Why the Calvinist understanding of 1Cor 2:14 makes no sense

preacher4truth

Well-known member
You need to back off from that kind of talk. He has a different understanding than you have, and from his POV he could say exactly the same thing to you. That you refuse to be corrected by the Word of God.
We all understand in part.
I'm not backing away from truthful talk. Can't handle it? Put me on ignore.

Funny thing is, when you post your beliefs, they are never in light of being "in part" but are put forth as if they are complete dogma. So your "in part" excuse is moot and non sequitur.

Lastly, the doctrines of both you and Tom aren't excusable by the term "in part" because both of you have been refuted numerous times on your error, but neither of you will receive correction. Context always refutes both of you, that is, the word refutes you.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
I rest my case
You have no case to rest

Scripture testified to its own sufficiency

2 Tim. 3:15–16 —KJV
“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

John 20:31 —KJV
“But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Bro, he won't accept context due to the fact it destroys his theology. In other words, plainly, he will not be corrected by the worI have

Sorry scripture supports me

John 20:31 (KJV 1900)

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

This clearly presupposes the gospel may be understood

2 Timothy 3:15 (KJV 1900)

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

presupposes Holy scriptures may be understood

1 Peter 1:21–25 (KJV 1900)

21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Man is regenerated through faith in the Gospel

Isaiah 55:11 (KJV 1900)

11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:

It shall not return unto me void,

But it shall accomplish that which I please,

And it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

God’s word prospers in whatever it is set out to do

Psalm 19:7 (KJV 1900)

7 ………………………The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

Psalm 119:130 (KJV 1900)

130 The entrance of thy words giveth light;

It giveth understanding unto the simple.

Self explanitory

It is you guys who are fighting against scripture
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
I'm not backing away from truthful talk. Can't handle it? Put me on ignore.

Funny thing is, when you post your beliefs, they are never in light of being "in part" but are put forth as if they are complete dogma. So your "in part" excuse is moot and non sequitur.

Lastly, the doctrines of both you and Tom aren't excusable by the term "in part" because both of you have been refuted numerous times on your error, but neither of you will receive correction. Context always refutes both of you, that is, the word refutes you.
Yes, we all think we have refuted each other. The real proof is when someone says "Yes, I see what you are saying." Till then none of us have proven anything.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
I'm not backing away from truthful talk. Can't handle it? Put me on ignore.

Funny thing is, when you post your beliefs, they are never in light of being "in part" but are put forth as if they are complete dogma. So your "in part" excuse is moot and non sequitur.

Lastly, the doctrines of both you and Tom aren't excusable by the term "in part" because both of you have been refuted numerous times on your error, but neither of you will receive correction. Context always refutes both of you, that is, the word refutes you.
Sorry you have never refuted me

If you think otherwise provide proof

rather than bald rhetoric
 
Top