# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Religion is not Christianity

## Nang

I am rejecting this forum, for humanistic "religion" is being passed off as "biblical Christianity," which is horribly wrong and false, and something I cannot condone nor endure any longer.

May God have mercy upon all of you who do not yet see the difference . . .

Nang

----------


## RJB

Then shut up, get lost and take Jr with you.

----------


## Dr.3D

There are all kinds of religions.

----------


## Nang

> Then shut up, get lost and take Jr with you.



Such a hateful attitude shown, only proves my point.  Many will claim to be religious, but actually lack in true love for the brethren who are beloved in Christ Jesus.

Just the way it is, but I am finished with such fake religionists.

----------


## Nang

> There are all kinds of religions.


Religion is humanistic.  Faith is God-given.

----------


## RJB

> Such a hateful attitude shown, only proves my point.  Many will claim to be religious, but actually lack in true love for the brethren who are beloved in Christ Jesus.
> 
> Just the way it is, but I am finished with such fake religionists.


You are no Mother Theresa yourself.  If you don't like it, PLEASE leave.

----------


## Brett85

> Such a hateful attitude shown, only proves my point.  Many will claim to be religious, but actually lack in true love for the brethren who are beloved in Christ Jesus.
> 
> Just the way it is, but I am finished with such fake religionists.


Well, I guess people are treating you just like you treated them.  I can't even count how many times you called people names and insulted them.  I'll pray that God softens your heart and makes you a kind person.

----------


## Dr.3D

LOL, Voodoo is a religion.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Religion is humanistic.  Faith is God-given.


Actually, you will find the Secular Humanist's claim they are not a religion so they can teach it in public schools.

----------


## RJB

ETA:  I was being a jackass.

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> I am rejecting this forum, for humanistic "religion" is being passed off as "biblical Christianity," which is horribly wrong and false, and something I cannot condone nor endure any longer.
> 
> May God have mercy upon all of you who do not yet see the difference . . .
> 
> Nang





> Such a hateful attitude shown, only proves my point. Many will claim to be religious, but actually lack in true love for the brethren who are beloved in Christ Jesus.
> 
> Just the way it is, but I am finished with such fake religionists.





> Religion is humanistic. Faith is God-given.


It may just be my lacking the proper context, but I'm having some difficulty understanding. Do you mean that people who profess to be Christians do not believe in what you feel is the correct interpretation of the Bible? Or that religion, as an organized practice of faith or spirituality, is irrelevant to your view of Christianity? Or am I just completely off?

----------


## Guitarzan

> Well, I guess people are treating you just like you treated them.  I can't even count how many times you called people names and insulted them.  I'll pray that God softens your heart and makes you a kind person.


I agree! I'm just a curious reader of the religion forum, and I must say...for the regulars in here; people claiming to have the ultimate answers and true knowledge of what the Bible says and means...(I mean these people act as if their opinions are absolute, as if Jesus himself has come and spoken directly to them with all of the answers of life), they sure treat others of different thoughts and opinions horribly. 

It's really an amazing thing to witness. May God have mercy on their souls. 


With the exception of TER. He (or she) is someone that has what I would consider a much more Christian vibe to him (her). I enjoy reading TER's posts.

----------


## Brett85

> I agree! I'm just a curious reader of the religion forum, and I must say...for the regulars in here; people claiming to have the ultimate answers and true knowledge of what the Bible says and means...(I mean these people act as if their opinions are absolute, as if Jesus himself has come and spoken directly to them with all of the answers of life), they sure treat others of different thoughts and opinions horribly. 
> 
> It's really an amazing thing to witness. May God have mercy on their souls. 
> 
> 
> With the exception of TER. He (or she) is someone that has what I would consider a much more Christian vibe to him (her). I enjoy reading TER's posts.


Agreed completely.  I think anyone who was visiting this forum would find that TER has the most Christ like attitude of anyone on this forum.  Humility is a great quality to have.

----------


## Brett85

Duplicate post.

----------


## RJB

> Then shut up, get lost and take Jr with you.


I do apologize for the tone.  I should have wished her the best and left it at that verses telling her to get lost.

However, she came here with NO interest in the Liberty movement, but rather to bash everybody who disagreed with FF which is basically *everyone* except Sola.  She has called people names, misrepresented what people post, misrepresent what they believe, implied people were stupid, going to hell etc. because they disagreed with her.  And in her swan song she basically insults us...  She's basically admitted that's why she came.

But I do agree with her, the religion forum is on RPFs is one of the most hateful places on the internet.  It's become pointless at best and a mockery at worst.  It would probably be a good thing if it were eliminated.  Other than TER's threads it's turned into nothing more than a gossip rag.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I agree! I'm just a curious reader of the religion forum, and I must say...for the regulars in here; people claiming to have the ultimate answers and true knowledge of what the Bible says and means...(I mean these people act as if their opinions are absolute, as if Jesus himself has come and spoken directly to them with all of the answers of life), they sure treat others of different thoughts and opinions horribly. 
> 
> It's really an amazing thing to witness. May God have mercy on their souls. 
> 
> 
> With the exception of TER. He (or she) is someone that has what I would consider a much more Christian vibe to him (her). I enjoy reading TER's posts.


