Reconciled to God

[pnattmbtc]

Hi Pnatt;

To save space, I won't be quoting your last post. This post will naturally be in response to that post.  And I will not be going into many other issues. Just the main one, that Paul was writing to "all who are in Rome", as reflected in Rom 1:7, a verse you did not address in your last post.  Were "all who are in Rome" believers at the time Paul was writing his letter? I believe "all who are in Rome" are not all believers. Some may have never heard of Christ yet.

^NKJ Romans 1:7 To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

In his letters to the other churches, Corinth, Galatia and Thessalonica, Paul explicitly addressed his letters to the churches in those places.  In his letters to the Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, he explicitly addressed his letters to the saints and believers in those areas.

But in his letter to the Romans, he simply said “To all who are in Rome”.

 

It wouldn't matter, as even if Paul only had in mind members of the church at Rome, not every member would be converted, the same as for the other churches.  The same Gospel which converts unbelievers converts believers.  The Gospel is concerning Jesus Christ, the revelation of God.  When we believe the Gospel, we are reconciled to God.  If we are an unbeliever, either because we haven't believed before, or because we've fallen away, then the message of Paul, as an ambassador of Christ, pleading in Christ's behalf is, "Be reconciled to God."  Actually, the full idea is, "God is already reconciled to you!  He loves you so much He gave His Son for you!  Now you be reconciled to God."

You are correct in asserting there is a corporate element to the Gospel, and even in emphasizing that.  We could call this the objective Gospel; that which is Good News regardless of what we ourselves think or do.  This is the Gospel, and good things result from this, not the least of which is that we are alive.  To the death of Christ, we owe even our earthly lives.

This is all true, but "unless you believe, you will likewise perish". (Luke 13:3).  There is an imperative in Scripture that we believe in Christ, which is all over the place.  This last one just popped into my head, but they are all over the place (and notice this one isn't John).

Our problem with God involves our mind.  We need to receive the mind of Christ.  This involves our believing the Gospel.  We have to believe to be converted, or, reconciled, as reconciliation is believing; that's when the magic happens.

[Samie]

It wouldn't matter, as even if Paul only had in mind members of the church at Rome, not every member would be converted, the same as for the other churches.  The same Gospel which converts unbelievers converts believers.  The Gospel is concerning Jesus Christ, the revelation of God.  When we believe the Gospel, we are reconciled to God.  If we are an unbeliever, either because we haven't believed before, or because we've fallen away, then the message of Paul, as an ambassador of Christ, pleading in Christ's behalf is, "Be reconciled to God."  Actually, the full idea is, "God is already reconciled to you!  He loves you so much He gave His Son for you!  Now you be reconciled to God."

You are correct in asserting there is a corporate element to the Gospel, and even in emphasizing that.  We could call this the objective Gospel; that which is Good News regardless of what we ourselves think or do.  This is the Gospel, and good things result from this, not the least of which is that we are alive.  To the death of Christ, we owe even our earthly lives.

This is all true, but "unless you believe, you will likewise perish". (Luke 13:3).  There is an imperative in Scripture that we believe in Christ, which is all over the place.  This last one just popped into my head, but they are all over the place (and notice this one isn't John).

Our problem with God involves our mind.  We need to receive the mind of Christ.  This involves our believing the Gospel.  We have to believe to be converted, or, reconciled, as reconciliation is believing; that's when the magic happens.

You are straying away from the issue of to whom Paul addressed his letter. It is to "all who are in Rome". And that destroys your whole proposition.

[Samie]

Paul addressed his letter to "all who are in Rome". Not "all who are in Rome" had known Christ, and so "all who are in Rome" represents believers and non-believers alike, yet Paul said to

"all who are in Rome" that they are beloved of God, for God so loved the world, and that includes every one.

"all who are in Rome" they are saints, or holy, for we had been made holy through the death of our Lord.

"all who are in Rome" that "all were justified freely" and that includes every one.

"all who are in Rome" that they were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.

