What Do You Learn from Debate?

[illini1959]

This is another great point, not because it is true, but because it is mostly misunderstood.

The perceived reality of men, is far from the actual reality of God. In this way, what is "actual" is likely not, and what is in or out of context, likely is in error.

First, the only reality that is "actual" is God's reality. On the contrary, the world and everything in it...is "created" and even a mere manifest "image."

As for "context" regarding Christ's words...is there any word of scripture that is not His in context? None. Therefore, "context" here is not applicable. Thus, His words, every one, is spirit and life. "Context" then...pertains only to the dealings of men.

Which would make sense since I'm a (human). Scripture and the things of God are spiritually discerned, that's true. But every believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and it's He who teaches:

John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

But that is just some of the actual reality regarding the scriptures. There is also the fact that "all language", including the scriptures, has been encrypted...or as it is stated in the scriptures: "confounded" and therefore "must be discerned spiritually." And this is true, because in the world there are both good and evil men who have access to the same scriptures.

So...do not be surprised if every word from God must be interpreted by the Spirit. This is the mystery of tongues.

1 Cor 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Unsaved people, the natural person, doesn't understand because they are spiritually discerned and they don't have the Spirit. Believers do have the Spirit.

I disagree with your last statement. Believers are fully capable of discerning God's word, again, we have the Spirit.

Tongues isn't God talking to us, it's us talking to God. "For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God..." 1 Cor 14:2

Paul had this to say about tongues - "Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue." 1 Cor 14:19

Don't get me wrong...I'm not against tongues used properly according to scripture. Some say the sign gifts are dead, I don't think that - unless I learn otherwise. I'll be learning until the Perfect comes.

 

[illini1959]

Whew! 70 mph wind gusts and quarter sized hail here!

Stay safe!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Which would make sense since I'm a (human). Scripture and the things of God are spiritually discerned, that's true. But every believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and it's He who teaches:

John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.



1 Cor 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Unsaved people, the natural person, doesn't understand because they are spiritually discerned and they don't have the Spirit. Believers do have the Spirit.

I disagree with your last statement. Believers are fully capable of discerning God's word, again, we have the Spirit.

Tongues isn't God talking to us, it's us talking to God. "For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God..." 1 Cor 14:2

Paul had this to say about tongues - "Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue." 1 Cor 14:19

Don't get me wrong...I'm not against tongues used properly according to scripture. Some say the sign gifts are dead, I don't think that - unless I learn otherwise. I'll be learning until the Perfect comes.

So the natural man (unsaved by your definition) cannot understand as you do, what murder means?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Illini, I have to go but thank you for talking with me.

 

[CoreIssue]

Yes, and I will continue to be critical with one who does not know a quote of scripture from "a quote of scripture."

But saying that what you say is based on scripture, does not necessarily mean it is based on scripture...especially when you come off like Nicodemus, to whom Christ answered, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?" John 3:10 My reaction to you is the same as Jesus' to Nicodemus, because, you like him, have studied much, but know very little.

You who never quote a single Scripture.

 

[illini1959]

stunnedbygrace said: ↑
Why does Paul say the letter kills?

2 Cor 3:5-6 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Paul here is distinguishing between the new covenant (Christ) and the law. The letter is the "law".
vs 7 "But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones..."

The law didn't save anyone. The law made people aware they were sinners - Romans 3:20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

The law (letter) 'kills' because the law alone - without the Spirit - doesn't regenerate anyone - the indwelling of the Spirit does.

2 cor 6
Also, the law is spiritual and good.

Romans 7 is Paul using himself as an example of the struggle between our old (sin) nature and our new nature in Christ. I can't copy the whole chapter, but if you want to read the chapter in it's entirety that might help.

Here's the verse - Romans 7:12 - So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
The commandment is the 10th - You shall not covet...

So we have to back up a bit -

Romans 7:4-6 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. <note how this corresponds with 2 Cor 3>

vs 7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

He's taking responsibility for the sin in his life, noting that if not for the law, he wouldn't have know sin - and his need for Christ.

So, the law is holy (it's God's law) and the commandment itself is holy, righteous and good. It's not 'the law's' fault Paul sinned.

Does that make sense?

 

[illini1959]

Illini, I have to go but thank you for talking with me.

Not to worry! I just posted again but take your time! Please feel free to message me :)

Stay safe!

 

[ScottA]

Which would make sense since I'm a (human). Scripture and the things of God are spiritually discerned, that's true. But every believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and it's He who teaches:

John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.



1 Cor 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Unsaved people, the natural person, doesn't understand because they are spiritually discerned and they don't have the Spirit. Believers do have the Spirit.

I disagree with your last statement. Believers are fully capable of discerning God's word, again, we have the Spirit.

Tongues isn't God talking to us, it's us talking to God. "For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God..." 1 Cor 14:2

Paul had this to say about tongues - "Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue." 1 Cor 14:19

Don't get me wrong...I'm not against tongues used properly according to scripture. Some say the sign gifts are dead, I don't think that - unless I learn otherwise. I'll be learning until the Perfect comes.

