Understanding the Gospel Through the Book of Life

[pnattmbtc]

To whom Paul addressed his letter? Yes, to the church of God at Corinth. How can they be the church of God at Corinth when they are not YET children of God?  

They are children of God.  Why would you think they weren't?

How can they be children of God when they are not yet reconciled to God? 

They are both reconciled to God and children of God, because they have received Christ and are believers.

And yet, the apostle is admonishing the church of God at Corinth "be ye reconciled to God". 

No he's not.  Did you read what he said?

17 So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Paul isn't telling the Corinthians to be reconciled to God, but that it is our message as Christ's ambassadors to tell others who have not been reconciled that they should be reconciled to God.

I have told you it simply means they need to live reconciled lives. 

It can't possibly mean that.  Do you read what he wrote?  The reason I'm saying that it can't possibly mean that is because of the context.  Paul does the following:

1.He explains if someone is in Christ, there is a new creation. (vs. 17)
2.He explains how it works that people are reconciled to God and that God has given us a message of reconciliation (vs 18)
3.He explains more how this works, and again states that God has given us a message of reconciliation.
4.He tells us what our message is.  It is, "be ye reconciled to God".

But you disagree.  Are you saying that when Paul admonished the church of God at Corinth "be ye reconciled to God", the church of God at Corinth were not yet His children? 

No, I'm not saying this, because this isn't what Paul said.  I'm saying exactly what Paul said; I'm not changing a thing.

It appears to be so since you said the admonition is for " those who are not yet children of God". 

The message of reconciliation which Paul says we have been given as ambassadors of Christ is "be ye reconciled to God."  This is what Paul said, and this is what I am saying.

That's your problem you need to solve. 

There's no problem here!  Just read what Paul said, and that's what I'm saying.

Had you simply believed we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, as Scriptures EXPLICITLY say, then, you would not have this problem.

Again, there's no problem.  Simply read what Paul said, and that's what I'm saying.  See steps 1 to 4 above.

[Samie]

They are children of God.  Why would you think they weren't?

They are both reconciled to God and children of God, because they have received Christ and are believers.

No he's not.  Did you read what he said?

Paul isn't telling the Corinthians to be reconciled to God, but that it is our message as Christ's ambassadors to tell others who have not been reconciled that they should be reconciled to God.

It can't possibly mean that.  Do you read what he wrote?  The reason I'm saying that it can't possibly mean that is because of the context.  Paul does the following:

1.He explains if someone is in Christ, there is a new creation. (vs. 17)
2.He explains how it works that people are reconciled to God and that God has given us a message of reconciliation (vs 18)
3.He explains more how this works, and again states that God has given us a message of reconciliation.
4.He tells us what our message is.  It is, "be ye reconciled to God".

No, I'm not saying this, because this isn't what Paul said.  I'm saying exactly what Paul said; I'm not changing a thing.

The message of reconciliation which Paul says we have been given as ambassadors of Christ is "be ye reconciled to God."  This is what Paul said, and this is what I am saying.

There's no problem here!  Just read what Paul said, and that's what I'm saying.

Again, there's no problem.  Simply read what Paul said, and that's what I'm saying.  See steps 1 to 4 above.

You are saying what Paul is saying to whom?  To whom is he writing? To the church of God at Corinth. You want context and the context is that the letter is addressed to the church of God at Corinth.  What's he saying to the church of God at Corinth? Be ye reconciled to God. Again, here's the verse:

2 Corinthians 5:20   ²⁰ Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.

Contextually, who are the "we" and the "you"?  Let's ask the Bible:

2 Corinthians 1:13   ¹³ For we are not writing any other things to you than what you read or understand. Now I trust you will understand, even to the end

So then, the "we" are the ones who wrote to the "you".  One of the "we" trusts that the "you" will understand what the "we" wrote to them from beginning to end.  And here's the identity of the "we" and the "you" according to the Bible:

^NKJ 2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in all Achaia:

Clearly the "we" are Paul and Timothy; and the "you" are the church of God at Corinth with all the saints at Achaia.  And I think that's the Biblical context.