TER is awesomesauce.   I hope to one day reach the standard of civility that TER has set.  I like to think I'm not one of the sort of regulars you mention.  I certainly strive to be the opposite of almost all the regulars.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Then shut up, get lost and take Jr with you.


Just to be clear, Nang did not inform me that she was making this post, and this post has nothing to do with me.  Nang can do what she likes, though I will miss her if she does decide to leave.




> You are no Mother Theresa yourself.  If you don't like it, PLEASE leave.


The fact that you reference Mother Theresa, a lost, unregenerate heretic, as a good person to emulate, is sad in and of itself.  That said, I think she's saying that she is leaving, so you're probably getting your wish.





> She was invited here by FF strictly to help him fight holy wars.


I'm not even really going to bother getting into the history of this again.  If anyone wants to know, PM me.  




> She has no interest in Ron Paul


I think she actually said she likes Ron Paul.  I pointed out to her that I was an an-cap and gave her a link explaining the philosophy long before I asked her her thoughts on my correspodence with agrammatos (What you call "inviting her here to fight holy wars.")  I think she was mostly apolitical, but I don't think she's anti-liberty.




> and has little understanding of Libertarianism.


If the recent zoning thread is any indication, she has more understanding than tod evans and kahless at the very least.  In fact, simply saying absolutely nothing about politics ever would get one in that camp.  Why aren't you calling for them to be banned, since they have no understanding of libertarianism?  Let's face it, your issue here is purely religious.

For that matter, Sola never posts in the political forums these days either, so would he be in the same boat in your mind?




> Her gang of Sola-5 have basically ZERO reading comprehension based on how they respond to the posts of others


Since when is the "Sola-5" "her gang?"  First of all, you completely made up the "Sola-5".  Kevin isn't even a Calvinist to my understanding (admittedly, this is an extrapolation based on what is a normally fundamentalist Arminian eschatology), I've never seen Kevin take our side in any of the forum  squabbles.  Second of all, other than Sola_Fide (The ACTUAL Sola), Nang, myself, and Kevin, I don't even remember the fifth Sola, and whoever it was, I don't think we've been seeing them around.  I don't think you included "Sola_agrammatos" which would have been extremely clunky... and I don't even remember who it was .  Either way, they haven't been "helping"  in these debates either.  So its really just three people, and even then, I argue with SF as often as I agree with him anyways  Unlike some people, he doesn't seem to be bothered by that, because, after all, this is a discussion forum.

I'm not really sure what your issue is.  After all, your church is just as harsh against us Reformed people as we are against you, they just buried it with a bunch of feigned compassionate VII rhetoric. 




> and she expects me to politiely beg for her to stay.


I have no idea what's aggravating her, but I really doubt that's what she wants.





> Although I fear she is only posting for dramatic purposes based on history.


If so, what is that to you?  I mean, its not like you care whether she stays or not.  So why comment?





> Agreed completely.  I think anyone who was visiting this forum would find that TER has the most Christ like attitude of anyone on this forum.  Humility is a great quality to have.


I don't think any Reformed pastor who visited these forums would think that.  Most people are deceived as to what humility is.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I do apologize for the tone.  I should have wished her the best and left it at that verses telling her to get lost.
> 
> However, she came here with NO interest in the Liberty movement, but rather to bash everybody who disagreed with FF which is basically *everyone* except Sola.  She has called people names, misrepresented what people post, misrepresent what they believe, implied people were stupid, going to hell etc. because they disagreed with her.  And in her swan song she basically insults us...  She's basically admitted that's why she came.
> *
> But I do agree with her, the religion forum is on RPFs is one of the most hateful places on the internet.  It's become pointless at best and a mockery at worst.  It would probably be a good thing if it were eliminated.  Other than TER's threads it's turned into nothing more than a gossip rag*.


I wish it weren't so, but you're probably right.  I wish it were like religion subforums on other sites-people elsewhere tend not to be such rude and insulting jackasses and the general vibe is nicer and more civil.

----------


## RJB

> I wish it weren't so, but you're probably right.  I wish it were like religion subforums on other sites-people elsewhere tend not to be such rude and insulting jackasses and the general vibe is nicer and more civil.


It brings out the worst in me.  In all the other forums, people at least try to listen to each other.  The religion forum has more BS than all the others put together.  

 The worst of it is I never learn my lesson and just let things go.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I wish it weren't so, but you're probably right.  I wish it were like religion subforums on other sites-people elsewhere tend not to be such rude and insulting jackasses and the general vibe is nicer and more civil.


Your "nicer vibe" on other websites comes from the fact that the posters are all in agreement with the religion of man.  Hear me when I say this, true Christianity ALWAYS presses the antithesis with the philosophy of the world.   False religions seem "okay" to even the most hardened atheists.  Even the most hardened atheists think the Pope is "cool".

