Cart Before the Horse?

[pnattmbtc]

Problem texts? Well, maybe.  I sincerely believe that in the original manuscripts (sadly, none remained), no problem texts exist.  These problem texts may have cropped up due to transcription errors, which may have been unintentional or otherwise.  And you know these facts, too.  But despite these texts, when taken in its totality, Scriptures clearly show the correct view of things.  Honestly, of the 5 given texts, I only consider #3 & #4 as the problem texts.  And they are all from John.  I wouldn't be surprised if in Revelation (came later than his other writings), what these texts say are brought into their proper perspective.

You're an interesting dude.  Rather than rethink an idea when the evidence is against it, you come up with possibilities that you must know in your heart of hearts are terribly unlikely.  Like that in the original manuscripts, Paul didn't really write, "be reconciled to God."

Of 1,000 texts, there will be 999 saying one thing, and 1 which says another, and you'll reject the 999 to hold on to the idea of the 1, rather than change your mind on that 1.  What's so bad about changing your mind?  I don't get it.  That's how we learn, how we grow.  When the evidence leads in a direction, go that way.

[Samie]

You're an interesting dude.  Rather than rethink an idea when the evidence is against it, you come up with possibilities that you must know in your heart of hearts are terribly unlikely.  Like that in the original manuscripts, Paul didn't really write, "be reconciled to God."

Of 1,000 texts, there will be 999 saying one thing, and 1 which says another, and you'll reject the 999 to hold on to the idea of the 1, rather than change your mind on that 1.  What's so bad about changing your mind?  I don't get it.  That's how we learn, how we grow.  When the evidence leads in a direction, go that way.

You seem to be the one to be an even more interesting one. I'm showing you a bunch of verses about my idea and you showed me 2 verses about your idea and you want to turn the table around and tell me you showed 999 and me 1.  Like the one Paul said to "all who are in Rome" (believers and non-believers alike),  "we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son" you want it to read "we were reconciled to God when we believe". You are indeed very interesting, brother.

[pnattmbtc]

The evidence is completely against you here.  I'll explain.

First of all, there are the following texts:

1.Galatians 3:2.  This text says that we receive the Holy Spirit by faith.  This is a chicken and egg problem viz a viz the idea that we get the faith necessary to believe in Christ as fruit of the Spirit.  Also, there is a problem that the verse from which this idea came from, Gal. 5:22, the word "faith" is better translated "faithfulness" as the great majority of modern translations have.

2.2 Cor. 5:20.  This text says that we, as Christ's ambassadors, implore others to "be reconciled to God."

3.1 John 1:9.  This text says if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive them, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

4.John 1:12.  This text says that those who believe on the name of the Son of God become sons of God, and are born of God.

5.Romans 10:10.  This text says if we believe with our heart, then we will be justified.

I could come up with several dozen more like these easily, perhaps several hundred.  You commented that you only see 3 and 4 as problems, but you don't say why.  Why don't you take each of these texts one by one, and explain how the text matches with your understanding of things.

Secondly, when you have to resort to saying something like this, 

These problem texts may have cropped up due to transcription errors, which may have been unintentional or otherwise. 

and this

And they are all from John.  I wouldn't be surprised if in Revelation (came later than his other writings), what these texts say are brought into their proper perspective.

bells should be going off loud and clear that there is an adjustment of thinking necessarily.

Finally, the Scripture says in the multitude of counselors, there is wisdom.  There are many people on this site reading posts.  In none of them can make any sense of what you are saying, that's another signal that and adjustment of thinking is in order.  And I'm not talking about new light or new truth here.  It's your methodology that isn't working.  If people were having trouble understanding the concept, and the idea were new, that would be one thing, but if your whole methodology is wrong, that's another issue.

[Samie]

The evidence is completely against you here.  I'll explain.

First of all, there are the following texts:

1.Galatians 3:2.  This text says that we receive the Holy Spirit by faith.  This is a chicken and egg problem viz a viz the idea that we get the faith necessary to believe in Christ as fruit of the Spirit.  Also, there is a problem that the verse from which this idea came from, Gal. 5:22, the word "faith" is better translated "faithfulness" as the great majority of modern translations have.