[pnattmbtc]

You are saying what Paul is saying to whom?  To whom is he writing? To the church of God at Corinth. You want context and the context is that the letter is addressed to the church of God at Corinth.  What's he saying to the church of God at Corinth? Be ye reconciled to God. Again, here's the verse:

2 Corinthians 5:20   ²⁰ Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.

Contextually, who are the "we" and the "you"?  Let's ask the Bible:

2 Corinthians 1:13   ¹³ For we are not writing any other things to you than what you read or understand. Now I trust you will understand, even to the end

So then, the "we" are the ones who wrote to the "you".  One of the "we" trusts that the "you" will understand what the "we" wrote to them from beginning to end.  And here's the identity of the "we" and the "you" according to the Bible:

^NKJ 2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in all Achaia:

Clearly the "we" are Paul and Timothy; and the "you" are the church of God at Corinth with all the saints at Achaia.  And I think that's the Biblical context.

Here are the verses is question:

17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
 
Note:  
1.He explains if someone is in Christ, there is a new creation. (vs. 17)
2.He explains how it works that people are reconciled to God and that God has given us a message of reconciliation (vs 18)
3.He explains more how this works, and again states that God has given us a message of reconciliation.
4.He tells us what our message is.  It is, "be ye reconciled to God".

We who have been reconciled are to give the message of reconciliation to those who have not been reconciled.  What is the message?  "Be ye reconciled to God".  Who is the "you" involved?  The hearers of the message that Paul and the rest of "we" who have been reconciled are giving to those who have been reconciled.  (Now if someone who is hearing Paul's letter as it is being read aloud is not reconciled, then, of course, this appeal would apply to that person, but Paul's letter here, *as all his letters*, is not an evangelistic letter, but a pastoral one.  Why not study a basic introduction to Paul's letters, so you can have a basic understanding as to how they work?)

To read the "we" as only including Timothy and Paul wouldn't fit the context, because it would imply that only Paul and Timothy had been reconciled, which isn't Paul's intent at all.  His intent is to explain the process and the message of reconciliation.  He is not implying that nobody in Corinth is saved, which is what your suggestion would entail.

If you simply look at how the letter starts, you can see that your suggstion doesn't work.

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,

To the church of God that is in Corinth, including all the saints throughout Achaia:

Notice that Paul writes "including all the saints throughout Achaia", meaning that Paul is addressing believers.  All of Paul's letters work the same way.  He is addressing church members.  Surely you have been to church.  Any church consists of members who are saved and those who aren't.  You know this by your own experience.

So Paul is explaining how the process of reconciliation works, and what the message of reconciliation is.  Those who have been reconciled, as Christ's ambassadors, are to give the message to those who have not been reconciled.  What is the message?  "Be ye reconciled to God."  Those to whom the message is addressed have not been reconciled to God, which is why they are implored to be reconciled to God.

[Samie]

Hi Pnatt;

Did you notice that by simply showing you 2 other verses from the same book in the Bible, it is clear that the "we" in 2 Cor 5:20 are Paul and Timothy and the "you" are the "church of God at Corinth with all the saints at Achaia"? And you have to write out a post of 534 words to give your very, very sound arguments that the "we" are the "reconciled ones", while the "you" are the "unreconciled ones".

So, who determines who are the "reconciled ones" and who are the "unreconciled ones", since according to you they are all members of the church? Are you suggesting a holier-than-thou-attitude game in the church?

Sorry, I have to stick it out with Scriptures.  As I have reminded you in another post, SOP tells us Bible and the Bible alone, NOT the very, very sound arguments of learned men (like you, brother).  And the apostle Paul said "learn not to exceed what are written".  And it is clear your very, very sound arguments exceeded what are written.

[pnattmbtc]

Did you notice that by simply showing you 2 other verses from the same book in the Bible, it is clear that the "we" in 2 Cor 5:20 are Paul and Timothy and the "you" are the "church of God at Corinth with all the saints at Achaia"?

