Thread: Debate As Expression of the Reprobate Mind In Romans 1: 29
Admin
Debate As Expression of the Reprobate Mind In Romans 1: 29
Posted : 23 Jul, 2012 07:09 AM
Debate As Expression of the Reprobate Mind In Romans 1: 29
In Romans 1: 21-29 Paul writes that "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers..."
Debate in Romans 1; 29 is from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance number 2054, eris, meaning "a quarrel, i.e, by implication wrangling, contention, debate, strife, variance."
Paul is saying that those who change the truth of God's word into lies, and worship and serve man and the creation more than God are given over as judgment to homosexuality and lesbianism - and to a reprobate mind. One expression of the reprobate mind is the love of debate or of quarrels.
Isaiah 28: 15 says "Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:"
Isaiah 28: 15 is a prophecy about God's people changing his truth into lies and leaning upon man's understanding, falling into apostasy, believing lies, and the lies they believe, they think, will protect them from the "overflowing scourge," which sounds like the tribulation of Matthew 24: 21.
But look at Isaiah 28: 18, "And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it."
Not only does Romans 1: 21-29 say that as judgment for changing God's truth into lies and worshipping man, that is, following man-made theology, and the creation rather than
the Creator these people will be given over to lesbianism and
homosexuality, but also that they will be given over to fornication, covetousness, envy, murder, and debate.
In the period of the early seventies in the watering holes of the counterculture - where social life flourished - the homosexual and lesbian movements followed (these wo words cannot be posted on Chfristian Dating For Free, because of its censorship) the heels of the counterculture which at first was predominantly heterosexual. Lesbianism became sexually and politically correct in the major universities after the early seventies. Political correctness was the same movement that Dean Gotcher calls Transformational Marxism, which is a Stealth
Marxism, that is not identified as Marxism by most.
But I want to focus more on debate as one of the expressions of the reprobate mind (Romans 1: 28).
The definition of the Greek word, eris, in Strong's means
a quarrel, wrangling, or contention. It is contentiousness, which is not becoming to a follower of Jesus Christ. A follower of Jesus Christ becomes a spiritual warrior, puts on the helmet of salvation, the breastplate of righteousness,
the shield of faith, feet shod with the Gospel, and above all has in his hand the sword of the Spirit, which is the word
of God, an offensive spiritual weapon.
But the spiritual warrior of Christ does not engage in a dialectic debate with those who disagree with his quoting of "it is written." And the warrior of Christ does not stay for a long time in an argument with one who has a dialectic mind. He shakes the dust off his feet and moves on (Matthew 10: 14). But he does quote "It is written," and never compromises the word in order to promote a relationship other than that with Christ and he as Truth. So, what is the dialectic than, as often used in debates, and in debates or arguments on Christian forums?
On a more general level the dialectic, which goes back in history of Hegel and Marx - but also to Genesis 3: 1-6 in the Garden - is an attempt to use man's understanding to diminish or win out over God's word and to overthrow God's patriarchal authority. The dialectic is man arguing from the flesh.
However, in Christian arguments those who use the dialectic will quote scripture to oppose "it is written," often implying that scripture is not consistent. If one person quotes a Bible verse or several verses, the person with the dialectic mind may come back and say, in effect, "But over here it says the opposite," to support his man-made understanding.
Lean Not To Your Own Understanding, But Follow God's Word and Let Him Direct Your Life
Proverbs 3: 5-7: "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. 7. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil."
Lust of the Flesh, Lust of the Eyes and the Pride of Life
I John 2: 15-17: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."
Human Flesh Wars Against the Spirit of God
Romans 7: 24-25 "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from
the body of this death?
25. I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because
they are spiritually discerned." I Corinthians 2; 14
I am quoting below below from Dean Gotcher, a preacher of righteousness and scholar as the authority on the Transformational Marxist dialectic process.
authorityresearch.com Handouts for Meetings
Dean Gotcher says "DIDACTIC PARADIGM--Right is right and wrong is
wrong, therefore chastening is justified: "If ye endure chastening,
God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father
chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye (OK, this word in the Old Testament has to be taken out in order to post on Chtistian Dating For Free), and not sons."
The didactic way of communicating for Christians is quoting scripture as "it is written," that is, in faith, knowing it is from the Holy Spirit and does not contradict itself.
Gotcher says of the dialectic that "DIALECTICAL PARADIGM; All is gray therefore dialogue, not
chastening, is justified: "The philosopher Hegel said that truth is
found neither in the thesis nor the antithesis [right or wrong], but
in an emerging synthesis which reconciles the two [dialogue]." Martin
Luther King Jr. Strength to Love
Karl Marx: "Once the earthy family [chastening] is discovered to
be the secret of the heavenly family [chastening], the former must
itself be destroyed in theory and in practice [dialogue]." Karl Marx,
Thesis on Feuerbach #4.
Abraham Maslow: "We have to study the conditions which maximize
ought-perceptiveness." "Oughtiness is itself a fact to be
perceived." A. H. Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. ("I
have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students that the best
thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately. The correct
thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the
(censored in order to post on Christian Dating For Free) they are and then behave toward them as if they were (censored for Christian Dating For free)." Maslow, Maslow on Management)
Carl Rogers: "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask
himself 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of
therapy the individual comes to ask himself 'What does it mean to
me?'" Carl R. Rogers, On becoming a person.
Benjamin Bloom: "We recognize the point of view that truth and
knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths
which exist for all time and places."
Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy
of Educational Objectives Book I: Cognitive Domain (1956) Referred to
as Bloom's Taxonomy p. 32
Karl Marx: "In the eyes of dialectical philosophy, nothing is
established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred."
