Calvinism and how to discuss it without debate

Of course there is a distinction between the lost and the saved! That is not the issue. But according to Paul, he spoke to immature Christians as to men of flesh. Therefore, men of flesh can understand spiritual milk. There is no rational alternative view.

 

I disagree. The natural man does not yet understand the gospel, so excludes understanding the milk of the word.

 

Why did Paul speak to them as to men of flesh using spiritual milk if men of flesh were unable to understand and respond to it?

 

They were acting as natural men.
They behaving like men of the flesh, which was out of character for a Christian

 

But if men of flesh cannot understand spiritual milk, Paul would not have spoken using milk as to men of flesh. Total Spiritual Inability is unbiblical

 

Yes there is a rational alternative. Paul speaks the same spiritual “milk” to all men because Paul has no way to know which heart is which type of soil, but the “seed“ of the word will only grow to fruition in the heart that the Holy Spirit has transformed into “good soil”. The Gospel is preached to all, but it is only effective for some. It is the CHOICE of God that makes the difference.

That is an alternative. That alternative is rational. You are free to interpret the truth of scripture differently and draw a different conclusion. However, it is disingenuous for either side to claim that there is no other rational interpretation. If there were no other rational interpretation, then there would not be such long standing disagreement on the matter.

 

Sir, you cannot support a falsehood with a falsehood. Paul knew some men of flesh and immature Christians could grow on spiritual milk. This is obvious.

You did not give a reference for the Holy Spirit "transforming" soil into good soil.

Your view is not rational, your view deletes the phrase "as to men of flesh" so it reads Paul could not speak to them as spiritual ones, but as to immature Christians. Not how it reads. To claim it does is irrational nonsense.

The choice of God that makes the difference is whether or not to credit the lost person's faith, as worthless as it may be, as righteousness.

The longstanding disagreement stems from a lack of verse by verse discussion. I make a point concerning 1 Corinthians 3:1, and the other side says "taint so" because it conflicts with Calvinism's interpretation of other verses. But note, there is no acknowledgement or agreement on 1 Cor. 3:1.

The rational view is both immature Christians and some men of flesh can understand spiritual milk, thus total spiritual inability is disproved by 1 Cor. 3:1.

 

@Van states, “The choice of God that makes the difference is whether or not to credit the lost person's faith, as worthless as it may be, as righteousness. ”

This is just not Scriptural.

The lost person’s faith cannot attain righteousness.
The lost person is dead in trespass, sin is their slave master, and the best a person who is lost may do is conform to the desires of the flesh.

They have no faith in which God can count as righteousness.

Saving Faith comes to a person from God, and those who would post other than that truth are not faithfully presenting Scripture.

 

@Van states,

"The longstanding disagreement stems from a lack of verse by verse discussion. I make a point concerning 1 Corinthians 3:1, and the other side says "taint so" because it conflicts with Calvinism's interpretation of other verses. But note, there is no acknowledgement or agreement on 1 Cor. 3:1.

The rational view is both immature Christians and some men of flesh can understand spiritual milk, thus total spiritual inability is disproved by 1 Cor. 3:1."
​

This not an accurate account of what has taken place.

Repeatedly those on the BB have shown how @Van has taken this verse in an inappropriate manner in desperate attempt to bolster his view. He has been shown from the context, from the original language use, from the grammar, and by the presentation of other Scriptures which soundly refute his presentation.

@Van continues to disregard and bluster just as he does in this statement. He uses terms such as "a lack of verse by verse discussion," "no acknowledgement or agreement," and "the rational view," as if such were completely discrediting that which others have presented.

He fails to actually state that he is the one who refuses acknowledgement and agreement, that he has not presented a verse by verse discussion, and that his view is irrational.