I don't think it's clear that the "we" is Paul and Timothy in the context of what Paul is saying in 2 Cor 5.  I think Paul is saying that "we" (anyone who is reconciled) have been given a message of reconciliation, and that we, as ambassadors of Christ, are to give this message of reconciliation to those who need it.

But let's assume you for the sake of argument that "we" is Paul and Timothy.  There is still the problem that that the message of reconciliation is "be ye reconciled to God," which is contrary to your idea.  You still haven't dealt with the issue of how the message of reconciliation that we have been given as Christ's ambassadors (i.e. we who have been reconciled) are to give to those who are not reconciled: "Be ye reconciled to God."

You still haven't dealt with why this is our message.  Why isn't our message "live reconciled lives"?

And you have to write out a post of 534 words to give your very, very sound arguments that the "we" are the "reconciled ones", while the "you" are the "unreconciled ones".

I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.

So, who determines who are the "reconciled ones" and who are the "unreconciled ones", since according to you they are all members of the church? Are you suggesting a holier-than-thou-attitude game in the church?

Your question here is confusing, but I'll do my best to respond.  1 John 5:13 and Romans 8 discuss how the Holy Spirit lets us know if we are reconciled.  If we are reconciled, as Christ's ambassadors, as though Christ were speaking through us, is "be ye reconciled to God."  Who determines is the Holy Spirit.  The message that we are to proclaim is given in 2 Cor. 5.  The question is, why is the message "be ye reconciled to God"?  That this should be our message does not agree with your theory.

Sorry, I have to stick it out with Scriptures.  

But you don't!  You simply set aside the inspired writer as needing correction when you don't agree with the inspired writer.  This is a dangerous thing to do.  I hope you see this.

As I have reminded you in another post, SOP tells us Bible and the Bible alone, NOT the very, very sound arguments of learned men (like you, brother). 

God has given us minds to use.  The Scriptures themselves tell us that to be able to explain why we believe the way we do is "our reasonable service."

Consider Christ on the road to Emaus.  What did He do?  He could have simply revealed Himself, but instead of doing this He gave those accompanying Him a Bible study.  Why did He do this?  Because He wanted them to be convinced on the basis of evidence, on the basis of well-reasoned argument based on Scripture.  We should do likewise.

And the apostle Paul said "learn not to exceed what are written".  And it is clear your very, very sound arguments exceeded what are written.

I've not had to resort to setting aside any inspired writers, as you have.

[Samie]

I don't think it's clear that the "we" is Paul and Timothy in the context of what Paul is saying in 2 Cor 5.  I think Paul is saying that "we" (anyone who is reconciled) have been given a message of reconciliation, and that we, as ambassadors of Christ, are to give this message of reconciliation to those who need it.

But let's assume you for the sake of argument that "we" is Paul and Timothy.  There is still the problem that that the message of reconciliation is "be ye reconciled to God," which is contrary to your idea.  You still haven't dealt with the issue of how the message of reconciliation that we have been given as Christ's ambassadors (i.e. we who have been reconciled) are to give to those who are not reconciled: "Be ye reconciled to God."

You still haven't dealt with why this is our message.  Why isn't our message "live reconciled lives"?

I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.

Your question here is confusing, but I'll do my best to respond.  1 John 5:13 and Romans 8 discuss how the Holy Spirit lets us know if we are reconciled.  If we are reconciled, as Christ's ambassadors, as though Christ were speaking through us, is "be ye reconciled to God."  Who determines is the Holy Spirit.  The message that we are to proclaim is given in 2 Cor. 5.  The question is, why is the message "be ye reconciled to God"?  That this should be our message does not agree with your theory.

But you don't!  You simply set aside the inspired writer as needing correction when you don't agree with the inspired writer.  This is a dangerous thing to do.  I hope you see this.

God has given us minds to use.  The Scriptures themselves tell us that to be able to explain why we believe the way we do is "our reasonable service."

Consider Christ on the road to Emaus.  What did He do?  He could have simply revealed Himself, but instead of doing this He gave those accompanying Him a Bible study.  Why did He do this?  Because He wanted them to be convinced on the basis of evidence, on the basis of well-reasoned argument based on Scripture.  We should do likewise.