"all who are in Rome" that they have received that reconciliation.

"all who are in Rome" that they have been given faith.

"all who are in Rome" that they are members of the body of Christ.

And all of the above are part of the gospel that Paul preached, the gospel of Christ, the gospel that Jesus wanted preached to all the world before He comes again.

 

[pnattmbtc]

You are straying away from the issue of to whom Paul addressed his letter. It is to "all who are in Rome". And that destroys your whole proposition.

 

This is disappointing Samie.  Either you didn't read what I wrote, or you didn't understand it, as your comment here is not acknowledging, or noticing, that I did indeed address this point, and I addressed it in detail.  So please reread my post, and look for how and where it is addressing your concerns, and either comment on that or ask questions on that.  It takes time to write out these posts, and is disappointing when you write comments that seem to indicate you didn't even read the post.

[pnattmbtc]

Paul addressed his letter to "all who are in Rome". Not "all who are in Rome" had known Christ, and so "all who are in Rome" represents believers and non-believers alike, yet Paul said to

 

"all who are in Rome" that they are beloved of God, for God so loved the world, and that includes every one.

"all who are in Rome" they are saints, or holy, for we had been made holy through the death of our Lord.

"all who are in Rome" that "all were justified freely" and that includes every one.

"all who are in Rome" that they were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.

"all who are in Rome" that they have received that reconciliation.

"all who are in Rome" that they have been given faith.

"all who are in Rome" that they are members of the body of Christ.

And all of the above are part of the gospel that Paul preached, the gospel of Christ, the gospel that Jesus wanted preached to all the world before He comes again.

I addressed this in detail in my post.  Please reread it.  Especially see if you understand why I wrote "It wouldn't matter", and the logic behind this point, which I explained in detail.  Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this logic, or comment on the argument presented.  Please don't just repeat what you previously said without regard to what I wrote.  I understood your point, and I addressed it.

However, I will repeat a point that you haven't acknowledged, I don't think, which is that Paul in Corinthians said that our message as Christ's ambassadors, as Christ pleading through us is, "be reconciled to God."  Now if Paul's hearers were already reconciled to God, how could this be our message as Christ's ambassadors? 

[Samie]

This is disappointing Samie.  Either you didn't read what I wrote, or you didn't understand it, as your comment here is not acknowledging, or noticing, that I did indeed address this point, and I addressed it in detail.  So please reread my post, and look for how and where it is addressing your concerns, and either comment on that or ask questions on that.  It takes time to write out these posts, and is disappointing when you write comments that seem to indicate you didn't even read the post.

I'm sorry if you felt disappointed but I did read your post and it insisted that Paul was writing to all the believers in Rome.  Reason why I had to point out that Paul's letter to the Romans was addressed to "all who are in Rome" as he EXPLICITLY mentioned in Rom 1:7.  If the letter-writer himself says he was addressing his letter to "all who are in Rome" why can't you simply believe it?  Because it goes against your proposition?

So, who are those "all who are in Rome"? I guess, believers and unbelievers alike? That's the only proper answer to that, I guess.  And therefore, Paul was not only addressing the believers as you said, but also non-believers.  That he was addressing the non-believers as well can be gleaned from what he said that he was ready to preach the gospel to them also (Rom 1:15), which indicates he had not yet preached the gospel to them before.  He also mentioned that he wants to preach to places where Christ's name is not yet mentioned, and that's the reason why he wants to go to Rome (Rom 15:20-24).  Notice these words of the apostle:

KJV Romans 15:8-12   8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:  9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.  10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.  11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.  12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

I guess I have made my point clear.

[pnattmbtc]

I'm sorry if you felt disappointed but I did read your post and it insisted that Paul was writing to all the believers in Rome.  Reason why I had to point out that Paul's letter to the Romans was addressed to "all who are in Rome" as he EXPLICITLY mentioned in Rom 1:7.  If the letter-writer himself says he was addressing his letter to "all who are in Rome" why can't you simply believe it?  Because it goes against your proposition?

