Its hard for most Christians to let go of the works based mind set . Unfortunately is ingrained in our minds before we are saved . Upon salvation, there is a realisation that they have been saved . But shortly after they get drawn back into the worlds way of' salvation' .Or worse still there not saved at all .
Flesh (Old Man) VS Spirit (New Man): Difficult Scriptures explained by Pastor Ralph Arnold
- Thread starter ChosenbyHim
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S
I know what he said, I listened to him say it. However his sole argument, that he has built on, is an English translation from the KJV of 1 John 1:3 is "and he cannot sin" He is assuming that this wording is to be contended for.
Most Scholars who understand the Greek interpret that as "cannot keep on sinning" which completely removes the premise of his thesis.
English Standard Version
No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Everyone who has been born of God does not sin, because His seed remains in him; he is not able to sin, because he has been born of God.
New International Version
No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.
King James Bible
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God
It is not that the KJV is wrong. It is a good translation. It was understandable at the time and still is in a proper classic, English sort of way to say " I cannot" when declaring what your moral values forbid you to do. "I am born again and the Spirit of God is in me and I cannot do that" meaning I cannot live that way anymore. Does that mean that you technically cannot not get drunk to day? You could physically do so but you refuse and say "I cannot do that"
Pas ho 'gegennemenos' ek tou Theou harmartian ou poiei hoti sperma autou en auto menei kai ou dunatai 'hamartanein' hoti ek tou Theou
Anyone 'having been born' of God sin not practices because seed of Him in him abides and not he is able 'to continue sinning' because of God.
Not being a Greek scholar myself, but leaning on the combined efforts of a vast majority of Greek scholars over this one 'brother Ralph Yankee Arnold' would be wiser in my opinion. I do not know if this brother has taken any classes in Greek. If he has he would have done well to explain why he is ignoring so many other English translations, and if he has not, then he is simply making a mistake in interpretation based on violating the one of the rules of hermeneutics, namely the rule under the heading "syntactic, Lexical and grammatical analysis of the original language."
Therefore since it is more likely that John's original intention was to communicate that "the one who is born again cannot keep on sinning" I find no grounds for the statement that your spirit cannot sin and that is the reason you get to go to heaven.
Bad hermeneutics.
Most Scholars who understand the Greek interpret that as "cannot keep on sinning" which completely removes the premise of his thesis.
English Standard Version
No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Everyone who has been born of God does not sin, because His seed remains in him; he is not able to sin, because he has been born of God.
New International Version
No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.
King James Bible
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God
It is not that the KJV is wrong. It is a good translation. It was understandable at the time and still is in a proper classic, English sort of way to say " I cannot" when declaring what your moral values forbid you to do. "I am born again and the Spirit of God is in me and I cannot do that" meaning I cannot live that way anymore. Does that mean that you technically cannot not get drunk to day? You could physically do so but you refuse and say "I cannot do that"
Pas ho 'gegennemenos' ek tou Theou harmartian ou poiei hoti sperma autou en auto menei kai ou dunatai 'hamartanein' hoti ek tou Theou
Anyone 'having been born' of God sin not practices because seed of Him in him abides and not he is able 'to continue sinning' because of God.
Not being a Greek scholar myself, but leaning on the combined efforts of a vast majority of Greek scholars over this one 'brother Ralph Yankee Arnold' would be wiser in my opinion. I do not know if this brother has taken any classes in Greek. If he has he would have done well to explain why he is ignoring so many other English translations, and if he has not, then he is simply making a mistake in interpretation based on violating the one of the rules of hermeneutics, namely the rule under the heading "syntactic, Lexical and grammatical analysis of the original language."
Therefore since it is more likely that John's original intention was to communicate that "the one who is born again cannot keep on sinning" I find no grounds for the statement that your spirit cannot sin and that is the reason you get to go to heaven.
Bad hermeneutics.
S
Yes, he is an ordained minister of the Assemblies of God. His book is used in many Bible Colleges of other denominations. They even use it at Dallas Theological University which is very much anti pentecostal/charismatic, but they know a good book on heremeneutics when they read one. 
As to his views on Arminianism; I don't know what Arminius taught that Fee agrees with or disagrees with.
I suppose you would be correct in saying that the Assemblies of God position on the possibility of a saint backsliding to the point of apostacy is more similar to the Arminianism view than the Calvinist view but I don't think it would be correct to say that the AOG position is that of Arminiansim.
Attempting to put everyone in a two boxes theologically is not how things really are. That is a faulty sort of tunnel vision people fall into that is unnecessary and rude to their fellows Christians.
If you want to know what the AOG position is on any particular common doctrine you can find good explanations with scriptures and interpretations from their link on their Statement of Faith and their link to their Position Papers which are published whenever there is a need to address something controversial in the churches.
https://ag.org/beliefs/statement-of-fundamental-truths
https://ag.org/Beliefs/Position-Papers
Gordon Fee disagrees with the AOG on some of their statements. And I think I might agree with him. I think he could help the AOG rewrite their Statement of Fundamental Truths. They could use a more scholarly explanation.