I've not had to resort to setting aside any inspired writers, as you have.

Pointing out that John was corrected is not setting him aside. You said Christ gave Bible study which means He presented Scriptures to convince, but you resort to "sound arguments" to convince yourself.

  On 10/9/2015, 5:29:00, Samie said:

You better ask that yourself.  If Scriptures can't convince you, what will, my brother?

  On 10/9/2015, 10:49:38, pnattmbtc said:

I find evidence convincing, which consists of a sound argument.  You have not presented a sound argument, but, rather, and unsound argument, and unsound arguments are not convincing. 

[pnattmbtc]

Pointing out that John was corrected is not setting him aside.

I realize that English is not your first language, so let me ask you what you think "setting him aside" means.  I think you may not be understanding this phrase, because pointing out that John was corrected is precisely setting John aside.  However, if that phrase is confusing, I can use other words.

You are making the words of John of none effect, and are setting yourself up as an arbiter as to what is correct, as opposed to allowing yourself to be corrected by the words of John.  Why should I prefer Samie over John?  Why should anyone do that?  Who are you?

 

You said Christ gave Bible study which means He presented Scriptures to convince, but you resort to "sound arguments" to convince yourself.

Christ used sound arguments, using the Scriptures as the foundation of His arguments, to convince those to whom He was speaking.  I'm attempting to do the same thing with you.

However, when you disagree with the Scriptures, you say they need to be corrected.  This means you are a higher authority than Scripture.  I disagree with your opinion that John needs to be corrected.

Again, I think it's dangerous for you to take the position that John needs to be corrected.  I think Samie needs to be corrected, and Samie should allow John to correct Samie, not the other way around.

[Samie]

I realize that English is not your first language, so let me ask you what you think "setting him aside" means.  I think you may not be understanding this phrase, because pointing out that John was corrected is precisely setting John aside.  However, if that phrase is confusing, I can use other words.

You are making the words of John of none effect, and are setting yourself up as an arbiter as to what is correct, as opposed to allowing yourself to be corrected by the words of John.  Why should I prefer Samie over John?  Why should anyone do that?  Who are you?

 

Christ used sound arguments, using the Scriptures as the foundation of His arguments, to convince those to whom He was speaking.  I'm attempting to do the same thing with you.

However, when you disagree with the Scriptures, you say they need to be corrected.  This means you are a higher authority than Scripture.  I disagree with your opinion that John needs to be corrected.

Again, I think it's dangerous for you to take the position that John needs to be corrected.  I think Samie needs to be corrected, and Samie should allow John to correct Samie, not the other way around.

I already addressed this in the other thread. Here's a repost:

I was pointing out that what had been revealed to Him in Revelation is not in synch with his previous statements.  It's not my fault if my position is in accord with what were later revealed to Him in Revelation by both the Father and the Son. You are vehemently opposing my position since yours is in accord with what John has earlier written, and not with what was later revealed to him in Revelation. 

Do you find it wrong when you are corrected? I don't. So why complain if the Father and the Son corrected John? And there is no record that John complained when he was corrected. You are the one complaining because you think John was always correct and therefore needed no correction. But did he not say that no man has seen God at anytime while the prophet Isaiah himself said he had seen God with his own eyes?  Since John is always correct according to you and need not be corrected, then Isaiah the prophet did not tell the truth when he said he had seen God with his own eyes?

[pnattmbtc]

I'll say something a bit different here, since I responded to the other thread.

It is your position that John was in error, and then later corrected.  Assuming you believe that John was inspired, why would you take the position that it is you who are in error, rather than John, who was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Also, if when you are shown to be in error, your response is that the Scripture is error, rather than yourself, how can you be convinced of being in error?

[Samie]

I'll say something a bit different here, since I responded to the other thread.

It is your position that John was in error, and then later corrected.  Assuming you believe that John was inspired, why would you take the position that it is you who are in error, rather than John, who was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Also, if when you are shown to be in error, your response is that the Scripture is error, rather than yourself, how can you be convinced of being in error?