2.2 Cor. 5:20.  This text says that we, as Christ's ambassadors, implore others to "be reconciled to God."

3.1 John 1:9.  This text says if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive them, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

4.John 1:12.  This text says that those who believe on the name of the Son of God become sons of God, and are born of God.

5.Romans 10:10.  This text says if we believe with our heart, then we will be justified.

I could come up with several dozen more like these easily, perhaps several hundred.

You're kidding.  As I have said, only two of the above are problem texts from one who had been corrected of his wrong notion, just like Peter.

You commented that you only see 3 and 4 as problems, but you don't say why.

No, I said only 2 out of the 5 you gave. Both from John. And he was corrected in Revelation by the Father and the Son.

You commented that you only see 3 and 4 as problems, but you don't say why.  Why don't you take each of these texts one by one, and explain how the text matches with your understanding of things.

OK. As you wish. I'll start with the 2 from John (1 John 1:9 & John 1:12), and as I have said, he was corrected in Revelation by the Father and the Son. Just like Peter who was corrected in Acts.

In 1 John 1:9, John says forgiveness and cleansing from unrighteousness comes as a result of confession.  But he was shown in Revelation that Jesus has washed us clean from sin (hence forgiven from all unrighteousness) through His Blood ()Rev 1:5). And this is what I had been saying.

In John 1:12 he says only believers are given the power to become the sons of God. In Revelation he is shown that overcomers are the sons of God (Rev 21:7). And this is what I had been saying.  For as long as one's name remain written in the Book of Life, he is son of God through the merits of Christ.  And only overcomers will not be blotted out from it.

The 3 other texts are not problem texts, as I have said. I will address them next post.

[pnattmbtc]

You're kidding.  As I have said, only two of the above are problem texts from one who had been corrected of his wrong notion, just like Peter.

I have no idea what you mean.  No, I'm not kidding.  There are dozens, if not hundreds of texts, which speak of the imperative that we believe in Christ.  By wrong notion, do you mean this?

But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God 

 Samie: No, I said only 2 out of the 5 you gave. Both from John. And he was corrected in Revelation by the Father and the Son.

You're saying that what John wrote in the Gospel of John is wrong, and then God and Christ corrected him in Revelation?

 

OK. As you wish. I'll start with the 2 from John (1 John 1:9 & John 1:12), and as I have said, he was corrected in Revelation by the Father and the Son. Just like Peter who was corrected in Acts. In 1 John 1:9, John says forgiveness and cleansing from unrighteousness comes as a result of confession.  But he was shown in Revelation that Jesus has washed us clean from sin (hence forgiven from all unrighteousness) through His Blood ()Rev 1:5). And this is what I had been saying.

 

In John 1:12 he says only believers are given the power to become the sons of God. In Revelation he is shown that overcomers are the sons of God (Rev 21:7). And this is what I had been saying.  For as long as one's name remain written in the Book of Life, he is son of God through the merits of Christ.  And only overcomers will not be blotted out from it.

The 3 other texts are not problem texts, as I have said. I will address them next post.

So basically you're saying that John and 1 John isn't inspired, only Revelation?  Which books should we include as Scripture?

 

[8thdaypriest]

You seem to be the one to be an even more interesting one. I'm showing you a bunch of verses about my idea and you showed me 2 verses about your idea and you want to turn the table around and tell me you showed 999 and me 1.  Like the one Paul said to "all who are in Rome" (believers and non-believers alike),  "we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son" you want it to read "we were reconciled to God when we believe". You are indeed very interesting, brother.

You say Paul is writing to "all who are in Rome" (believers and non-believers alike).  Romans 1:7

How can that be so, when Paul went on to say in the NEXT VERSE:  "I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world."  ??

How could non-believers have faith??

You just keep removing verses from their context, and using them to "prove" your view. 