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I do apologize for the tone.  I should have wished her the best and left it at that verses telling her to get lost.


Thank you




> However, she came here with NO interest in the Liberty movement, but *rather to bash everybody who disagreed with FF*


If this is the case, I'm unaware at it.  





> which is basically *everyone* except Sola.


You think Sola never disagrees with me?  I'd advise you check our posting correspondence over the past couple of  days, I inadvertedly accused Sola of demanding perfection of knowledge for salvation in one of my thread titles.  Of course, Sola actually debated the issue with me rather than being a jerk and claiming that I was insulting him, which might be something for certain people here to learn from.  




> She has called people names, misrepresented what people post, misrepresent what they believe, implied people were stupid, going to hell etc. because they disagreed with her.  And in her swan song she basically insults us...  She's basically admitted that's why she came.


I haven't seen anything like this, though I don't doubt there are a lot of people on this forum that will go to Hell when they die.  That said, if I knew who here was going to heaven and hell, I wouldn't waste my time here at all.  my purpose in the religion subforum is to preach the gospel and let God convict those who he chooses to convict.




> But I do agree with her, the religion forum is on RPFs is one of the most hateful places on the internet.  It's become pointless at best and a mockery at worst.  It would probably be a good thing if it were eliminated.  Other than TER's threads it's turned into nothing more than a gossip rag.


Maybe its just who I am and that I generally don't really care if I'm mocked or whatever, but I really don't see it as being that hateful.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Your "nicer vibe" on other websites comes from the fact that the posters are all in agreement with the religion of man.  Hear me when I say this, true Christianity ALWAYS presses the antithesis with the philosophy of the world.   False religions seem "okay" to even the most hardened atheists.  Even the most hardened atheists think the Pope is "cool".


This, a thousand times this.

Though, I think its a multi-pronged issue in general though.  While the sovereignty of God being repulsive to most men is a big part of it, I don't think that's the only part of it.  Another big part of it is that "respectable" Christianity has completely given up opposing statism.  Advocate BOTH Biblical predestination and "anarchism" and people will really start to hate you

----------


## Kevin007

Jesus came to divide, not unite. FF I agree with most of your post. I'm not a Calvinist or an Armenian. I have agreed with both you and Nang in the past. I also agree with you when you say I hope she doesn't leave.


I see Nang;s approach as "hard" to some but there is not much time left. She is to the point. Hurt feelings or lost souls? I'll choose hurt feelings every time.

----------


## RJB

Shrug.  The religion section is just a silly Soap Opera.  They should have this music playing when people read "Christian posts."








> Thank you
> 
> 
> If this is the case, I'm unaware at it.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think Sola never disagrees with me?  I'd advise you check our posting correspondence over the past couple of  days, I inadvertedly accused Sola of demanding perfection of knowledge for salvation in one of my thread titles.  Of course, Sola actually debated the issue with me rather than being a jerk and claiming that I was insulting him, which might be something for certain people here to learn from.  
> ...

----------


## VIDEODROME

I don't get it

----------


## Kevin007

this forum imho is a place to debates, yes, of course. But also a place to share and fellowship. I like reading and learning new things about God and each other.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I am rejecting this forum, for humanistic "religion" is being passed off as "biblical Christianity," which is horribly wrong and false, and something I cannot condone nor endure any longer.
> 
> May God have mercy upon all of you who do not yet see the difference . . .
> 
> Nang

----------


## Guitarzan

> TER is awesomesauce.   I hope to one day reach the standard of civility that TER has set.  I like to think I'm not one of the sort of regulars you mention.  I certainly strive to be the opposite of almost all the regulars.



Nope. I wouldn't put you into the group I was thinking of. In fact, I never really think of you at all. lol j/k sir

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Jesus came to divide, not unite. FF I agree with most of your post. I'm not a Calvinist or an Armenian. I have agreed with both you and Nang in the past.


OK, thanks and cool.  To be clear, my point in the above was not to attack you or your positions in any way.  RJB for whatever reason took me, Sola_Fide, Nang, you, and one other person who I can't remember off the top of my head (RJB, I'll +rep you if you remind me who it was, otherwise I'll look back on my own) into the "Sola_5."  When he first posted it I laughed out loud because it was really funny in context, but now he just keeps lumping us all together and calling us all jerks.

In my case, the only quarrel he has with me is I refuse to consider him a Christian and I preach the true gospel to him.  That's really it.  Its not that I'm personally attacking him, its just that the gospel is offensive.  




> I also agree with you when you say I hope she doesn't leave.


Good to hear that I'm not the only one



> I see Nang;s approach as "hard" to some but there is not much time left. She is to the point. Hurt feelings or lost souls? I'll choose hurt feelings every time.


Exactly, this is why I'm so serious about this too.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> 


Can you please tell me what your point in this post is?  Is it supposed to be an insult or just a a farewell?  I know you never post in the religion subforum so I honestly do not know.

----------


## RJB

> and one other person who I can't remember off the top of my head (RJB, I'll +rep you if you remind me who it was, otherwise I'll look back on my own) into the "Sola_5."