Again, I said John was corrected by both the Father and the Son, not me. My position is in accord with what the Father and the Son revealed to John. Your position is in accord with what John has earlier written, that's why you complain when I say John was corrected. Again, do you think the Holy Spirit inspired John to write against what the HS inspired the prophet Isaiah to write centuries ahead of John? I won't be surprised if you continue holding your peace in this again.

[pnattmbtc]

Again, I said John was corrected by both the Father and the Son, not me. 

But John was inspired, and you are not.  Why do you think the inspired writer would need to be corrected, as opposed to you?

My position is in accord with what the Father and the Son revealed to John.

No, it's not.  You are saying that John needs to be corrected.  You are disagreeing with what God revealed to John.  You are saying that you are write, and that what the Holy Spirit revealed to John is wrong.

Your position is in accord with what John has earlier written, that's why you complain when I say John was corrected.

My position is in accord with what John wrote earlier and later.  I do not agree with your idea that the Holy Spirit inspired John to write something that needed to be corrected.  This doesn't make sense to me, and I don't know why you think it makes sense.

What makes sense to me is that if you have to assert that Scripture is wrong to hold your view, you are on dangerous ground.  I think it would be better to change your view to agree with Scripture.

Again, do you think the Holy Spirit inspired John to write against what the HS inspired the prophet Isaiah to write centuries ahead of John?

No, of course not.  I'm not taking the position that the Holy Spirit inspires writers to write things that need to be corrected; you are.

I won't be surprised if you continue holding your peace in this again. 

When I hold a position which I perceive disagrees with what God has revealed, I try to figure out where the problem is, and alter my view to agree with what I perceive Scripture to be teaching. 

[Samie]

Samie: Again, I said John was corrected by both the Father and the Son, not me. 

Pnatt: But John was inspired, and you are not.  Why do you think the inspired writer would need to be corrected, as opposed to you?

Are you taking John greater than the Father and the Son you complain they corrected him?

Samie: My position is in accord with what the Father and the Son revealed to John.

Pnatt: No, it's not.

 Of course, you must disagree. But truth remains truth despite your disbelief.

You are saying that John needs to be corrected.  

 Because the Father and the Son corrected him.

You are disagreeing with what God revealed to John.  You are saying that you are write, and that what the Holy Spirit revealed to John is wrong.

 That's your own opinion against me.

Samie: Your position is in accord with what John has earlier written, that's why you complain when I say John was corrected.

Pnatt: My position is in accord with what John wrote earlier and later.

John earlier said that when we confess, God will cleanse us from sin. In Revelation, he was shown that the Father through the Son has cleansed us through His Blood, which is what other part of Scriptures say that we were forgiven from all sins on the cross, before you were even born and start confessing. You are weaving your doctrine around a single verse that had been corrected by the writer himself when he wrote what were revealed to Him by the Father and the Son.

I do not agree with your idea that the Holy Spirit inspired John to write something that needed to be corrected.  This doesn't make sense to me, and I don't know why you think it makes sense.

 

What makes sense to me is that if you have to assert that Scripture is wrong to hold your view, you are on dangerous ground.  I think it would be better to change your view to agree with Scripture.

Reason why I am amazed until now you still don't change your view which is clearly not in accord with Scriptures, although in accord with your very sound arguments.

Samie: Again, do you think the Holy Spirit inspired John to write against what the HS inspired the prophet Isaiah to write centuries ahead of John?

Pnatt: No, of course not.  I'm not taking the position that the Holy Spirit inspires writers to write things that need to be corrected; you are.

So can you explain why the Holy Spirit inspired Isaiah the prophet to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later the Holy Spirit inspired John to write no man has seen God at anytime?  You will not answer this, will you?

Samie:

I won't be surprised if you continue holding your peace in this again.

 

Pnatt: When I hold a position which I perceive disagrees with what God has revealed, I try to figure out where the problem is, and alter my view to agree with what I perceive Scripture to be teaching. 

