Ben,
I disagree, RG. Take the three passages. First, it is proven that the RECEIVED Spirit reveals the "things" of verse 12. So our choices are limited:
1. "Things" in 14 are different than "things" in 12
2. The Spirit can be received WITHOUT belief.
3. The "things" of verse 14, do not include "saving-faith in Jesus".
Only three possibilities; and only #3 is credible.
You may disagree, but you you have not established that it is proven. You have proven it for yourself, and whatever name of faith you wish it call it. In this instance I happen to agree with you, not because I developed a similar view and it just happens to align. It happens to align with what has always been believed, to a point. In regard to our other discussion you, theologically, have a dead man believing, hearing and being received by faith.
But the point I am making is that you have not proven this to the Calvinist or any other variation. They will make their own determination of what it might mean. Thus is is not a standard, or doctrine of scripture. It is a doctrine or standard of your view ONLY.
I cannot prove anything from scripture either. All I can show is the evidence that the Gospel has never changed throughout history within His Church, the Body of Christ. Now, I understand you will not accept that terminology, but then neither did most people that have lived on this earth so far. Most, in fact, have denied, or rejected the Gospel that Christ gave and vivified by the Holy Spirit in time, preserved by Him.
Every single heretic came armed with his interpretation of scripture. Scripture is not the determinate element, but the "rule of faith." It is what has always been believed and understood as the Gospel. Man, no individual man has been able to change it and I challenge you to find one that did, since the beginning. It started with the "Ecumenical Council" in Jerusealm recorded in Acts. They met as an Assembly, discussed the difficulty, decided on the solution, which happened to be what is confirmed in the rest of Scripture, that one did not need to be circumcised as a Gentile to be a Christian. That is the way it has been done ever since and approved in time by the Ecclessia which is the Body of Christ. That Body is getting massive today, with 2000 years of consensus belief and practice that will not be overturned.
I certainly can. I love for Mormons and JW's to come to my door (that is, when I'm not calling their numbers and teaching them.) And I made this thread so we can establish Scriptural absolutes --- which ARE established, unless they're credibly refuted.
But they can be credibly refuted by them. All you are doing is saying that your interpretation is credible and all others are not. It has nothing to do with what scripture actually says and means and foremost, what it has always meant. All you are showing is that Mormonism of JW's do not align with your interpretation.
Joseph Smith was at least honest enough to admit that he added to scripture with his vision and follow up of the Book of Mormon. But they abide by Scripture by their interpreation just like you. Joseph Smith is a product of protestantism. So are all the others.
Arius and Nicene Council could have done the same thing. We would still be debating the Trinity, or Nestoris and Athanasius, and we would still be debating the Incarnation. In both cases it was not scripture alone or sola scriptura, but the understanding, or belief that had always been understood. In both cases Arius and Nestorius were shown to have been new, innovative and not beleived by those of the first three centuries.
That has become the true test of faith. Any doctrine can be checked against the view that has always been believed. It still does not mean that one needs to accept it. Christ does not compel any man to believe, as you clearly point out. But we also know that most over time have rejected that once given Gospel that was proclaimed in unity of faith and practice in the early Church all over the Roman Empire and eventually spread far beyond, yet always the same Gospel. Never a pesons particular brand of interpretation.
It is most unfortunate that the west was so greatly influenced by the Roman Catholic Church. They had a history of bridled disagreement for 500 years before they split and unbridled for 500 years more when many new innovative doctrines came about, not found in scripture, nor in faith and practice the Holy Tradition.
The Reformers seeing the abuse that one man can make and stray, mostly against Tradition, thought it safe to lay hold of the Bible and make it the sole authority for faith and practice. Unfortunately the Bible is not such a Book. It is not a treatise, nor a systmatic theology. But, nevertheless, Protestants isolated a Book from its context and full content, then proceeded to give authority to each individual to develop their own form of faith. This was mostly bridled for almost 300 years with the onset of denominations, variations of interpretations. But in the latter half of the Twentieth Century, protestantism, or Sola Scriptura, to be more precise, has run amonk and is becoming a priviatized form of religion. A religion of one or of a few. Just look around you.
The more sectarian, the smaller the denomination. The big mega churches are most non-sectarian, a safe harbor for all, with no pronounced doctrines that might divide. They have union of individuals, but no unity in faith. Hardly what Christ had in mind.
In this post, I've re-stated the three opening "absolutes", and offered only three understandings for each.
If any #1's or #2's are chosen, that choice must be supported with Scripture. If NONE of the choices are acceptible, then a fourth is requested, supported with Scripture.
Proves nothing but your interpretation. It has YOUR authority, not scripture. I can find many who will disagree with you. Just check the history of the account of the Nicene Council with Arius. He was using nothing but scripture in his support of non-trinitarian understanding. These same arguments are still used by some protestant groups today. But it was not what was always understood by those of the first three centuries, so Arius' view did not stand.
I am behind my time; forgive me for being slow. Have to answer that thread, a couple of PM's, and a similar thread on an entire other message board.
Sometimes I think I don't get the same amount of time in a day as others do.
Take your time, set your priorities, I'll just keep checking in.