Don't rep me FF.  I don't want it nor deserve it.  But it was Louise and I included her just to make it into the number five as she posted the 5 solas (or solae) of the reformation to fit the joke.  I guess joking aside, I more of just consider it to be you, Nang and Sola_Fide.  Kevin and Louise just got lumped in.

----------


## VIDEODROME



----------


## Christian Liberty

> Don't rep me FF.  I don't want it nor deserve it.  But it was Louise and I included her just to make it into the number five as she posted the 5 solas (or solae) of the reformation to fit the joke.  I guess joking aside, I more of just consider it to be you, Nang and Sola_Fide.  Kevin and Louise just got lumped in.


OK.  I'm still not sure exacrtly what your issue with us is.  Is it our refusal to consider Catholics to be our brothers and sisters in Christ?  Or is there more to it than that?

----------


## RJB

Aye aye sir.




>

----------


## Kevin007

> OK, thanks and cool.  To be clear, my point in the above was not to attack you or your positions in any way.  RJB for whatever reason took me, Sola_Fide, Nang, you, and one other person who I can't remember off the top of my head (RJB, I'll +rep you if you remind me who it was, otherwise I'll look back on my own) into the "Sola_5."  When he first posted it I laughed out loud because it was really funny in context, but now he just keeps lumping us all together and calling us all jerks.
> 
> In my case, the only quarrel he has with me is I refuse to consider him a Christian and I preach the true gospel to him.  That's really it.  Its not that I'm personally attacking him, its just that the gospel is offensive.  
> 
> 
> 
> Good to hear that I'm not the only one
> 
> 
> Exactly, this is why I'm so serious about this too.


the funny thing is I have no idea who ANY of you are I just came here on my own accord. I liked the board set up and the lively discussions. Insults are a waste of time and a sin imo.

----------


## RJB

> OK.  I'm still not sure exacrtly what your issue with us is.  Is it our refusal to consider Catholics to be our brothers and sisters in Christ?  Or is there more to it than that?


It's just stupid drama.  No one listens to the other.  No one attempts to understand where the other one comes from.  

It's just repeat talking points.  Go to sleep, wake up, repeat the same talking points... etc.

Videodrome has the most wisdom in this thread lol

----------


## VIDEODROME



----------


## Christian Liberty

> the funny thing is I have no idea who ANY of you are I just came here on my own accord. I liked the board set up and the lively discussions. Insults are a waste of time and a sin imo.


I have no clue who the people here are either, outside the net.  I know Nang from another message board, but that's it.  I don't know pretty much anyone else here other than from this website.

----------


## RJB

Hey videodrome, you starting a religion anytime soon?

----------


## RJB

I'm not thinking of joining  I'd just like to hear your outlook on life.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's just stupid drama.  No one listens to the other.  No one attempts to understand where the other one comes from.  
> 
> It's just repeat talking points.  Go to sleep, wake up, repeat the same talking points... etc.
> 
> Videodrome has the most wisdom in this thread lol


Yeah, there's a lot of truth to this.  Now, I'm about to go to sleep

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Can you please tell me what your point in this post is?  Is it supposed to be an insult or just a a farewell?  I know you never post in the religion subforum so I honestly do not know.


He said he was leaving; I'm saying "Buh-bye".

----------


## Miss Annie

> the funny thing is I have no idea who ANY of you are I just came here on my own accord. I liked the board set up and the lively discussions. Insults are a waste of time and a sin imo.


+rep!  I agree Kevin.  Yes, Jesus did call the Pharisees hypocrites, but we are not the Son of God.  We are called to LOVE OUR ENEMY, not insult them. 
I hope Nang doesn't leave.  I say the more they merrier, let's just be more loving and kind to one another.  
And yes, I agree....... TER is a dollface! ;P

PS.  Not saying that Nang is the enemy either.  But if we are called to love our enemy, how much more are we supposed to love our brother's and sisters in Christ?

----------


## Kevin007

> +rep!  I agree Kevin.  Yes, Jesus did call the Pharisees hypocrites, but we are not the Son of God.  We are called to LOVE OUR ENEMY, not insult them. 
> I hope Nang doesn't leave.  I say the more they merrier, let's just be more loving and kind to one another.  
> And yes, I agree....... TER is a dollface! ;P
> 
> PS.  Not saying that Nang is the enemy either.  But if we are called to love our enemy, how much more are we supposed to love our brother's and sisters in Christ?



exactly! Treat others how we would want to be treated! I and you and every person will give an account to God for every word and thought. Thank God for Jesus, because to this moment I still sin everyday and I sin to the point of shame and guilt you would not believe. I have a "secret" sin that if you told me I would do that 5 or 10 years ago- I'd say you were NUTS! I STRUGGLE every day and pray to God to have mercy on me. I cannot even look at myself in the mirror sometimes. Other times I cry. I think bad thoughts

The worst thing is I sin knowing it is horrible and still do it at times. Praying that God forgives me for all my sins- the "small", the "big", through Jesus. Some days I feel like I have gone BACKWARD.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I'm not thinking of joining  I'd just like to hear your outlook on life.