So, who are those "all who are in Rome"? I guess, believers and unbelievers alike? That's the only proper answer to that, I guess.  And therefore, Paul was not only addressing the believers as you said, but also non-believers.  That he was addressing the non-believers as well can be gleaned from what he said that he was ready to preach the gospel to them also (Rom 1:15), which indicates he had not yet preached the gospel to them before.  He also mentioned that he wants to preach to places where Christ's name is not yet mentioned, and that's the reason why he wants to go to Rome (Rom 15:20-24).  Notice these words of the apostle:

KJV Romans 15:8-12   8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:  9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.  10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.  11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.  12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

I guess I have made my point clear.

I don't know what else to do but repeat what I said before.  Everything you said I covered in what I wrote, and you still haven't addressed my point.

It wouldn't matter, as even if Paul only had in mind members of the church at Rome, not every member would be converted, the same as for the other churches.  The same Gospel which converts unbelievers converts believers.  The Gospel is concerning Jesus Christ, the revelation of God.  When we believe the Gospel, we are reconciled to God.  If we are an unbeliever, either because we haven't believed before, or because we've fallen away, then the message of Paul, as an ambassador of Christ, pleading in Christ's behalf is, "Be reconciled to God."  Actually, the full idea is, "God is already reconciled to you!  He loves you so much He gave His Son for you!  Now you be reconciled to God."

You are correct in asserting there is a corporate element to the Gospel, and even in emphasizing that.  We could call this the objective Gospel; that which is Good News regardless of what we ourselves think or do.  This is the Gospel, and good things result from this, not the least of which is that we are alive.  To the death of Christ, we owe even our earthly lives.

This is all true, but "unless you believe, you will likewise perish". (Luke 13:3).  There is an imperative in Scripture that we believe in Christ, which is all over the place.  This last one just popped into my head, but they are all over the place (and notice this one isn't John).

Our problem with God involves our mind.  We need to receive the mind of Christ.  This involves our believing the Gospel.  We have to believe to be converted, or, reconciled, as reconciliation is believing; that's when the magic happens.

[Samie]

Hi Pnatt;

Your last post is clear message to me you are not yet in a position to address the issue of "all who are in Rome". When you are ready, just post it. I'll just be waiting for it. 

As to the other issues you mentioned in your explanation, I have for a long time addressed all of them, here and in other threads.

[pnattmbtc]

Your last post is clear message to me you are not yet in a position to address the issue of "all who are in Rome". When you are ready, just post it. I'll just be waiting for it. 

This reminds me of the inquisition, where Jerome, or Huss, I get them confused, was asked to recant, and he said he could not recant a position he didn't hold.  I addressed the issue you raised!  I addressed it in detail, and I repeated it for your benefit.  But still you are either not reading what I wrote, or not understanding it.  If the former, please do read what I wrote.  If the latter, please ask some question.

Please do not say something like I didn't address the issue you raised when I did; that's not very nice.  If you have some question, just ask it.

Regarding the other issues:

1.Galatians 3:2.  This says we receive the Holy Spirit by faith.  You've never commented on this, although I've mentioned this verse over half a dozen times.

2. Romans 10.  This says if we believe with the heart we are justified.  I don't recall you're every having responded to this.

3.John 1:12.  This says if we believe we become children of God.  You did respond to this one by saying you hope the original texts were accurate, something like that, and that Revelation was written after John or 1 John was.  This is hardly an adequate response.  At least you are recognizing there is a problem with what you believe and what John wrote, but rather than simply changing your mind to conform with John, you do something else; I'm not sure what you're doing.

4.2 Cor. 5:20.  Here you are simply disagreeing with what Paul said, and wishing he said something different which agrees with you.  Why not agree with Paul instead?

[pnattmbtc]

Something I've asked you to do before, I decided to ask again, but in a separate post, so there's only one idea to consider.  Please write out what it is you think God is trying to accomplish.  Also, write out what you think the problem is that God is trying to fix.  Finally, as I've explained my point of view regarding this on many occasions, briefly summarize what you think my position is, as I'd like to make sure that you are disagreeing with something I have actually said.