[Samie]

You say Paul is writing to "all who are in Rome" (believers and non-believers alike).  Romans 1:7

How can that be so, when Paul went on to say in the NEXT VERSE:  "I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world."  ??

How could non-believers have faith??

Why would not Paul speak of the faith of both believers and non-believers in Rome? He himself said that God has given faith to EVERY MAN, and that includes believers and non-believers alike:

^KJV Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

You just keep removing verses from their context, and using them to "prove" your view. 

Wouldn't it appear you are the one guilty of the accusation you hurl against me?

[Samie]

I have no idea what you mean.  No, I'm not kidding.  There are dozens, if not hundreds of texts, which speak of the imperative that we believe in Christ.

Your style stinks, brother. You said there were problem texts, and you gave 5, and that there are hundreds more. When asked for those hundreds, you come back with dozens, if not hundreds of texts, on believing in Christ, texts that are not the issue. No wonder, Scriptures says of your style:

1 Corinthians 3:19-20   ¹⁹ For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness";  ²⁰ and again, "The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."

 

[Samie]

. . . By wrong notion, do you mean this?

You're saying that what John wrote in the Gospel of John is wrong, and then God and Christ corrected him in Revelation?

 

So basically you're saying that John and 1 John isn't inspired, only Revelation?

 It's you who say that.  For me, when a statement in one book is out of synch with the whole of Scriptures, it does not mean the book is not inspired and that it must be stricken out of Scriptures. I believe God allowed the inclusion of out-of-synch statements for our spiritual enlightenment.  Did not John himself said no one has seen God at anytime, but in Isaiah, the prophet himself said his eyes have seen God?

[pnattmbtc]

I have no idea what you mean.  No, I'm not kidding.  There are dozens, if not hundreds of texts, which speak of the imperative that we believe in Christ.

Samie: Your style stinks, brother. You said there were problem texts, and you gave 5, and that there are hundreds more. When asked for those hundreds, you come back with dozens, if not hundreds of texts, on believing in Christ, texts that are not the issue. No wonder, Scriptures says of your style:

1 Corinthians 3:19-20   19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness";  20and again, "The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."

I'm not understanding your point.  I gave 5, because what would be the point of giving more?  You don't even respond to these 5.  As I've pointed out, the entire book of Galatians is dealing with the imperative of justification by faith.  I could just quote the whole book.  I really don't know how you think the Gospel works if you don't understand or believe in justification by faith.

I've been citing Romans 10:10 for quite awhile now, and you've never said anything about it.  Here it is again, including some more verses for context:

8But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART "-- that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.
 

There can be no doubt this is dealing with the faith of the believer, and not Jesus Christ (in whom we have faith, but it is not His faith this text is dealing with, but the believer's).  "It is with your heart that you believe and are justified".

Also, if you are willing to through out entire books like John and 1 John, then what good would it do to cite more texts?

What isn't that you aren't liking?  Why not respond to the few texts I pointed out instead of complaining that I mentioned there are many more? 

[pnattmbtc]

 It's you who say that. 

You said it.  I'll quote you:

OK. As you wish. I'll start with the 2 from John (1 John 1:9 & John 1:12), and as I have said, he was corrected in Revelation by the Father and the Son. Just like Peter who was corrected in Acts.

So rather than admit you are in error, you contend that John was in error!  And he was corrected, not you.

 I believe God allowed the inclusion of out-of-synch statements for our spiritual enlightenment.  Did not John himself said no one has seen God at anytime, but in Isaiah, the prophet himself said his eyes have seen God?

I don't understand why you would think that John is out of synch rather than yourself.

For me, when a statement in one book is out of synch with the whole of Scriptures, it does not mean the book is not inspired and that it must be stricken out of Scriptures. 

What does it mean?

Please consider this from the standpoint of someone else, who is having a conversation with you.  When evidence is presented that disagrees with your point of view, you ignore it, saying it is out of synch.  How is one supposed to proceed?  What could possibly convince you of your error if you simply set aside texts you disagree with?  It reminds me of this:

"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" (Luke 16:31)

You're setting yourself on dangerous ground if you refuse to change your ideas irrespective of the evidence presented.  What would it take to convince you you are in error? 

