Jason.
Lol. It is obvious that we do not agree on the understanding of 1 Cor 2:10-14 the same way. No problem, Jason. Are you going to join Tom by reducing your responses to sarcastic remarks? I hope not. Hey, I would like your response to my topic ’ “How many UR’s are baptized in the Spirit.” I know you like responding by writing novels…do you think you can keep it under a few paragraphs? Thanks Jason. 
Dondi.
It does say incapable.
But only as long as they are foolishness to them.
Dondi.
Yes. Many believe that God opened Lydia’s heart to hear Paul. We have shown that notion to be incorrect; God opened her heart “to heed.” However, those in error on the point typically have another erroneous concept – that God opened Lydia’s heart by a direct and immediate operation of the Holy Spirit – that He supernaturally altered Lydia’s emotional processes to compel her to hear and obey.
Of course the God of heaven has many instruments at His disposal. We can imagine that He could choose to accomplish His will by many different means. The question is, what means has He chosen? How does He open the hearts of men and women to the obedience of faith? How did He open Lydia’s heart to respond to the gospel? Was it through a supernatural means not mentioned in the text or was it through the word of God spoken by Paul?
It is a plain fact that there is no mention in Acts 16:13-15 of the direct working of the Spirit of God. To assert that God used that means to prompt obedience from Lydia is to inject something into the scriptures that just isn’t there. What is there, plainly, is the gospel message “spoken by Paul.”
God used the preaching of Paul and his fellow evangelists as the instrument to open hearts to the obedience of faith. On one occasion, Paul and Barnabas recounted to the church in Antioch “all that God had done with them, and that He had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles” (Acts 14:27). In 2 Corinthians 5:20a Paul wrote, “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us.”. The message of the gospel, proclaimed by God’s people, is His tool in the hearts of men.
Today, as it was with Lydia so long ago, the gospel is “the power of God to salvation” (Romans 1:16). Only when people hear it can their hearts be opened to faith and obedience (cf. Romans 10:17; 6:17).
BA, You are the only one here who is lacking in your responses, all you have presented in defense is fallacy. You have nobody to blame but yourself for situation.
What then, is your understanding of 1 Corinthians 2:10-14? Since, the only way we can know that you and Jason have different interpretations is to know yours, which you have yet to share.
Can you cut this down to a couple paragraphs?
Nothing like hypocrisy if you ask someone to do something for you but you are unwilling to do, 5 paragraphs is more than a few.
Thank you for agreeing with me. The Spirit will work with the Word.
Craig.
I have no desire to respond to anything you say. God bless.
Of course not, because to answer will incriminate you.
As Jesus said to them:
Matthew 7:5
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
You think playing the Ad Hominem fallacy some how works? It has been observed that anytime someone asks you a question you know the answer is cause your a dilemma you make the argument about the person who asked the question, or made the observation.
Are you a hypocrite? Yes. Is this slander? No. Is this liable? No. You have been proved a hypocrite who has no true consistency in his belief system and continues to be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine that comes his way. I have no problems stating the obvious.
So, don’t answer the questions presented to you, it makes no difference to me it only incriminates you.
Craig.
I will respond to anyone else, but you have lost that privilege with your tongue. I forgive you, Craig.
Not true - you won’t respond to me either (damn! I responded).
Jeff.
I won’t argue with you about scripture, but I will respond to you.
We don’t care if you respond to us with fallacy you have not answered any questions of anyone. As I said, your avoidance in answering the questions by use of Ad Hominem fallacy, is obvious. So as I said before, don’t answer the questions presented to you, it makes no difference to me it only incriminates you.
P.S. I know what I am doing.
Craig.
P.S.S. Ok. 
Indeed.
It’s “libel”, by the way Craig, not “liable”. (The two words are related though, so it makes for a neat pun… 
)
And for what it’s worth, I do think BA has shared his interpretation of those verses of 1 Cor 2. He interprets it the way he has been saying he interprets it. Remember?–the way he said he didn’t remember interpreting it and challenged me to produce quotes from him interpreting it that way? 
That’s how he interprets it.
For the most part, no. 
However, I am not being sarcastic, exactly. I am pointing out the logical implications. With some incisiveness.
Let’s put what you have been saying to a practical illustration:
Lydia at one point was not born again. She was at one point (unless she was born this way?) not even a God-fearer. So how did she reach the point where she was born again?
As an unbeliever (per your understanding of 1 Cor 2 etc.) she was incapable of receiving or understanding anything spiritual, including anything of the Spirit. So she couldn’t have gotten there by any testimony of the Spirit. You deny also that the Spirit opened her heart by any direct and immediate operation either. (That especially includes compelling her emotional processes to hear and obey, but also includes any other direct and immediate operations on her.) This is consonant enough with your position on her being outright incapable of receiving or even understanding (whether she received it or not) anything spiritual: even God Himself could not create that ability in her and empower her thereby to understand and accept spiritual matters. (Not until God Himself created that ability in her and empowered her thereby etc. Which couldn’t happen, on your plan, until after Lydia had accepted Christ and been born again from above. Which would seem to also be an action of the Spirit on Lydia, but again this would have to only follow her accepting Christ. Until Lydia creates the ability for God to create that ability in her, God is impotent to act to save her–on this plan.)