Owww? Why the long wait? You have been shown Scriptures that all sins were forgiven on the cross, exactly what was revealed to John by the Father and the Son. Again, here are some:

Colossians 2:13-14   ¹³ And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,  ¹⁴ having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

^NKJ Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood

 

^NKJ Ephesians 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace

 

^KJV Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

But despite the evidence of Scriptures, you continue holding on to your position woven around the single verse of John that unless you confess, God will not forgive you.

[pnattmbtc]

Samie: Again, I said John was corrected by both the Father and the Son, not me. 
Pnatt: But John was inspired, and you are not.  Why do you think the inspired writer would need to be corrected, as opposed to you?

Samie:Are you taking John greater than the Father and the Son you complain they corrected him?

I am taking God as greater than Samie.  John was inspired.  You are not.  John did not need correcting, because he was inspired by the Holy Spirit.  You need correcting because you are not.

You didn't answer my question.  Why do you think the inspired writer would need to be corrected, as opposed to you?

2 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:
Samie: My position is in accord with what the Father and the Son revealed to John.
Pnatt: No, it's not.

Samie:Of course, you must disagree. But truth remains truth despite your disbelief.

 

No, you disagreed!  You yourself are saying that John needed to be correct, and you disagree with John said.

2 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:
You are saying that John needs to be corrected.  

Samie:Because the Father and the Son corrected him.

 

This didn't happen.  What happened was the Holy Spirit inspired John to write John, and 1 John, and Revelation, and Samie sees something he doesn't understand, and rather than admit the possibility of being wrong, asserts that Scripture is wrong!

 

2 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:
You are disagreeing with what God revealed to John.  You are saying that you are write, and that what the Holy Spirit revealed to John is wrong.

Samie: That's your own opinion against me.

No, it's your opinion!  You yourself are stating that John needed to be corrected.  

2 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

Samie: Your position is in accord with what John has earlier written, that's why you complain when I say John was corrected.

Pnatt: My position is in accord with what John wrote earlier and later.

Samie: John earlier said that when we confess, God will cleanse us from sin. In Revelation, he was shown that the Father through the Son has cleansed us through His Blood, which is what other part of Scriptures say that we were forgiven from all sins on the cross, before you were even born and start confessing. 

You are interpreting Revelation in such a way that it disagrees with John and 1 John, and rather than recognize you are in error, you are asserting that Scripture is wrong.  But John and 1 John are just as much inspired as Revelation is.

The Holy Spirit inspired John to write John and 1 John.  Why would what the Holy Spirit inspired to be written need to be corrected?

You are weaving your doctrine around a single verse that had been corrected by the writer himself when he wrote what were revealed to Him by the Father and the Son.

Which single verse are you referring to?  The single verse in John or the single one in 1 John?  Regardless of which one you have in mind, why would you think that Scripture is wrong rather than yourself?

 2 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:
I do not agree with your idea that the Holy Spirit inspired John to write something that needed to be corrected.  This doesn't make sense to me, and I don't know why you think it makes sense.
 
What makes sense to me is that if you have to assert that Scripture is wrong to hold your view, you are on dangerous ground.  I think it would be better to change your view to agree with Scripture.

Samie: Reason why I am amazed until now you still don't change your view which is clearly not in accord with Scriptures, although in accord with your very sound arguments.

Your sentence here doesn't make sense (I mean the English isn't coherent).  Regardless, you did not respond to the point, which is why do you think it is OK to assert that Scripture is wrong, but you are right?

 2 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:
Samie: Again, do you think the Holy Spirit inspired John to write against what the HS inspired the prophet Isaiah to write centuries ahead of John?
Pnatt: No, of course not.  I'm not taking the position that the Holy Spirit inspires writers to write things that need to be corrected; you are.

Samie: So can you explain why the Holy Spirit inspired Isaiah the prophet to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later the Holy Spirit inspired John to write no man has seen God at anytime?  You will not answer this, will you?

Please explain to me why you are bringing up Isaiah into this topic.  It looks like you are wanting to discredit John as completely unreliable, that even before Revelation he needed to be corrected.  Is this your point?  I'm not understanding why you are brining something unrelated into the discussion.

2 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:
Samie:

I won't be surprised if you continue holding your peace in this again.