[pnattmbtc]

Why would not Paul speak of the faith of both believers and non-believers in Rome? 

Because non-believers do not believe.  (The word "pistis" in the Greek is the same word used for both faith and believe; one's a verb and one is a noun.  It doesn't make sense to speak of believers - literally those who have faith - as not having faith.  That would literally be contradicting yourself in the same sentence).

[Samie]

 

I'm not understanding your point.  I gave 5, because what would be the point of giving more?  You don't even respond to these 5.  As I've pointed out, the entire book of Galatians is dealing with the imperative of justification by faith.  I could just quote the whole book.  I really don't know how you think the Gospel works if you don't understand or believe in justification by faith.

I've been citing Romans 10:10 for quite awhile now, and you've never said anything about it.  Here it is again, including some more verses for context:

There can be no doubt this is dealing with the faith of the believer, and not Jesus Christ (in whom we have faith, but it is not His faith this text is dealing with, but the believer's).  "It is with your heart that you believe and are justified".

Also, if you are willing to through out entire books like John and 1 John, then what good would it do to cite more texts?

What isn't that you aren't liking?  Why not respond to the few texts I pointed out instead of complaining that I mentioned there are many more? 

I'm not complaining about the texts.  I am saying your position is wrong, as per Scriptures.

You used Rom 10:10.  I have told you several times that the faith mentioned in that text is the faith of the Son of God, a measure of which God gave to every man (Rom 12:3).  And it is that faith they used to believe. And by that faith, they were justified. Whose faith? Theirs? No, the faith of the Son of God who dealt a measure of that faith to every man.

Did I not tell you for so many times in the other thread that Romans was written "to all who are in Rome", believers and non-believers alike?  Faith is not the property only of the believers but of non-believers as well. Why? Because God gave a measure of the faith of His Son to every man.

[Samie]

You said it.  I'll quote you:

So rather than admit you are in error, you contend that John was in error!  And he was corrected, not you.

I don't understand why you would think that John is out of synch rather than yourself.

What does it mean?

Please consider this from the standpoint of someone else, who is having a conversation with you.  When evidence is presented that disagrees with your point of view, you ignore it, saying it is out of synch.  How is one supposed to proceed?  What could possibly convince you of your error if you simply set aside texts you disagree with?  It reminds me of this:

You're setting yourself on dangerous ground if you refuse to change your ideas irrespective of the evidence presented.  What would it take to convince you you are in error? 

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

Again, you had been shown Scriptures that believing can only be done by those who are ALREADY attached to Christ. How so? Because believing is exercising faith, and faith is fruit of the Spirit which only those attached to Christ can bear, because Christ Himself said separate from Him man couldn't bear fruit and can do NOTHING.

But here you are preaching that man can do SOMETHING to be attached to Christ, they can believe because they already have faith even while separate from Christ. Clearly, cart before the horse.

[pnattmbtc]

I'm not complaining about the texts.  I am saying your position is wrong, as per Scriptures.

You mean a sub-set of the Scriptures, the ones which haven't been "corrected."

You used Rom 10:10.  I have told you several times that the faith mentioned in that text is the faith of the Son of God, a measure of which God gave to every man (Rom 12:3). 

 

I apologize if you explained this before, as I didn't remember that.  What you are asserting is clearly not the case, as is evident by reading the text.

if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved

"If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the death, you will be saved."  I don't see how this could be clearer.  This is not talking about the faith of Jesus Christ.  You can't possibly read this text that way.  *You* "believe in your heart".  You.

And it is that faith they used to believe. And by that faith, they were justified. Whose faith? Theirs? No, the faith of the Son of God who dealt a measure of that faith to every man.

This is not what Romans 10 says.  "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

Did I not tell you for so many times in the other thread that Romans was written "to all who are in Rome", believers and non-believers alike?  Faith is not the property only of the believers but of non-believers as well. Why? Because God gave a measure of the faith of His Son to every man. 