If there is a 'higher power', I don't think it is reliable for help, answering prayers, or granting miraculous Divine Intervention.  So I tend to focus on practical solutions for living in this current material world.  

I wandered from Catholicism and gradually explored more Eastern Religion.  I did not convert, but I'm still intrigued by many ideas from Buddhism and Taoism.  

I like the Middle Path idea of Buddhism and avoiding extremes.  Or the idea of Mindfulness which can hopefully be achieved with the help of Meditation.  Along with that, trying to avoid letting tricky emotions like Desire, Anger, and Attachment drag you down.  I think many people need tools to train their minds and emotions whether it is meditation or something else.  Our minds can in fact be our own worst enemy very easily.  

I have a copy of the Tao Te Ching which I find interesting.  I feel the idea of the Tao is complimentary to the Middle Way of the Buddha.  It's more about finding perspective that following rigid commandments.  

I also think the Mind is not a single unified thing and is more compartmentalized than we realize.  Internally, our minds probably function more like a chaotic boardroom meeting.  Again, hopefully mindfulness meditation can help to minimize that.  Maybe the core of the mind is like the chairman of the board and all the rest is emotions, desires, or biology demanding to be sway our direction.  If we can lower that mental chatter we can think more clearly about what we're really trying to accomplish and act less impulsively. 

A more contemporary influence of mine is Sam Harris who is one of the so-called newer Atheists.  He is a neuro-scientist who also studied Eastern thought as well as Meditation and even psychedelic experience.

----------


## Miss Annie

> exactly! Treat others how we would want to be treated! I and you and every person will give an account to God for every word and thought. Thank God for Jesus, because to this moment I still sin everyday and I sin to the point of shame and guilt you would not believe. I have a "secret" sin that if you told me I would do that 5 or 10 years ago- I'd say you were NUTS! I STRUGGLE every day and pray to God to have mercy on me. I cannot even look at myself in the mirror sometimes. Other times I cry. I think bad thoughts
> 
> The worst thing is I sin knowing it is horrible and still do it at times. Praying that God forgives me for all my sins- the "small", the "big", through Jesus. Some days I feel like I have gone BACKWARD.


2 Corinthians 12:9
And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 

{{{{HUGS}}}}}  We all struggle at some time or another.  Hang in there and just remember, that every single time you DONT give in to temptation you become stronger and give more of your will over to the Holy Spirit.   We are set free from the power of sin.   The hardest part is letting that powerful statement make the longest trip in the world, the 18 inches from the head to the heart! 
You will be in my prayers Kevin, but know that no single human being on the earth is without sin.  Do not let the devil discourage you into quitting the fight! {{{HUGS}}}}

----------


## Guitarzan

It's easy to grin,
When your ship comes in,
And you've got the stock market beat.

But the man worthwhile,
Is the man who can smile, 
When his shorts are too tight in the seat. 

Caddyshack 14:2 Judge Smails

----------


## Miss Annie

> exactly! Treat others how we would want to be treated! I and you and every person will give an account to God for every word and thought. Thank God for Jesus, because to this moment I still sin everyday and I sin to the point of shame and guilt you would not believe. I have a "secret" sin that if you told me I would do that 5 or 10 years ago- I'd say you were NUTS! I STRUGGLE every day and pray to God to have mercy on me. I cannot even look at myself in the mirror sometimes. Other times I cry. I think bad thoughts
> 
> The worst thing is I sin knowing it is horrible and still do it at times. Praying that God forgives me for all my sins- the "small", the "big", through Jesus. Some days I feel like I have gone BACKWARD.


Kevin, I would say that your soul would be in more danger if you didn't cry over your sin and feel shame.  Don't quit the fight brother..... 
Lu 18:10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
Lu 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
Lu 18:12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
Lu 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
Lu 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Hm. So we chased Nang away? I liked Nang. Seemed to be well written. Well "versed" even.

----------


## VIDEODROME

I think the idea of Sin is weird and vague or leads people into unnecessary guilt and shame over ridiculously trivial things.  In many ways, I think Sin encourages people to hate their own humanity.  

Humans are certainly not perfect, but we can try to carefully gain perspective on our imperfections and deal with them without so much self loathing.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Humans are certainly not perfect, but we can try to carefully gain perspective on our imperfections and deal with them without so much self loathing.


Right but that's the problem. It can't be done. Man can only define himself based upon his own personality. This is because that is all that he can see. Which he then transists into his own brand of morality...and subsequently an individualized perception of order which he then proceeds to shove onto others until he eventually chases them away. I suppose that this keeps him content in his own misery. Who knows...

Until he can overcome that which teaches him to _not_ look for himself ...the real him...he will continue in this manner. He's been taught to separate thought from matter since the days of Plato and Aristotle and their logic continues in the Church today. And so he fails to see that he is stardust. That he's connected to everything around him. And that everything around him is com=nnected to him. Physically. That's order of the highest magnitude. He should look to reintroduce thought with matter. Only then is he perfect.

