Romans 7 and 8 without confusing verses

[Joseph77]

You don't qualify to be compared with that type of wisdom.

Who said anything about qualifying?

Why does Jesus praise the Father for revealing the truth to little children, even to those of us rejected by the world,
and for hiding it from 'educated ones'? (i.e. seemingly more qualified ones?)

 

[Episkopos]

Your quote refers to the promise, not the immediate actuality. It's like a General speaking to one of his soldiers who says, 'Don't you not know that you are a warrior, warriors do not succumb to fear!' Although in principle it is true, it requires understanding to gain such a lofty ideal. If you sign up for such a vocation, or subscribe to such a faith, the attributes are not automatically ascribed, they come as the understanding grows. This is what 1 Corinthians 1:30 is stating, and all the other verses that make the same affirmation.

Actually you are confusing tenses here. It doesn't say...will you be...but are you in. So then the promise of being in Christ is only in the future for they who have not yet done so. But IN Jesus (right now) is redemption and sanctification. Are you saying that you haven't yet been redeemed?

 

[DNB]

Who said anything about qualifying?

Why does Jesus praise the Father for revealing the truth to little children, even to those of us rejected by the world,
and for hiding it from 'educated ones'? (i.e. seemingly more qualified ones?)

The comparison that you made between Jesus responding in a cryptic manner, and that's why you do the same, does not qualify under the circumstances.
Will you try to stay on topic?

 

[Joseph77]

You're missing the point entirely,
and Jesus says , and God says, and the Bible says,
we who follow Jesus are to have HIS ATTITUDE,
not your attitude rejecting His Way.

The comparison that you made between Jesus responding in a cryptic manner, and that's why you do the same, does not qualify under the circumstances.
Will you try to stay on topic?

 

[Joseph77]

Actually you are confusing tenses here. It doesn't say...will you be...but are you in. So then the promise of being in Christ is only in the future for they who have not yet done so. But IN Jesus (right now) is redemption and sanctification. Are you saying that you haven't yet been redeemed?

His posts seem to indicate not having received yet the attitude that Jesus has....
Redeemed yet though? What is the test in Scripture ?

 

[DNB]

Actually you are confusing tenses here. It doesn't say...will you be...but are you in. So then the promise of being in Christ is only in the future for they who have not yet done so. But IN Jesus (right now) is redemption and sanctification. Are you saying that you haven't yet been redeemed?

Yes, the promise is current, but again, it's a walk. Just like a leader can say, in the present tense, 'a soldier does not fear', it's understood that that's the aspiration, not the current fact. One shouldn't need to parse the tense, in order to gather the meaning of what is being conveyed. Christian's don't sin, said 1 John 3:6, and yet we know that's not unequivocal or even partially true, don't we? It does not state this as a fact, but as an aspiration.

 

[DNB]

You're missing the point entirely,
and Jesus says , and God says, and the Bible says,
we who follow Jesus are to have HIS ATTITUDE,
not your attitude rejecting His Way.

I'm only rejecting you Joseph. Quit talking nonsense, I have no idea ever, what you are talking about, because it is always so unrelated to the topic at hand.

 

[Paul Christensen]

So the fact that you write off the time when tongues were actually on display tells me everything I need to know. That WAS the church. That was the beginning of the church. You are reading into the text things that are not there and it would do you well to study the original languages.

Look. You don't believe in the gift of tongues for today, so stop flogging a dead horse with me. I have debated this with the best of them, and none of them have been able to convince me of the Cessationist view because there is no Scripture to back it. Also, God Himself proved that the way I pray in tongues is correct by two definite miracles.

So drop it.

 

[Joseph77]

I'm only rejecting you Joseph. Quit talking nonsense, I have no idea ever, what you are talking about, because it is always so unrelated to the topic at hand.

As others note, whenever you or anyone rejects God's Word, or one of His children, you are also rejecting the Savior and God.

 

[Joseph77]

Yes, the promise is current, but again, it's a walk. Just like a leader can say, in the present tense, 'a soldier does not fear', it's understood that that's the aspiration, not the current fact. One shouldn't need to parse the tense, in order to gather the meaning of what is being conveyed. Christian's don't sin, said 1 John 3:6, and yet we know that's not unequivocal or even partially true, don't we? It does not state this as a fact, but as an aspiration.

Having an aspiration to be saved, eh ?

That is a good goal, a good aspiration, yes !

 

[DNB]

Having an aspiration to be saved, eh ?

That is a good goal, a good aspiration, yes !

Finally, we agree!

 

[DNB]

As others note, whenever you or anyone rejects God's Word, or one of His children, you are also rejecting the Savior and God.

Just curious, your avatar, is that a picture of you or someone else?

 

[Joseph77]

baaaaa


baaaaa

 

[reformed1689]

You aren't going to pull me in either.

Don't need to. You have been exposed as a fraud.

 

[reformed1689]

Look. You don't believe in the gift of tongues for today, so stop flogging a dead horse with me. I have debated this with the best of them, and none of them have been able to convince me of the Cessationist view because there is no Scripture to back it. Also, God Himself proved that the way I pray in tongues is correct by two definite miracles.

So drop it.

So you ignored the fact I refuted your point that it wasn't the church. It absolutely was. You didn't like it because it goes against your viewpoint and defeats your argument.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Don't need to. You have been exposed as a fraud.

Fraud? For what? Quoting scripture plainly that is completely the opposite of Reformed? If there is any fraud going on, it was 500 years ago. And unfortunately you bought into it.

 

[Paul Christensen]

So you ignored the fact I refuted your point that it wasn't the church. It absolutely was. You didn't like it because it goes against your viewpoint and defeats your argument.

That's not it at all. I just can't be bothered debating with people who don't believe 1 Corinthians 14, and would rather not have it in their Bible, and who have been brainwashed by their Cessationist mentors and therefore read the chapter the way they want to rather than just accepting what is actually there. Any 10 year old can see in that chapter what you refuse to see.

 

[Joseph77]

That's not it at all. I just can't be bothered debating with people who don't believe 1 Corinthians 14, and would rather not have it in their Bible, and who have been brainwashed by their Cessationist mentors and therefore read the chapter the way they want to rather than just accepting what is actually there. Any 10 year old can see in that chapter what >IS WRITTEN< you refuse to see.

'you refuse to see' may be so, or not...
If the Father reveals it to them, yes. The truth is THEN, and not before THEN, known to them, or at least shown to them.
If the Father in heaven does not grant it, then they do not see it,
and most on earth never see it.

 

[amadeus]

Are we talking about two different things?

I think not. We are apparently not communicating. Is that not a common problem among men?

 

[reformed1689]

Fraud? For what? Quoting scripture plainly that is completely the opposite of Reformed? If there is any fraud going on, it was 500 years ago. And unfortunately you bought into it.

Yeah, the doctrine's of grace didn't show up only 500 years ago...