This isn't relevant to the point that Romans 10 is saying that if you believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead you will be saved.  (Any epistle Paul wrote would have been read to both believers and unbelievers, because any church has believers and unbelievers, but this doesn't matter to the point being made by Paul in Romans 10).

Edited October 8, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[Samie]

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

Again, you had been shown Scriptures that believing can only be done by those who are ALREADY attached to Christ. How so? Because believing is exercising faith, and faith is fruit of the Spirit which only those attached to Christ can bear, because Christ Himself said separate from Him man couldn't bear fruit and can do NOTHING.

But here you are preaching that man can do SOMETHING to be attached to Christ, they can believe because they already have faith even while separate from Christ. Clearly, cart before the horse.

Unanswered.

[pnattmbtc]

Unanswered.

Sorry I skipped this one; not on purpose.  I'll respond here, and please respond to mine.  Since you wrote a second post, when I respond to this one, there will be two for you to respond to.

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

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.

I have not had to resort to such statements as John (writing under inspiration) was corrected by God the Father and God the Son.  To write this means you have been convinced according to the Scriptures of a weakness of your position, but you simply don't want to change your mind.  Rather then do so, you suggest that John was corrected.  How is one supposed to deal with this?  What are the rules of the discussion here?

I thought they were, present an argument from Scripture, and if the argument works, then adjust your position, but it appears to be instead, present an argument from Scripture, and if the argument works, then Scripture must be wrong!

Again, you had been shown Scriptures that believing can only be done by those who are ALREADY attached to Christ.

That's not the case.  First of all, this is a general statement.  You'd have to be specific here to give a better response, but a general response is that the Scriptures you have presented can be interpreted in different ways, one of which is the way that you interpret them, which is very much a minority position.  The fact that you have an idea as to how a text should be interpreted does not mean that idea is true.  You look to be equating your having an idea with truth, but that's not how things work.

Instead of simply declaring that your ideas are truth, why not present an argument?  Then we can discuss the argument.

How so? Because believing is exercising faith, and faith is fruit of the Spirit which only those attached to Christ can bear, because Christ Himself said separate from Him man couldn't bear fruit and can do NOTHING.

This argument doesn't work, which has been demonstrated.  Simply repeating it doesn't help.  Instead of "faith is the fruit of the Spirit" you should write, "faithfullness is the fruit of the Spirit."

New International Version
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

New Living Translation
But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

English Standard Version
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

Berean Study Bible
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

Berean Literal Bible
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

New American Standard Bible 
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

International Standard Version
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

NET Bible
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

GOD'S WORD® Translation
But the spiritual nature produces love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

New American Standard 1977 
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

American Standard Version
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

English Revised Version
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness.

Also Galatians 3:2 tells us that we receive the Holy Spirit through faith, which means that faith comes first, and you are putting the cart before the horse.  Consider the following:

9 But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. (Romans 8:9)

Paul speaks of two classes of people, those who are "in the flesh" and those who are "in the Spirit".  Those who are "in the Spirit" have received the Spirit though faith, and the Spirit of God dwells in such.  So the horse is faith, and the cart is the Holy Spirit dwelling in us, after receiving the Spirit though faith.

But here you are preaching that man can do SOMETHING to be attached to Christ, they can believe because they already have faith even while separate from Christ. Clearly, cart before the horse.

I haven't actually said this, as I have not spoken of being "attached to Christ."  What I have said is what the Scriptures says, which is that we receive the Spirit by faith (Galatians 3:2), and there are two classes of people, unbelievers and believers, which are characterized by either having the Spirit of Christ or not, meaning there are two classes of people involved.  One group is like this: believer, Spirit of Christ dwells within, in the Spirit.  The other is unbeliever, Spirit of Christ does not dwell within in, in the flesh.

[8thdaypriest]

Why would not Paul speak of the faith of both believers and non-believers in Rome? He himself said that God has given faith to EVERY MAN, and that includes believers and non-believers alike:

^KJV Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

The small "measure of faith" (the inner sense that there is something beyond just us) is not exactly the kind of faith that would be spoken of throughout the (then known) world.  Now would it? 