Kind of like Sam was saying in yer vid.


I found this...The Real You...might save some keystrokes, I suppose.

----------


## Guitarzan

We are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon,
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.


2 Crosby Stills Nash 19:71 Woodstock

----------


## Natural Citizen

> We are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon,
> And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.
> 
> 
> 2 Crosby Stills Nash 19:71 Woodstock


I wonder what that would sound like in 432 hz. That's the frequency of the universe, you know. Ancient theologians understood this. Which is interesting. Many of their instruments were tuned to this.

----------


## otherone

> Aye aye sir.


That was a ring-tailed lemur.

THIS is an aye-aye:

----------


## erowe1

Bye.

----------


## acptulsa

> I am rejecting this forum, for humanistic "religion" is being passed off as "biblical Christianity," which is horribly wrong and false, and something I cannot condone nor endure any longer.
> 
> May God have mercy upon all of you who do not yet see the difference . . .
> 
> Nang


Scared?

If your religion can't stand up to a little debate, maybe you shouldn't be entrusting your immortal soul to it.




> The fact that you reference Mother Theresa, a lost, unregenerate heretic, as a good person to emulate, is sad in and of itself.


Well, the Lord moves in mysterious ways.  I guess He needs _some_ people around to burn Joan d'Arc at the stake and hang Jesus from the Cross, and think the whole time that they're somehow doing the right thing.  So, who am I to argue with God for making some people crazy?

All I know is, when I go into a church and only the unregenerate heretics are listening to what Jesus said and the 'true and faithful' have their fingers in their ears when He speaks, I turn around and leave that church.

Ghandi actually _was_ an 'unregenerate heretic', but if he can teach me how better to do God's work I would sit at his feet and learn that specific thing--and ignore the rest.  Someone who fears the devil is obviously too close to the devil for comfort.

----------


## moostraks

> Such a hateful attitude shown, only proves my point.  Many will claim to be religious, but actually lack in true love for the brethren who are beloved in Christ Jesus.
> 
> Just the way it is, but I am finished with such fake religionists.


Romans 12:14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. 16Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. 17Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. 18If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. 19Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY, says the Lord. 20BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD. 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Your thread was to insult those who disagree with your belief system as a parting shot, if you have Faith then it is _your job_ to love your enemies. The humble in spirit will give without expectation of being rewarded by their fellow man for some perceived elect status they feel they have achieved. 

1 Corinthians 13:1If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.


Proverbs 16:5Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD;
            Assuredly, he will not be unpunished.

      6By lovingkindness and truth iniquity is atoned for,
            And by the fear of the LORD one keeps away from evil.

      7When a mans ways are pleasing to the LORD,
            He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him...

 18Pride goes before destruction,
            And a haughty spirit before stumbling.

      19It is better to be humble in spirit with the lowly
            Than to divide the spoil with the proud.

      20He who gives attention to the word will find good,
            And blessed is he who trusts in the LORD.

      21The wise in heart will be called understanding,
            And sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness.

      22Understanding is a fountain of life to one who has it,
            But the discipline of fools is folly.

      23The heart of the wise instructs his mouth
            And adds persuasiveness to his lips.

      24Pleasant words are a honeycomb,
            Sweet to the soul and healing to the bones

----------


## acptulsa

Drug addicts tend to spend all their time with other addicts for fear of learning something they don't want to know.  Liberals try to keep their followers in liberal echo chambers for fear they might start thinking--which is why the government works so hard to turn the media into one big liberal echo chamber.

If you can't stand the heat run back to your echo chambers.  No one here is nice enough to agree with you no matter how wrong you might be or how rude you are about your right to be wrong.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*




Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.*

----------


## Brett85

> The fact that you reference Mother Theresa, a lost, unregenerate heretic, as a good person to emulate, is sad in and of itself.


That's pretty ridiculous.  I guess you're saying that because she was a Catholic?

----------


## pcosmar

I am a pretty irreligious believer.

Religion is Satan's greatest invention. It distorts and confuses the simple truths.

I think a great many are going to be surprised when they meet the Judge and find that they were wrong about a great many things.

----------


## acptulsa

> Religion is Satan's greatest invention. It distorts and confuses the simple truths.


Pity when someone's so afraid of the devil within they hide from God.  Even sadder when they do it 'in God's name'...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> We are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon,
> And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.
> 
> 
> 2 Crosby Stills Nash 19:71 Woodstock


That was written by Joni Mitchell.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Religion is Satan's greatest invention. It distorts and confuses the simple truths.


And uses the evil of politics to do it.

This is as anything left for any length of time, it becomes corrupted.  The longer the time period, the more politics become involved and the worse it gets.

----------


## fisharmor

> Pity when someone's so afraid of the devil within they hide from God.  Even sadder when they do it 'in God's name'...


Well, I can only give you one rep this thread, but keep it comin'.

Saying religion is evil is like stripping out a Phillips head screw and saying "That's it, I've had it with fasteners altogether."