[Samie]

This reminds me of the inquisition, where Jerome, or Huss, I get them confused, was asked to recant, and he said he could not recant a position he didn't hold.  I addressed the issue you raised!  I addressed it in detail, and I repeated it for your benefit.  But still you are either not reading what I wrote, or not understanding it.  If the former, please do read what I wrote.  If the latter, please ask some question.

Please do not say something like I didn't address the issue you raised when I did; that's not very nice.  If you have some question, just ask it.

Regarding the other issues:

1.Galatians 3:2.  This says we receive the Holy Spirit by faith.  You've never commented on this, although I've mentioned this verse over half a dozen times.

2. Romans 10.  This says if we believe with the heart we are justified.  I don't recall you're every having responded to this.

3.John 1:12.  This says if we believe we become children of God.  You did respond to this one by saying you hope the original texts were accurate, something like that, and that Revelation was written after John or 1 John was.  This is hardly an adequate response.  At least you are recognizing there is a problem with what you believe and what John wrote, but rather than simply changing your mind to conform with John, you do something else; I'm not sure what you're doing.

4.2 Cor. 5:20.  Here you are simply disagreeing with what Paul said, and wishing he said something different which agrees with you.  Why not agree with Paul instead?

I think it's you who doesn't agree with Paul.  He EXPLICITLY said "we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son" and you simply won't believe him.  You cite his other letter to the church of God at Corinth where he admonished them "be ye reconciled to God", as proof we were not yet reconciled.  So in the process, you are setting up Paul against himself: you are setting his statement in Rom 5:10 against his statement in 2 Cor 5:20.  I have explained the harmony of these verses for so many times already.  So why was Paul admonishing the church of God at Corinth to be reconciled to God?  Are those in the church of God at Corinth not yet reconciled to God?

Why not agree with Paul instead, brother, that we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son?

Regarding, 1 John 1:9 and John 1:12, I have responded to that already.  You say you are not sure of what I am doing. That's your problem not mine.  But I have helped you with that problem by explaining how and why my position is not like yours.

As to Gal 3:2, I don't recall having anything against it. In fact, I have for so many times said that we are being led by the Holy Spirit as children of God.  As to receiving the Holy Spirit, it's just like receiving eternal life. We have eternal life now, but we will receive it yet when Jesus comes again and then we will be with the Lord forever.  In like manner, we have the Holy Spirit now, but we still will receive the HS by faith and then that reception of the HS will be manifested in our lives. Just like in Acts. There was outward manifestation when the HS was received.

[pnattmbtc]

I think it's you who doesn't agree with Paul.  He EXPLICITLY said "we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son" and you simply won't believe him.  

This isn't fair or accurate.  I do believe what Paul said.  My disagreement is with you.  I don't think you agree with what Paul said because you have a different idea as to what the word "reconcile" means.  I'm not sure what you think it means.  I think I've asked you before, but you haven't answered that I recall.  If you have, please repeat what you think it means.

What I think it means is what the dictionary says, which I've cited several times, and will do so again for your conveience:

reconcile: restore friendly relations between

Romans 5:1 says, "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God."  I quoted from Waggoner on this.  For your convenience, I'll do so again.

What is peace? Most people have the idea that it is a sort of ecstatic feeling. They think that peace with God means an indescribable heavenly feeling; and so they always look for that imaginary feeling as evidence that they are accepted with God. But peace with God means the same thing that it means with men: it means simply the absence of war. As sinners we are enemies of God. He is not our enemy, but we are his enemies. He is not fighting against us, but we are fighting against him. How then may we have peace with him? Simply by ceasing to fight, and laying down our arms. We may have peace whenever we are ready to stop fighting. 

I quoted more last time, but I'll just quote this much this time.  Notice the last sentence: "We may have peace whenever we are ready to stop fighting."  Now how can we stop fighting if we are not even alive?