[Samie]

Samie:  Why would not Paul speak of the faith of both believers and non-believers in Rome? He himself said that God has given faith to EVERY MAN, and that includes believers and non-believers alike:

^KJV Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

8thdaypriest: The small "measure of faith" (the inner sense that there is something beyond just us) is not exactly the kind of faith that would be spoken of throughout the (then known) world.  Now would it? 

Small measure of faith? Even a faith as small as a mustard seed can move mountains, says the Lord!

[Samie]

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

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.

That explains it. Instead of Scriptures convincing you, sound argument will. So, argument instead of Scriptures. Sorry, but for me, a "thus saith the Lord" is enough; NOT what "thus saith Pnatt".

[pnattmbtc]

That explains it. Instead of Scriptures convincing you, sound argument will. So, argument instead of Scriptures. Sorry, but for me, a "thus saith the Lord" is enough; NOT what "thus saith Pnatt".

This is from the Spirit of Prophecy:

God wants us all to have common sense, and He wants us to reason from common sense. )16Bio., vol. 5, p. 315)

Interestingly, the context was people making unreasonable application of her writings. 

[Samie]

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

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.

That explains it. Instead of Scriptures convincing you, sound argument will. So, argument instead of Scriptures. Sorry, but for me, a "thus saith the Lord" is enough; NOT what "thus saith Pnatt".

This is from the Spirit of Prophecy:

Interestingly, the context was people making unreasonable application of her writings. 

Oh, so since you found no refuge in Scriptures, you turn to the SOP?  Sorry, here's SOP (emphases mine): 

But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority—not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain “Thus saith the Lord” in its support. {GC 595.1}

Sound arguments of learned men like Pnatt in exchange for the plain words of Scriptures? The SOP says No-No.  And Scriptures, too:

^NAS 1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

[pnattmbtc]

This is from the Spirit of Prophecy:

Interestingly, the context was people making unreasonable application of her writings. 

I've asked you not to do this.  You've left out the salient point, where it says "This is from the Spirit of Prophecy".  Please don't edit the things you are quoting so that it changes the meaning; that's not cricket.

What she said was that we should use common sense.  It's hard for me to imagine why someone would argue against using common sense.

I don't know on what basis I can carry on a conversation with you.  When you disagree with the Scriptures, you set that aside as needing correction (as opposed to your needing correction", and you are arguing against a quote suggesting we use common sense.

So if I can't use Scripture, and I can't use common sense, just how do you propose carrying on a conversation? 

[Samie]

I've asked you not to do this.  You've left out the salient point, where it says "This is from the Spirit of Prophecy".  Please don't edit the things you are quoting so that it changes the meaning; that's not cricket.

What she said was that we should use common sense.  It's hard for me to imagine why someone would argue against using common sense.

I don't know on what basis I can carry on a conversation with you.  When you disagree with the Scriptures, you set that aside as needing correction (as opposed to your needing correction", and you are arguing against a quote suggesting we use common sense.

So if I can't use Scripture, and I can't use common sense, just how do you propose carrying on a conversation? 

That only means both Scripture and common sense don't agree with your proposition.

[pnattmbtc]

That only means both Scripture and common sense don't agree with your proposition.

You've done the same thing I've asked you not to do, again.  If you're going to make as assertion regarding something I've written, you need to quote what you're talking about, or else what you're saying is just an empty claim.  What specifically have I written that is either lacking in common sense or not in agreement with Scripture?

But this is beside the point, as what I'm asking you as how we can carry on a conversation if *you* are going to reject common sense and the Scriptures.  You've rejected John as needing correction.  What am I supposed to do with that?  When I present evidence to you that your position is not in agreement with Scripture, you set aside the Scripture!

When I suggest we need to use common sense, you argue against that!

When I suggest we should make well-reasoned arguments, and present evidence, you argue against that!

How do we carry on a conversation if you reject

1.Scripture

2.Reason

3.Evidence

4.Common sense