
You keep RUNNING AWAY from the challenge, since you know you CAN'T.
Are YOU ever going to try exegeting the verse, or are you simply going to keep running away?