From Wikipedia;
Fee is a Pentecostal; nevertheless, he has disagreed with some long held and deeply cherished Pentecostal beliefs. Specifically, he has questioned article 7 of the Assemblies of God Statement of Fundamental Truths, which articulates a classical Pentecostal understanding of baptism in the Holy Spirit as subsequent to and separate from Christian conversion. In "Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The Issue of Separability and Subsequence", Fee writes that there is little biblical evidence to prove the traditional Pentecostal doctrinal position.[9]
On the other hand, he maintains that "the Pentecostal experience itself can be defended on exegetical grounds as a thoroughly biblical phenomenon".[10] Fee believes that in the early church, the Pentecostal experience was an expected part of conversion:
As to his views on Arminianism; I don't know what Arminius taught that Fee agrees with or disagrees with.
I suppose you would be correct in saying that the Assemblies of God position on the possibility of a saint backsliding to the point of apostacy is more similar to the Arminianism view than the Calvinist view but I don't think it would be correct to say that the AOG position is that of Arminiansim.
Attempting to put everyone in a two boxes theologically is not how things really are. That is a faulty sort of tunnel vision people fall into that is unnecessary and rude to their fellows Christians.
If you want to know what the AOG position is on any particular common doctrine you can find good explanations with scriptures and interpretations from their link on their Statement of Faith and their link to their Position Papers which are published whenever there is a need to address something controversial in the churches.
https://ag.org/beliefs/statement-of-fundamental-truths
https://ag.org/Beliefs/Position-Papers
Gordon Fee disagrees with the AOG on some of their statements. And I think I might agree with him. I think he could help the AOG rewrite their Statement of Fundamental Truths. They could use a more scholarly explanation.
From Wikipedia;
Fee is a Pentecostal; nevertheless, he has disagreed with some long held and deeply cherished Pentecostal beliefs. Specifically, he has questioned article 7 of the Assemblies of God Statement of Fundamental Truths, which articulates a classical Pentecostal understanding of baptism in the Holy Spirit as subsequent to and separate from Christian conversion. In "Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The Issue of Separability and Subsequence", Fee writes that there is little biblical evidence to prove the traditional Pentecostal doctrinal position.[9]
On the other hand, he maintains that "the Pentecostal experience itself can be defended on exegetical grounds as a thoroughly biblical phenomenon".[10] Fee believes that in the early church, the Pentecostal experience was an expected part of conversion:
The crucial item in all this for the early church was the work of the Spirit; and [the empowerment for life], the dynamic empowering dimension with gifts, miracles, and evangelism (along with fruit and growth), was a normal part of their expectation and experience.[11]
Fee believes the Spirit's empowerment is a necessary element in the life of the Church that has too often been neglected.[12] It is this neglect, Fee argues, that led early Pentecostals to seek the presence and power of the Spirit in experiences which they identified as baptism in the Holy Spirit.[13]
Yes, he is an ordained minister of the Assemblies of God. His book is used in many Bible Colleges of other denominations. They even use it at Dallas Theological University which is very much anti pentecostal/charismatic, but they know a good book on heremeneutics when they read one.
As to his views on Arminianism; I don't know what Arminius taught that Fee agrees with or disagrees with.
I suppose you would be correct in saying that the Assemblies of God position on the possibility of a saint backsliding to the point of apostacy is more similar to the Arminianism view than the Calvinist view but I don't think it would be correct to say that the AOG position is that of Arminiansim.
Attempting to put everyone in a two boxes theologically is not how things really are. That is a faulty sort of tunnel vision people fall into that is unnecessary and rude to their fellows Christians.
If you want to know what the AOG position is on any particular common doctrine you can find good explanations with scriptures and interpretations from their link on their Statement of Faith and their link to their Position Papers which are published whenever there is a need to address something controversial in the churches.
https://ag.org/beliefs/statement-of-fundamental-truths
https://ag.org/Beliefs/Position-Papers
Gordon Fee disagrees with the AOG on some of their statements. And I think I might agree with him. I think he could help the AOG rewrite their Statement of Fundamental Truths. They could use a more scholarly explanation.
From Wikipedia;
Fee is a Pentecostal; nevertheless, he has disagreed with some long held and deeply cherished Pentecostal beliefs. Specifically, he has questioned article 7 of the Assemblies of God Statement of Fundamental Truths, which articulates a classical Pentecostal understanding of baptism in the Holy Spirit as subsequent to and separate from Christian conversion. In "Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The Issue of Separability and Subsequence", Fee writes that there is little biblical evidence to prove the traditional Pentecostal doctrinal position.[9]
On the other hand, he maintains that "the Pentecostal experience itself can be defended on exegetical grounds as a thoroughly biblical phenomenon".[10] Fee believes that in the early church, the Pentecostal experience was an expected part of conversion:
As to his views on Arminianism; I don't know what Arminius taught that Fee agrees with or disagrees with.