Your idea doesn't make any gramatical sense.

You cite his other letter to the church of God at Corinth where he admonished them "be ye reconciled to God", as proof we were not yet reconciled.  

That's not what he did.  I explained this in the other thread, but you either didn't read what Paul said, or didn't pay attention to what you were reading, or something, but you don't have this correct.

So in the process, you are setting up Paul against himself: you are setting his statement in Rom 5:10 against his statement in 2 Cor 5:20.  I have explained the harmony of these verses for so many times already.  So why was Paul admonishing the church of God at Corinth to be reconciled to God?  

He wasn't.

Are those in the church of God at Corinth not yet reconciled to God?

No, you need to read what Paul said.

Why not agree with Paul instead, brother, that we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son?

You need to read what Paul actually said.

Regarding, 1 John 1:9 and John 1:12, I have responded to that already.  You say you are not sure of what I am doing. That's your problem not mine.  But I have helped you with that problem by explaining how and why my position is not like yours.

You responded that you don't agree with these texts, that God the Father and God the Son corrected John.  I think it's more likely that Samie needs correcting than John.  You compared the correction to John to that of Peter in Acts, but what happened to Peter was simply an event in his life which is recorded for us, whereas John wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  I wonder how you think inspiration works.  The Holy Spirit inspired John to write, "but as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become sons of God", and then the Holy Spirit inspired John later in Revelation to correct Himself?  How does this work?

As to Gal 3:2, I don't recall having anything against it. In fact, I have for so many times said that we are being led by the Holy Spirit as children of God.  As to receiving the Holy Spirit, it's just like receiving eternal life. We have eternal life now, but we will receive it yet when Jesus comes again and then we will be with the Lord forever.  In like manner, we have the Holy Spirit now, but we still will receive the HS by faith and then that reception of the HS will be manifested in our lives. Just like in Acts. There was outward manifestation when the HS was received.

You haven't addressed the problem.  The problem is that you have the idea that we cannot exercise faith except as fruit of the Holy Spirit, but we cannot receive the Holy Spirit in the first place unless we have faith.  So if we cannot have faith except by the Holy Spirit, and we cannot have the Holy Spirit except by having faith, we cannot have either.  There is a boot strapping problem here.

However, if we accept the non-archaic translations here:

 

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,

we don't have this problem.  As you have things, there's a chicken/egg problem.

Edited October 8, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[Samie]

Samie: I think it's you who doesn't agree with Paul.  He EXPLICITLY said "we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son" and you simply won't believe him.  

Pnatt: This isn't fair or accurate.  I do believe what Paul said. 

OK. That's good. So now you believe that we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son. And that ends this discussion.

[pnattmbtc]

OK. That's good. So now you believe that we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son. And that ends this discussion.

This is puerile.  Disappointing.  I was hoping for a serious response.

[JoeMo]

This is puerile.  Disappointing.  I was hoping for a serious response.

I think it's awesome!  You're one of the first people on CA who has "outlasted" Samie!  Congratulations!

BTW - I agree with your position.

[pnattmbtc]

I think it's awesome!  You're one of the first people on CA who has "outlasted" Samie!  Congratulations!

BTW - I agree with your position.

:)

[Samie]

I think it's awesome!  You're one of the first people on CA who has "outlasted" Samie!  Congratulations!

BTW - I agree with your position.

Good. You both agree that we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.  Is there anything more to discuss?

[pnattmbtc]

Good. You both agree that we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.  Is there anything more to discuss?

How about why John, as an inspired writer, would need to be corrected (as opposed to Samie).  I'm still puzzled by this one.

[Samie]

How about why John, as an inspired writer, would need to be corrected (as opposed to Samie).  I'm still puzzled by this one.

Then don't be. I have pointed out in an earlier post that John said no man has seen God at anytime.

^NKJ John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

^NKJ 1 John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us.