You (correctly) report that she heard Paul’s message of the gospel; as you (correctly) report that God used the preaching of Paul and his fellow evangelists as the instrument to open hearts to the obedience of faith. “The message of the gospel, proclaimed by God’s people, is His tool in the hearts of men”, as you (I agree correctly) put it.
(I also affirm other scriptures where God Himself is the chief witness in the heart of men, and indeed empowers men to receive any subordinate preaching by human–or other?–evangelists. Which is why it is not fallacious to account Lydia as having first been prepared by God to understand and receive the spiritual truths of the evangel preached by Paul–who himself, as you may have forgotten, was evangelized by no one but the risen Christ Himself!–even though the text doesn’t specifically say this about Lydia. Neither does the text deny it. But, be that as it may.)
Lydia, unfortunately, according to what you are teaching, could not even possibly have understood and received the message of the gospel proclaimed by God’s people: because, according to your own understanding, Lydia was entirely and completely incapable of understanding and receiving spiritual matters until after she had been born again. She might have been able (on your plan) to understand and receive some merely worldly notion of the gospel, but so what?–of what benefit would you say that a merely worldly understanding would be at all?
I am not trying to be sarcastic to point this out: you do not understand that you are quoting two texts, supposing them to support each other in conjunction with your own understanding, but your understanding of one set (1 Cor 2:10-14) absolutely contravenes your appeal to the other set (Acts 16:13-15).
Jason.
I respectfully disagree. I’m not going to repeat myself. How do you interpret 1 Cor 2:10-14 without writing a novel. 
(Stupid spell checker). I was typing libeled and I typed it wrong and I wasn’t thinking. After it corrected it, I read the sentence and it did not make sense and so rewrote the sentence with the wrong word. Sigh.
BA’s position relies on circular logic. Simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim, which is what BA continues to do.
P.S. This is very common in mainstream protestant and Catholic theology, however, so it is not surprising. When confronted by the fact that Scripture contradicts their position instead of accepting their position may be wrong, they usually commit various fallacies in order to cover it. Ad hominem’s (Attacking the Messenger, Argument against the person instead of the subject matter), Circular Argument, and appeal to authority usually is the defense mechanism.
Tell them that Lucifer is not the name of Satan, and that Satan was never an Celestial Being or there is no such thing as Celestial Beings called angels who fell from Kingdom of Heaven during a cataclysmic Celestial rebellion before the beginning of the world and their responses usually come back as, “It must be true because that is what I was taught.” and then they go into circular arguments in which they try to prove Ezekiel is talking about Satan and not the man Tyre which says nothing about Satan and that the word ‘angel’ actually means “Messenger” which by definition is one who carries a message, and the only one’s who were entrusted with a Message was Israel who failed and such task was left to the Christian Church, this Message was the Gospel.
You mean without going into detail about the details, so that I can figure out the best interpretation and present my evidence and reasonings why I interpret it one way and not another?
The short answer would be: I don’t.
I was invited here as a guest author by the forum originators, because (among other things) they noticed that I go into detail for the positions I take. This also, by the way, gives my opponents the best opportunity to point out where and why I’m wrong for taking one position instead of another.
Besides which, I’m not sure why I would answer your question when I’ve gone to a lot of effort already to address the things you’ve brought up, only to be flatly ignored because I’ve gone to a lot of effort to address the things you’ve brought up.
When you make challenges, and I answer you in detail, and you excuse yourself from dealing with those answers on the ground that I’ve answered you in detail–then why exactly should I bother making any effort at all?
When people give you brief little answers, you complain “The scripture support they do give is wrenched out of context to the point it is embarrassing.” (That’s a quote from this very thread, by the way.) When they go into detail (especially about the contexts!) you complain that you only want to answer a reply of a couple of paragraphs, and otherwise ignore what they’ve written.
The primary reason why we’re talking about 1 Cor 2 at all, in this thread, is because you brought it up in the process of defending against a claim that you teach X doctrine. Along the way, you have shown (as was documented) that you actually do claim X doctrine, even in this very thread (while trying to defend yourself against the ‘slander’ that you teach X doctrine, no less). You claimed that you didn’t, asked to be shown where you did; this was done in detail–and then summarily ignored with a laugh, while you shifted into a defense of X doctrine by appeal to 1 Cor 2.
But, if you must have only a brief and extremely incomplete paragraph about how I interpret 1 Cor 2, in order to feel comfortable answering it: I already gave you one, in this exact same thread, less than 30 hours ago.
And you ignored that answer, too. You decided to reply, here, on another topic instead (while quoting 1 Cor 2 as though I must not have a Bible handy, or could not have read it in the thread already such as in this prior comment for example, or even had bothered to write slightly about it myself at all.)
So, hey: I have spent time and energy (which I could have easily and gladly spent doing something else, I assure you ) answering what you wanted to talk about instead. And now that I have, you don’t want to play that game anymore–but your excuse for not dealing with my answer on what you chose to focus on instead, is that you only want a short answer.
But you’ve already shown you don’t even want to deal with a ridiculously incomplete comment that barely scrapes the beginning of what could be discussed concerning those verses from 1 Cor 2, when I give one.
So… at all costs you don’t want to talk about how your application of 1 Cor 2 plays out logically; you don’t want to talk about the places you asked me to quote which you didn’t remember writing and challenged me to provide; and you didn’t want to talk about even the most incomplete comment I could imagine giving on those verses, back when I wrote it less than 30 hours ago. You wanted to talk about those other things instead that you don’t want to talk about anymore now.
What’s left over?