Beginning with "But every believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit...", you have not accounted for babes verses mature within the body, and the perfect timing of God and those who build in His service. That is an immense hole in the works of the Holy Spirit for our time, leaving some "capable" and some definitely not capable at any given time. So, no, that does not answer the circumstances as they truly are.

As for tongues, you correctly defined things with regard to men, but not to God. Just as the marriage between a man and a women is an image of Christ and the church, that which is manifest of tongues by men, among men, is a mere image of the greater spiritual interpretation of every word from God to men.

Press on.

 

[ScottA]

You who never quote a single Scripture.

Oh, that's precious!

Good thing I only gave a word and not a snake.

 

[marks]

As for "context" regarding Christ's words...is there any word of scripture that is not His in context? None. Therefore, "context" here is not applicable. Thus, His words, every one, is spirit and life. "Context" then...pertains only to the dealings of men.

That's a rather telling statement.

No concern for context. OK . . . the Bible as a vocabulary book, you can rearrange it's words however you like, claim divine . . . I'm sorry, you don't claim divine authority.

You only say you give no regard to context, and speak your own opinions (not prophetic, or speaking for God".

Much love!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

2 Cor 3:5-6 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Paul here is distinguishing between the new covenant (Christ) and the law. The letter is the "law".
vs 7 "But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones..."

The law didn't save anyone. The law made people aware they were sinners - Romans 3:20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

The law (letter) 'kills' because the law alone - without the Spirit - doesn't regenerate anyone - the indwelling of the Spirit does.



Romans 7 is Paul using himself as an example of the struggle between our old (sin) nature and our new nature in Christ. I can't copy the whole chapter, but if you want to read the chapter in it's entirety that might help.

Here's the verse - Romans 7:12 - So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
The commandment is the 10th - You shall not covet...

So we have to back up a bit -

Romans 7:4-6 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. <note how this corresponds with 2 Cor 3>

vs 7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

He's taking responsibility for the sin in his life, noting that if not for the law, he wouldn't have know sin - and his need for Christ.

So, the law is holy (it's God's law) and the commandment itself is holy, righteous and good. It's not 'the law's' fault Paul sinned.

Does that make sense?

Not sure if it makes sense or not...so, if I am just as a murderer because I murder in my heart, in spirit, even though I've never murdered physically, and it says no murderers will inherit Gods kingdom, does that refer to me, who is just as a murderer, or does it only refer to physical murder?

So you are saying the letter just means the law? Or does the letter mean an outward keeping but not an inward keeping, in other words, a hypocrite who does in secret what others do openly?

 

[CoreIssue]

Oh, that's precious!

Good thing I only gave a word and not a snake.

 

[ScottA]

That's a rather telling statement.

No concern for context. OK . . . the Bible as a vocabulary book, you can rearrange it's words however you like, claim divine . . . I'm sorry, you don't claim divine authority.

You only say you give no regard to context, and speak your own opinions (not prophetic, or speaking for God".

Much love!

How you got that nonsense out of a biblical clarification of proper use of context...well, yes, that is telling.

 

[CoreIssue]

How you got that nonsense out of a biblical clarification of proper use of context...well, yes, that is telling.

So word meaning in context mean nothing to you?

 

[ScottA]

So word meaning in context mean nothing to you?

No, it means that the context of God is often not the context of men, and vise versa.

In other words, if we were discussing something in the context of men's actions among each other, then the context is what is common among men. But the moment the matter becomes a matter of God's dealings with men, then the context is all His...whom is without the context according to men, for unlike men, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (biblical quotes included...in case you missed it).

 

[CoreIssue]

No, it means that the context of God is often not the context of men, and vise versa.

In other words, if we were discussing something in the context of men's actions among each other, then the context is what is common among men. But the moment the matter becomes a matter of God's dealings with men, then the context is all His...whom is without the context according to men, for unlike men, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (biblical quotes included...in case you missed it).

And how do you know the context of God?

 

[SkyWriting]

I saw this question and thought it was a good one to ask. What is the purpose of debate? What have you learned personally from debating with other Christians? What is your favorite part about debating? What is your least favorite part about debating? I guess personally I like to read the discussion at times. I don't like what feels like arguing, which I guess is debating.

I have a couple of contraversial points, and I count on the haters to do thorough research and blast me with it so that I can validate my conclusions. If I am wrong, I like to know why. If I am "right" then they use emotional arguments and mention Hitler as their last resort. Sometimes anyway.

 

[SkyWriting]

And how do you know the context of God?

Read more scripture. It is a reflection of the Holy Spirit.

 

[ScottA]

And how do you know the context of God?

I know His voice.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I have a couple of contraversial points, and I count on the haters to do thorough research and blast me with it so that I can validate my conclusions. If I am wrong, I like to know why. If I am "right" then they use emotional arguments and mention Hitler as their last resort. Sometimes anyway.

By the 6th word of this very post you may have created controversy...