Yet the prophet Isaiah said he has seen God:

^NKJ Isaiah 6:1, 5 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple.  . . .  So I said: "Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, The LORD of hosts."

And I stand corrected, brother.  Just show me from Scriptures why or how, not just by your very, very sound arguments, that I am in error.  Problem is, you want me to follow your style: instead of Scriptures, it is sound arguments that can convince you.

[pnattmbtc]

How about why John, as an inspired writer, would need to be corrected (as opposed to Samie).  I'm still puzzled by this one.

Then don't be. I have pointed out in an earlier post that John said no man has seen God at anytime.

NKJ John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

NKJ 1 John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us.

Yet the prophet Isaiah said he has seen God:

NKJ Isaiah 6:1, 5 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple.  . . .  So I said: "Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; Formy eyes have seen the King, The LORD of hosts."

What's your point here?

And I stand corrected, brother.  

How so?  Correct how?

Just show me from Scriptures why or how, not just by your very, very sound arguments, that I am in error.  

These go hand in hand.  Logic is logic, regardless of if Scripture is used or not.  And I'm using Scripture, because I thought that was what you wanted.

Problem is, you want me to follow your style: instead of Scriptures, it is sound arguments that can convince you.  

And then you make up stuff like this.  This is simply a gratuitous statement with no evidence.  It's worth nothing.  If I've done something wrong, you should be able to quote something I said as evidence to support your point of view, but you haven't done so hear, so your statement is worthless.

If we wish to make a case that I want you to "follow my style instead of Scripture", then quote some argument I've made where I'm doing this.

I don't understand your post here from the standpoint of the question I raised, which is when you don't agree with a Scripture text, you just set aside the inspired write as needing correction.  I don't understand why you think John, and not Samie, needs correction.  I don't understand how anyone, me, someone else, or God, could convince you of error if, when you presented with evidence which disagrees with how you think, rather than adjust how you think, you set aside the inspired writer as needing correction.

I think this is a very dangerous position to take.

[Samie]

 

What's your point here?

How so?  Correct how?

These go hand in hand.  Logic is logic, regardless of if Scripture is used or not.  And I'm using Scripture, because I thought that was what you wanted.

And then you make up stuff like this.  This is simply a gratuitous statement with no evidence.  It's worth nothing.  If I've done something wrong, you should be able to quote something I said as evidence to support your point of view, but you haven't done so hear, so your statement is worthless.

If we wish to make a case that I want you to "follow my style instead of Scripture", then quote some argument I've made where I'm doing this.

I don't understand your post here from the standpoint of the question I raised, which is when you don't agree with a Scripture text, you just set aside the inspired write as needing correction.  I don't understand why you think John, and not Samie, needs correction.  I don't understand how anyone, me, someone else, or God, could convince you of error if, when you presented with evidence which disagrees with how you think, rather than adjust how you think, you set aside the inspired writer as needing correction.

I think this is a very dangerous position to take.

What is dangerous is the position that it is sound arguments that can convince instead of Scriptures.

  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]

What is dangerous is the position that it is sound arguments that can convince instead of Scriptures.

If you wrote anything other than this, I couldn't read it, so you will need to post it again.

What I wrote is dangerous was your setting aside John.  You wrote this:

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. 

In reference to these texts:

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.

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.

 

Rather than recognize that Samie needs correction, you asserted than John needed correction.  John is an inspired writer, but what is Samie?  This is what I'm saying is dangerous.

You are setting your opinion above John's.  Why do you think it is OK to set John aside?

 

[Samie]

If you wrote anything other than this, I couldn't read it, so you will need to post it again.

What I wrote is dangerous was your setting aside John.  You wrote this:

In reference to these texts:

Rather than recognize that Samie needs correction, you asserted than John needed correction.  John is an inspired writer, but what is Samie?  This is what I'm saying is dangerous.

You are setting your opinion above John's.  Why do you think it is OK to set John aside?

That's your opinion.

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]

If you wrote anything other than this, I couldn't read it, so you will need to post it again.