Religion serves a purpose.  It does things that can't be done otherwise.  When you decry it altogether, you're really only saying that your religion of one is better than the others.

----------


## Terry1

I think what a lot of people fail to understand is that God is completely spiritual and the only way to connect with God is via spiritual means.  There's a realm--another world that exists all around us that we can't see, feel, hear or touch with our carnal senses.  This is the real and true world and not the one we have contact with through the physical realm.  

The physical world is made up of the elements of the earth---yes--we are dust/dirt and everything we create with our minds and hands is the same.  Through the miracle itself of reproduction we're born into this world never understanding anything other than what we can see and feel with our physical bodies.  Until we are drawn to God and given the knowledge and wisdom that something greater than ourselves exists beyond the physical world that we can't see, feel or touch.

This is the curse of blindness and ignorance of mankind that sin brought into this world and the freedom and liberty is being set free from our blindness and ignorance that allows us to then spiritually come in contact with that we can not see with our carnal eyes and hear what we can't with our carnal ears.

Creation alone is enough evidence as the word of God has clearly stated to leave mankind without excuse for their unbelief in what exists beyond the physical senses.

There's proof enough if anyone has ever sat under a star lit night sky and asked themselves what is beyond, beyond and beyond that only to be led running back to their own limited understanding realizing that there are things we are not meant to know while in our human state of being.  Our tiny minds can't comprehend the vastness of creation, only that we understand that it does exist without the understanding as to why and how it exists.  Because that is something that will remain a mystery until we are transformed from this life into the next in another form of existence ourselves.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *I think what a lot of people fail to understand is that God is completely spiritual and the only way to connect with God is via spiritual means.  There's a realm--another world that exists all around us that we can't see, feel, hear or touch with our carnal senses.*  This is the real and true world and not the one we have contact with through the physical realm.  
> 
> The physical world is made up of the elements of the earth---yes--we are dust/dirt and everything we create with our minds and hands is the same.  Through the miracle itself of reproduction we're born into this world never understanding anything other than what we can see and feel with our physical bodies.  Until we are drawn to God and given the knowledge and wisdom that something greater than ourselves exists beyond the physical world that we can't see, feel or touch.
> 
> This is the curse of blindness and ignorance of mankind that sin brought into this world and the freedom and liberty is being set free from our blindness and ignorance that allows us to then spiritually come in contact with that we can not see with our carnal eyes and hear what we can't with our carnal ears.
> 
> Creation alone is enough evidence as the word of God has clearly stated to leave mankind without excuse for their unbelief in what exists beyond the physical senses.
> 
> There's proof enough if anyone has ever sat under a star lit night sky and asked themselves what is beyond, beyond and beyond that only to be led running back to their own limited understanding realizing that there are things we are not meant to know while in our human state of being.  Our tiny minds can't comprehend the vastness of creation, only that we understand that it does exist without the understanding as to why and how it exists.  Because that is something that will remain a mystery until we are transformed from this life into the next in another form of existence ourselves.


This is not entirely true.  Certain sacrameants established by God are both physical and intangible and others are intangible-such as the mystery of holy communion.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Scared?
> 
> If your religion can't stand up to a little debate, maybe you shouldn't be entrusting your immortal soul to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Lord moves in mysterious ways.  I guess He needs _some_ people around to burn Joan d'Arc at the stake and hang Jesus from the Cross, and think the whole time that they're somehow doing the right thing.  So, who am I to argue with God for making some people crazy?
> 
> All I know is, when I go into a church and only the unregenerate heretics are listening to what Jesus said and the 'true and faithful' have their fingers in their ears when He speaks, I turn around and leave that church.
> ...


I don't fear mother theresa, I just find it annoying when Christians take someone who held to damnable heresies as being some kind of paragon of Christianity in action.  Usually its C.S. Lewis but it seems like here its Mother Theresa.  Regardless, doctrinal purity is cheapened

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't fear mother theresa, I just find it annoying when Christians take someone who held to damnable heresies as being some kind of paragon of Christianity *in action*.  Usually its C.S. Lewis but it seems like here its Mother Theresa.  Regardless, doctrinal purity is cheapened


A paragon of Christianity *in action* is a paragon of Christianity *in action.*  To try to deny that because the pope says stuff cheapens the spirit of Jesus as revealed in the spirit of that woman.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> A paragon of Christianity *in action* is a paragon of Christianity *in action.*  To try to deny that because the pope says stuff cheapens the spirit of Jesus as revealed in the spirit of that woman.


Your problem is that you still believe in salvation by works.  The only man who's works were good enough was named Jesus Christ.  No man who trusts in their own works in any way to any degree  when they go before God in judgment will ever enter heaven.

----------


## Dr.3D

I'm pretty sure, few who have never done good works will enter heaven either.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm pretty sure, few who have never done good works will enter heaven either.


Correct.  Living faith includes works (James 2:14).  But, works do not necessarily indicate living faith.  A certain degree of Biblical doctrine will also always accompany any living faith.

