Featured The Simplicity of the Gospel

Non-stop off topic deflection on display, Why did Paul speak as to men of flesh if men of flesh could not understand spiritual milk.

 

Total Spiritual Inability = false doctrine
Limited Spiritual Ability = true doctrine 1 Corinthians 3:1-3

Unconditional Election = false doctrine
Election for Salvation based on our faith = true doctrine 2 Thessalonians 2:13

Limited Atonement = false doctrine
Reconciliation Available for All = true doctrine 1 John 2:2

Irresistible Grace = false doctrine
Resistible Grace = true doctrine Matthew 23:13

Possible Loss of Salvation = false doctrine
Once Saved, Always Saved = true doctrine. John 3:16

Each of these true doctrines must be included in preaching the gospel, and all these false doctrines must be exposed as false.

Turning over our lives to God (not my way but Your way) and accepting the persecution that comes with proclaiming the name of Jesus is a much higher bar that "believing on Jesus." Sacrificial love and devotion to Christ is much more.

 

I already answered this. He did not say they could not understand spiritual milk, nor were they men of the flesh. They were Christians who had not yet matured to get to the deeper riches of truth.

 

And the broken record continues. Van do you have anything to contribute against the arguments against you?

 

Note the reguritation of the same avoidance, the same deflection. Why did Paul speak "as to men of flesh?" Does this say they were men of flesh. Nope. But look at the dodgy answer - they were not men of flesh. Deflection. Why did Paul speak "as to men of flesh" using spiritual milk, if men of flesh could not understand spiritual milk. Did you see that answered? Nope.

 

Note the assertion actual arguments against the view presented by me have been made. See post #43 for an example of these so called "arguments."

 

Emoticons simply deflect from actually answering the question,

 

Who said men of flesh cannot understand spiritual milk?

 

The problem I have with this teaching is that it ignores verses like Hebrews 6:1-2. Hebrews 6 is very useful in that it provides the elementary principles of Christ contrasted against deeper things.

Hebrews 6:1-2
Therefore leaving the [a]elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to [c]maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.

Another problem is that we have the Word of God written down for us in the New Testament explaining to us the teachings of the apostles. If we preach the elementary things we must connect them to a need to delve deeper into the depth and breadth of apostolic teaching in obedience to all they teach (I include the Gospels as apostolic teaching). If Paul required it of his flocks to be obedient and mature, we must be careful to obey this.

I think Paul Davis has his heart in the right place, just not his theology.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, post #49 by an advocate of Calvinism, now either claims, total spiritual inability is not a doctrine of Calvinism, or "men of flesh" are not unregenerate lost people.

In any case, the question was once again not answered,

 

The contrast of spiritual milk, the gospel and other elementary teachings, with spiritual solid food (meat) which can only be understood with the aid of our indwelt Holy Spirit seems to be addressed in Hebrews 6:1-2,

 

paul said that they were acting acting as IF they were of the flesh, but his point to them was since now in the Spirit, man up and now grow up!

 

That group being addressed in Hebrews were mere professors of Jesus, not actually were saved!

 

Nonsense, Paul spoke "as to men of flesh" and all the Calvinist advocates sidestep this reality. Why did Paul speak "as to men of flesh" using spiritual milk, if "men of flesh" could not understand spiritual milk? The reason no one actually answers the question is that "total spiritual inability" is bogus doctrine.

 

Yet another off topic post, changing the subject. The fact that included in "milk" are the fundamental spiritual things of the gospel is the topic.

 

They were babes in Christ, not receiving the deeper things of God, not unsaved men!

 

Milk and solid meat can ONLY be received by saved persons!

 

Why did Paul speak as to men of flesh, if men of flesh could not understand? Simple question, why not answer it.

 

I have. many times, paul was speaking there to babes in Christ, who were acting as if still unsaved!