I suppose you would be correct in saying that the Assemblies of God position on the possibility of a saint backsliding to the point of apostacy is more similar to the Arminianism view than the Calvinist view but I don't think it would be correct to say that the AOG position is that of Arminiansim.
Attempting to put everyone in a two boxes theologically is not how things really are. That is a faulty sort of tunnel vision people fall into that is unnecessary and rude to their fellows Christians.
If you want to know what the AOG position is on any particular common doctrine you can find good explanations with scriptures and interpretations from their link on their Statement of Faith and their link to their Position Papers which are published whenever there is a need to address something controversial in the churches.
https://ag.org/beliefs/statement-of-fundamental-truths
https://ag.org/Beliefs/Position-Papers
Gordon Fee disagrees with the AOG on some of their statements. And I think I might agree with him. I think he could help the AOG rewrite their Statement of Fundamental Truths. They could use a more scholarly explanation.
From Wikipedia;
Fee is a Pentecostal; nevertheless, he has disagreed with some long held and deeply cherished Pentecostal beliefs. Specifically, he has questioned article 7 of the Assemblies of God Statement of Fundamental Truths, which articulates a classical Pentecostal understanding of baptism in the Holy Spirit as subsequent to and separate from Christian conversion. In "Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The Issue of Separability and Subsequence", Fee writes that there is little biblical evidence to prove the traditional Pentecostal doctrinal position.[9]
On the other hand, he maintains that "the Pentecostal experience itself can be defended on exegetical grounds as a thoroughly biblical phenomenon".[10] Fee believes that in the early church, the Pentecostal experience was an expected part of conversion:
The crucial item in all this for the early church was the work of the Spirit; and [the empowerment for life], the dynamic empowering dimension with gifts, miracles, and evangelism (along with fruit and growth), was a normal part of their expectation and experience.[11]
Fee believes the Spirit's empowerment is a necessary element in the life of the Church that has too often been neglected.[12] It is this neglect, Fee argues, that led early Pentecostals to seek the presence and power of the Spirit in experiences which they identified as baptism in the Holy Spirit.[13]
-
1
- Show all
S
I simply consider the interpretation of the scriptures as they are presenting them. If they do a good job of interpretation I will be in agreement, if they make mistakes I will disagree, but if their heart is right we can agree on enough.
If I detect an insincere heart, an intellectual dishonesty, a knowing that they are not interpreting scripture correctly but hard heartedly persisting in a dishonest hermeneutic, then I will not read or listen to them at all. They are an apostate.
If I detect an insincere heart, an intellectual dishonesty, a knowing that they are not interpreting scripture correctly but hard heartedly persisting in a dishonest hermeneutic, then I will not read or listen to them at all. They are an apostate.
Verb or noun, the sense is unchanged. Whether Jesus "did not sin" or "was without sin", it means the same thing, and neither means that He could not sin.
So, instead of arguing over irrelevant semantics, how about you accept the soundness of my position.
So, instead of arguing over irrelevant semantics, how about you accept the soundness of my position.
S
It is true. Did you know that pastors will tell you that in 20 years of ministry they have never had people in their congregations voice opinions about any of the topics we discuss on CC?
Most church members are not remotely concerned about these topics.
There is nothing wrong with that, this is the kind of platform where these unique individuals can find others who enjoy discussing such topics because they are going to be hard pressed to find anyone in their church that is interested as they are.
Most people are more concerned about how to get rid of the crab grass in their lawns than understanding views on eschatology or what Jacob Arminius taught in the 16th century.
We are the budding writers and poets. The deep thinkers and the wannabe intellectuals. And among us, are both the sincere seekers of sound interpretation, and the self deluded lovers of lusts, that look for a convenient doctrinal system that will quite their guilty conscience and offer a false hope of eternal safety without the necessary mortification of their evil deeds. They've always existed, but here they gather in inordinate numbers like flies, looking for someone to convince when all the while they are trying to convince themselves.
Most church members are not remotely concerned about these topics.
There is nothing wrong with that, this is the kind of platform where these unique individuals can find others who enjoy discussing such topics because they are going to be hard pressed to find anyone in their church that is interested as they are.
Most people are more concerned about how to get rid of the crab grass in their lawns than understanding views on eschatology or what Jacob Arminius taught in the 16th century.
We are the budding writers and poets. The deep thinkers and the wannabe intellectuals. And among us, are both the sincere seekers of sound interpretation, and the self deluded lovers of lusts, that look for a convenient doctrinal system that will quite their guilty conscience and offer a false hope of eternal safety without the necessary mortification of their evil deeds. They've always existed, but here they gather in inordinate numbers like flies, looking for someone to convince when all the while they are trying to convince themselves.
-
1
- Show all