What I wrote is dangerous was your setting aside John.  You wrote this:

In reference to these texts:

Rather than recognize that Samie needs correction, you asserted than John needed correction.  John is an inspired writer, but what is Samie?  This is what I'm saying is dangerous.

You are setting your opinion above John's.  Why do you think it is OK to set John aside?

Samie:That's your opinion.

It's not my opinion.  It's something you did.  You did it again in this very post!  You set John aside again just like you did before.  Right here:

Samie: I was pointing out that what had been revealed to Him in Revelation is not in synch with his previous statements. 

Who inspired John?  Wasn't it the Holy Spirit?  Why would the Holy Spirit inspire John to write something which would need to be corrected?  I don't understand why you think this is a reasonable position to take.

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.

What's your fault is your idea that John needed to be corrected.  You recognize that your position disagrees with what John wrote in John and 1 John, but rather than correct your position, you take the position that John needed to be corrected!

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. 

I'm agreeing with everything John wrote!  I'm taking the position that John, 1 John and Revelation were all inspired by the Holy Spirit, and He did not need to correct Himself in any of these places.  I am suggesting an interpretation which does not pit John or 1 John against Revelation.  My position is that these are in harmony.

Do you find it wrong when you are corrected? I don't.

Have you ever been corrected?  Can you give an example of this?  Have you changed your mind regarding any position you have posted?  I'm doubting that you have, because here rather than admit error, you accuse the Scriptures of being in error.

So why complain if the Father and the Son corrected John?

I'm complaining that you would set yourself up as an arbiter of which inspired writers need to be corrected.  Again, why would you think that the Holy Spirit would inspire John to write something which would later need to be correct?  Please answer this.

And there is no record that John complained when he was corrected.

You mean the Holy Spirit didn't complain, since the Holy Spirit inspired John.  Yes, there is no record that the Holy Spirit complained when he was corrected by Samie.

You are the one complaining because you think John was always correct and therefore needed no correction.

I believe the Holy Spirit inspired John, and 1 John, and does not need to be corrected by Samie.

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?

What are you trying to say?  Do you believe that John was not inspired?  Or 1 John?  But Revelation was? 

[Samie]

 

It's not my opinion.  It's something you did.  You did it again in this very post!  You set John aside again just like you did before.  Right here:

Who inspired John?  Wasn't it the Holy Spirit?  Why would the Holy Spirit inspire John to write something which would need to be corrected?  I don't understand why you think this is a reasonable position to take.

What's your fault is your idea that John needed to be corrected.  You recognize that your position disagrees with what John wrote in John and 1 John, but rather than correct your position, you take the position that John needed to be corrected!

I'm agreeing with everything John wrote!  I'm taking the position that John, 1 John and Revelation were all inspired by the Holy Spirit, and He did not need to correct Himself in any of these places.  I am suggesting an interpretation which does not pit John or 1 John against Revelation.  My position is that these are in harmony.

Have you ever been corrected?  Can you give an example of this?  Have you changed your mind regarding any position you have posted?  I'm doubting that you have, because here rather than admit error, you accuse the Scriptures of being in error.

I'm complaining that you would set yourself up as an arbiter of which inspired writers need to be corrected.  Again, why would you think that the Holy Spirit would inspire John to write something which would later need to be correct?  Please answer this.

You mean the Holy Spirit didn't complain, since the Holy Spirit inspired John.  Yes, there is no record that the Holy Spirit complained when he was corrected by Samie.

I believe the Holy Spirit inspired John, and 1 John, and does not need to be corrected by Samie.

What are you trying to say?  Do you believe that John was not inspired?  Or 1 John?  But Revelation was? 

That's what you want me to say. Again, it's the Father and the Son Who corrected John not me. That he needed correction is evident when he wrote no man has seen God at anytime because the prophet Isaiah himself said he has seen God with his own eyes. But you keep mum in this regard because you have nowhere to go.  Do you think the HS 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.