What are you referring to?  I'm gong to stop here, and treat the rest separately, because this is already long enough.

[pnattmbtc]

Pnatt: When I hold a position which I perceive disagrees with what God has revealed, I try to figure out where the problem is, and alter my view to agree with what I perceive Scripture to be teaching. 

Samie: Owww? Why the long wait? You have been shown Scriptures that all sins were forgiven on the cross, exactly what was revealed to John by the Father and the Son. Again, here are some:

Colossians 2:13-14   13 And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,  14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

NKJ Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood
 
NKJ Ephesians 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace
 
KJV Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
But despite the evidence of Scriptures, you continue holding on to your position woven around the single verse of John that unless you confess, God will not forgive you.

Forgiveness involves two parties, the guilty party and the innocent party.  God is the innocent party.  God, as the innocent party, has chosen to forgive our sins.  The cross is evidence that He has done so.

Consider the Colossians text.  Paul wrote this:

And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.  Col. 1:21

"You" (those to whom Paul was addressing) were enemies in their own mind.  This makes clear that our enmity is something which occurs when we exist.  Your idea would have our enmity resolved without our existing, and this is clearly not Paul's intent.

To be reconciled means to have friendly relations restored.  This can only happen between two parties who exist.

Paul says we were "alienated" and "enemies in (our) own mind".  This means the problem is in our "own mind".  The problem in our mind can only be fixed if we exist, because our mind does not exist without our existing.

The fact that you are misreading these texts is clear from the fact that you have to assert that the Scriptures (1 John 1:9. John 1:12) are wrong.

[Samie]

What you have posted are all alibi's for your position which is clearly not Scriptural.  This is why I titled this thread Understanding the Gospel Through the Book of Life.  And our discussion have gone astray because of your style of taking your sound arguments over and above what Scriptures EXPLICITLY say.

As for me being corrected, I always stand corrected, as I have said.  But show from Scriptures why, not via what you call your "sound arguments".  All your explanations in the previous post have all been taken up, and addressing them again is waste of time.  But you have not addressed this issue yet:

Again, and for the 5th time: Did the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime. You will not answer this, will you?

[pnattmbtc]

What you have posted are all alibi's for your position which is clearly not Scriptural. 

What isn't Scriptural.  I presented texts and explanations of texts.  The least you could do would be to quote what I said and explain why you disagree with whatever it is you disagree with.  You cannot say that my stating that Paul said "enemies in your own mind" when this is a direct quote of what he said.  He spoke of being "alienated" from God.  These statements are direct quotes, and they mean something.  I've told you what I think they mean.  What do you think they mean?

This is why I titled this thread Understanding the Gospel Through the Book of Life.  And our discussion have gone astray because of your style of taking your sound arguments over and above what Scriptures EXPLICITLY say.

What is "this".  That is, when you say "this is why I titled this thread "Understanding the Gospel Through the Book of Life" what is "this"?

As for me being corrected, I always stand corrected, as I have said.  But show from Scriptures why, not via what you call your "sound arguments".

What does this mean, "I always stand corrected"?  I don't know what you mean by this.  Regarding showing you from Scripture, I've done so, which you recognize, by asserting that Scripture was wrong (1 John 1:9, John 1:12).

All your explanations in the previous post have all been taken up, and addressing them again is waste of time.  But you have not addressed this issue yet:

I disagree.  Much of the time you don't answer my questions.

Again, and for the 5th time: Did the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime. You will not answer this, will you?

I will answer this question, tomorrow some time, but as I stated in the other thread, you could have figured this out yourself with a little effort, and, as I asked in the other thread, why are bringing up Isaiah?  Is it to discredit John?  Do you have something only against John, or are there other scripture authors you take issue with?

 

[Samie]

. . .

I will answer this question, tomorrow some time, but as I stated in the other thread, you could have figured this out yourself with a little effort, and, as I asked in the other thread, why are bringing up Isaiah?  Is it to discredit John?  Do you have something only against John, or are there other scripture authors you take issue with?