There is more on the dialectic, which was made into an
attitude change procedure by the Group Dynamics movement, by the encounter group movement led by clinical psychologists and others, and popularized to become the dominant way of thinking and interacting verbally in the United States. The "long march through the institutions" of Transformational Marxism included
the Christian churches and the Christian seminaries where the False Prophets are hatched and trained.
Debate As Expression of the Reprobate Mind In Romans 1: 29
Posted : 23 Jul, 2012 07:34 AM
Here is the second comment on this same post at a larger Christian forum. The first comment was in agreement with the post.
"this post is basically one long attempt at coming up with a theological excuse for dismissing anyone who disagrees with your theology...and for dismissing any scripture anyone provides to contradict your theology...
in other words...this is you trying to excuse stiff necked unteachability...even to the point of rejecting scriptural truth...
there is nothing wrong with christians having dialogue and 'reasoning together'...paul engaged in debate with his theological opponents all the time...
in fact...one method you condemn in this post is the exact method jesus himself used when satan was tempting him...satan quoted a scripture...and jesus countered with a different scripture quotation...
did you even bother consulting scripture when you contrived this philosophy? "
My post is a Bible study, and too long for many to read and comprehend. They were "educated" in the public school system dominated by the educational goal taxonomies of Benjamin Bloom, a Transformational Marxist.
Debate As Expression of the Reprobate Mind In Romans 1: 29
Posted : 23 Jul, 2012 10:41 AM
On the other forum a guy said: "One must remember Romans 1 is speaking of the natural world. The debate was what sin was, what the penalty of sin was, Who God was, etc etc. it was not on doctrines or truths of God in a general term.
I would not put what Paul said in romans to mean we can not debate scripture. And then even go further to say anyone who does is not a child of God (if thats what your inferring, since this is what romans 1 pertains to."
Learn what the dialectic method of debate is, how it is based on man's leaning to his own understanding, and that it grew out of a system of thought which denies the existence of God. To say, therefore since the dialectic comes out of atheistic Marxism, that it has not invaded the Christian church and is not used by Christians in debate is false.
The quoting of scripture to show that some particular doctrine is false is not the dialectic process, but is a didactic way of communication, in the case of the Bible, acknowledging scripture as fact, as given by the Holy Spirit.
Getting into an argument on whether Romans 1 presents doctrines as truths from God with some on this forum would be endless. One of my points in posting this thread was to show the problem of those on Christian forums who love arguments for the sake of arguing. And I suspect one reason Paul included debate in this list in Romans 1: 29 was to show that those who like to quarrel and win arguments fits in with some of the other characteristics listed there, which can include deceptiveness and covetousness. Paul is talking about the reprobate mind of those who do not know God. But those who claim to know God but are not born again in Christ by the Spirit and do not know him and his doctrines can also have a reprobate mind.
Somewhere on this forum or on another I posted something called "Nihilism In American Social Interaction Sixty-One Years After Cultural Marxism Came In the Door: II Timothy 3: 1-7.
Paul in II Timothy 3: 1-7 gives us his prophecy about the personality traits
of people in the last days. "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
In 2012, about forty-six years after the counterculture got going in the United States in various centers, there
are personality types that show signs of nihilism in verbal interaction.
"Some people on Internet forums appear to be so interested in winning debates that they bash, mock, call others bad names, and misrepresent what others have said as part of their insulting and harassing interaction. These people
ridicule what others have posted, and may seem to destroy carefully documented positions of others on issues."
"Misrepresentation and
forms of ridicule by "trolls" is the dialectic method gone ballistic. Often, more civilized forms of the dialectic method of attitude change sidestep the main position of the person targeted and hit at his position from the side, in an attempt to move him gradually to a compromise. The "troll" blasts the target person from the front or side with slander, lies and misrepresentations.
Debate As Expression of the Reprobate Mind In Romans 1: 29
Posted : 25 Jul, 2012 05:32 PM
Meanings and NT Use of Eris, Dialegomai, Suzeteo and Epagonizomai - translated as Debate, Discuss, Reason, Dispute, Investigate Jointly, Enquire, and Earnestly Contend
This word study shows an important difference in meaning between eris translated as debate in Romans 1: 29, and the Greek words used to describe Paul's discussion or exhortation of the Gospel of Christ in the Book of Acts.
The meanings of eris, translated as debate in Romans 1: 29, point to debate as being strife
between two or more people, or two sides in an argument, and by contention between people expressed verbally.
But the meanings of Dialegomai, Suzeteo used for Paul's presentation out of the Old Testament and from his own revelations from Christ and the Holy Spirit are generally not about a quarrel or debate as contention. Paul is presenting the truth in reasoning, preaching and exhortation to those
who have never known God, the Gentiles, and the Jews who hold now to a false view of God and of Israel reborn in Christ. Debate in Romans 1: 29 is more of a quarrelsome discourse, while the reasoning of Paul to teach the truth is not quarrelsome, but he is, like Jude 1; 3, contending for the Gospel of Christ and does not water it down or compromise it for the sake of human relationships.
For example, Acts 17: 17 says "Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him."
But the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, by George Ricker Berry, 1958, translates dielegeto as "Therefore reasoned he in the syngogue with the Jews..." not disputed he....
The Greek word epagonizomai is used only in Jude 1: 3 where it is said to mean "earnstly content." "...ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." In presenting the Gospel to those who have compromised it, it is entirely acceptable to earnesty contend with the opposition which will often occur when the truth is presented to those who do not like the truth. When the truth is presented this is not contentious quarreling.
