Originally posted by FreakyKBH The question of the quality of the source was reflective of your sophomoric comments, nothing else.
I have read a few of Darfius' posts, and, while I agree with those I have read, we have no relation of which I am aware.
What I have read of your nom de plume, however, suggests your sense of decorum is, shall we say, wanting.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH I did not intend to infer that they do.
I did intend to contend that an unbeliever cannot even begin to understand (and has already stated their intent to not believe), any passage of the NT (with the notable exceptions already mentioned).
Incidentally, all of the NT, for the believer, is understandable, and is not dependent even upon their IQ, or lack thereof.
All that is required on the believer's part, is for the status of being Spirit-filled.
I beg to differ. Many an atheist understands the New Testament with more depth then the average Christian. But while a basic understanding is required for belief - understanding does not entail belief. The atheist may understand the implications of the Gospel - yet simply not believe the Gospel.
However - there are some un-believers who fail to understand because they do not have the Spirit. We both can agree that the Spirit enlightens the mind with both understanding and belief - but this in itself sounds like nonsense to most unbelievers. A Spirit-filled believer will understand the basic Gospel message - but may have no notions of supralapsarianism or dispensationalism or even predestination. Only knowledge of the Gospel is required for salvation - this is saving faith.
The un-believer must understand the Gospel before he can believe it. And if he understand it - then he is one step away from salvation - that is the gift of faith - belief in the Gospel.
Originally posted by no1marauder This type of thing has happened before; a username that supposedly joined a few days ago starts posting in the forums showing a familiarity with other posters that they couldn't have gained in a short time. They are almost invariably shown to be second accounts in violation of site rules.
That's possible. But it would be difficult to prove.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH The question of the quality of the source was reflective of your sophomoric comments, nothing else.
I have read a few of Darfius' posts, and, while I agree with those I have read, we have no relation of which I am aware.
What I have read of your nom de plume, however, suggests your sense of decorum is, shall we say, wanting.
Originally posted by Coletti He's got you pegged! 😀
Of course, his Secret Decoder Ring not only gives him complete understanding of words on a piece of paper that others can't possess, but also gives him divine insight into the thoughts of strangers on internet chess sites. Hey, Darf, I got an OTB tourney on Saturday; will you tell me what my opponents are going to use as openings so I can study up?
Originally posted by Coletti I beg to differ.
No need, as we are in almost complete agreement. You may have missed out on some of the earlier posts.
However - there are some un-believers who fail to understand because they do not have the Spirit.
The unbeliever cannot have the Spirit, specifically because they are unbelievers. Upon their act of unmeritorious faith, the Spi ...[text shortened]... - then he is one step away from salvation - that is the gift of faith - belief in the Gospel.
That last part of your post is what I have been saying: the Gospel was recorded for the sake of the unbeliever. The remainder of the NT was writting for the sake of the believer, who has now been charged with growing in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
While I agree with the notion that the objective unbeliever will likely have a better understanding than the carnal Christian of the topical meaning of the NT epistles, only the Spirit-filled believer will be able to make sense of the meaning.
Please excuse the butchery of that last post.
I was attempting to add to your posts, and then comment at the end.
What I was trying to say, was that there is no need to beg, as we aren't really differing.
I have been in agreement with Darfius with respect that the Gospels were written for the unbeliever. The rest of the NT was written for the believer, as the power source for growing in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Our complete understanding of any passage of Scripture is not the prerequisite. Some understanding, yes.
08 Dec '05 05:42
RBHILL on Understanding
Back to Top