Why am I bringing up Isaiah? Because it is related to the issue of inspiration. Is it to discredit John? No.  Do I have something only against John, or are there other scripture authors I take issue with? No; I have nothing against any Bible writer.

The issues in the ellipsis are moot, having been responded to.

Again, and for the 7th time: Did the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime. You will not answer this, will you?

[pnattmbtc]

Why am I bringing up Isaiah? Because it is related to the issue of inspiration. Is it to discredit John? No.  Do I have something only against John, or are there other scripture authors I take issue with? No; I have nothing against any Bible writer.

The issues in the ellipsis are moot, having been responded to.

Again, and for the 7th time: Did the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime. You will not answer this, will you?

I said I will answer it tomorrow, and I will.  How is this related to the question of inspiration?  There isn't any disagreement, as John has explained everything, but let's suppose there were.  What then?  Why would you choose Isaiah over John?  Or would you?  What are you trying to get at?

[Samie]

I said I will answer it tomorrow, and I will.  How is this related to the question of inspiration?  There isn't any disagreement, as John has explained everything, but let's suppose there were.  What then?  Why would you choose Isaiah over John?  Or would you?  What are you trying to get at?

Answer my question first, and you will get my answer to yours.

[pnattmbtc]

Answer my question first, and you will get my answer to yours.

Really, I shouldn't have to answer yours first.  If you are going to introduce a question from left field, it's good manners to explain why you are asking your question.  But since I did answer your question, please answer mine.  Are you trying to discredit John?  Do you have something against John in particular?  Or do you regard Paul the same way?

[Samie]

Samie: Again, and for the 7th time: Did the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime. You will not answer this, will you?

Pnatt: I said I will answer it tomorrow, and I will.  How is this related to the question of inspiration?  There isn't any disagreement, as John has explained everything, but let's suppose there were.  What then?  Why would you choose Isaiah over John?  Or would you?  What are you trying to get at?

Samie: Answer my question first, and you will get my answer to yours.

Really, I shouldn't have to answer yours first.  If you are going to introduce a question from left field, it's good manners to explain why you are asking your question.  But since I did answer your question, please answer mine.  Are you trying to discredit John?  Do you have something against John in particular?  Or do you regard Paul the same way?

I have already answered that.

Again, and for the 8th time: Did the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime? You will not answer this, will you?

[pnattmbtc]

I have already answered that.

Again, and for the 8th time: Did the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime? You will not answer this, will you?

I wrote, in the very post you are responding to, "Really, I shouldn't have to answer yours first.  If you are going to introduce a question from left field, it's good manners to explain why you are asking your question.  But since I did answer your question, please answer mine."

Please notice the part in bold.

[Samie]

I wrote, in the very post you are responding to, "Really, I shouldn't have to answer yours first.  If you are going to introduce a question from left field, it's good manners to explain why you are asking your question.  But since I did answer your question, please answer mine."

Please notice the part in bold.

You answered a different question. My question was simply answerable with Yes or No, and then maybe you can explain why you answered with a Yes or  with a No.

My question was, and for the 11th time: Did the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime. You will not answer this, will you?

[pnattmbtc]

You answered a different question. My question was simply answerable with Yes or No, and then maybe you can explain why you answered with a Yes or  with a No.

My question was, and for the 11th time: Did the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes and then centuries later inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime. You will not answer this, will you

You're not very clear in what you want, and you refuse to explain why you are asking about something unrelated, but my answer to your question, as you have worded it, is no.

Is it your desire to discredit John? 

[Samie]

You're not very clear in what you want, and you refuse to explain why you are asking about something unrelated, but my answer to your question, as you have worded it, is no.

Is it your desire to discredit John? 

No, as I have told you earlier.

As to your No answer, I am reposting here my earlier post in the other thread:

OHHH, at last, your answer came. Thank you, my brother.

But I need to be sure whether I am understanding you correctly with your "No" answer. Do I understand you correctly that you mean the Holy Spirit inspired the prophet Isaiah to write he has seen God with his own eyes but did NOT inspire John to write no man has seen God at anytime?

If that is not what you mean, then what exactly do you mean?