----------


## pcosmar

> Well, I can only give you one rep this thread, but keep it comin'.
> 
> Saying religion is evil is like stripping out a Phillips head screw and saying "That's it, I've had it with fasteners altogether."
> 
> Religion serves a purpose.  It does things that can't be done otherwise.  When you decry it altogether, you're really only saying that your religion of one is better than the others.


Not so.

There is a huge difference between religion and Faith/belief. 
Religion is a construct of man.. Faith is from God.

I have asked this before and got no answer.. "What Religion was Job?"

The answer is,, he had no religion.. He had Faith.

----------


## Brett85

> No man who trusts in their own works in any way to any degree  when they go before God in judgment will ever enter heaven.


I don't know if anyone here has ever said that they trust in "their own" works to make it into heaven.  The argument I see many people making is that the holy spirit prompts us to do good works.  So they wouldn't be "our own works," but the works of God/the holy spirit.

----------


## Terry1

> This is not entirely true.  Certain sacrameants established by God are both physical and intangible and others are intangible-such as the mystery of holy communion.


I wouldn't argue with that at all, but let's take into consideration what St. Paul was teaching us here and this is why I question "the physical church".

Representing the physical work.
1Corinthians 10:
10 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, * 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,  3 all ate the same spiritual food,  4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.  5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.*

Representing the spiritual work:

14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.  *15 I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say.* *16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?  17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.*

So what would be your best interpretation of what Paul is telling us here?

----------


## Brett85

> I don't fear mother theresa, I just find it annoying when Christians take someone who held to damnable heresies as being some kind of paragon of Christianity in action.  Usually its C.S. Lewis but it seems like here its Mother Theresa.  Regardless, doctrinal purity is cheapened


So what's wrong with C.S. Lewis?

----------


## otherone

> Living faith includes works (James 2:14).


Glad to see you've come around!  Good for you!  Harmony achieved on the RPF vitriol subforum!

----------


## robert68

> A more contemporary influence of mine is Sam Harris who is one of the so-called newer Atheists.  He is a neuro-scientist who also studied Eastern thought as well as Meditation and even psychedelic experience.


You've mentioned him before. He holds some neoconish anti-Islam views: 

"*Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus*
A long overdue debate breaks out about whether rational atheism is being used as a cover for Islamophobia and US militarism"  by Glen Greenwald

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Har...am_and_Muslims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Har...r%29#Criticism

----------


## Terry1

> Glad to see you've come around!  Good for you!  Harmony achieved on the RPF vitriol subforum!


Good things are happening here, but never without a tooth and claw fight.

----------


## acptulsa

> Your problem is that you still believe in salvation by works.  The only man who's works were good enough was named Jesus Christ.  No man who trusts in their own works in any way to any degree  when they go before God in judgment will ever enter heaven.


One of your problems is that you make judgements about people you don't know from Adam based on precious little evidence.  The fact that I see the spirit of Jesus in the actions of Theresa in no way makes me a works salvationist except by the most profound leaps of illogic.  The word 'assume' might make an ass out of U, but it doesn't necessarily make one of me.

Another one of your problems is that you're so obsessed with your Pharisee-like attempt to make yourself feel important and righteous through knowledge of what you perceive to be The Law that you can't even see and appreciate faith giving Jesus hands when you see it in action.

Want to talk some more about _my_ problem?  Or would you be better served trying to get that log out of your own eye?

----------


## Terry1

> Correct.  Living faith includes works (James 2:14).  But, works do not necessarily indicate living faith.  A certain degree of Biblical doctrine will also always accompany any living faith.


... You are learning well my young padawan, but now you need to seek out the difference between the *two laws* that Paul refers to and why one work will justify you and the other will not.

When you discover this truth--another world unknown will be revealed to you and you will no longer need to replace one jot or tittle of the scripture to understand that it all reconciles with each other in harmony and the puzzle will begin to form a entire perfect picture revealing the mysteries that were once only a blur on the page.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> You've mentioned him before. He holds some neoconish anti-Islam views: 
> 
> "*Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus*
> A long overdue debate breaks out about whether rational atheism is being used as a cover for Islamophobia and US militarism"  by Glen Greenwald
> 
> Also:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Har...am_and_Muslims
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Har...r%29#Criticism


Not surprised.

----------


## erowe1

> Religion is a construct of man.. Faith is from God.
> 
> The answer is,, he had no religion.. He had Faith.


He offered sacrifices to God.

Human constructs aren't all bad. Nor does the fact that something is a human construct mean that it isn't from God. God works through humans. You know about Job because some ancient Israelite wrote his story, and other ancient Israelites as well as later Jews and Christians preserved it as part of the literature of their religions. If God reveals truth to you through the book of Job, then in that he is working through the constructs of men.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Jesus came to divide, not unite. FF I agree with most of your post. I'm not a Calvinist or an Armenian. I have agreed with both you and Nang in the past. I also agree with you when you say I hope she doesn't leave.
> 
> *
> I see Nang;s approach as "hard" to some but there is not much time left.* She is to the point. Hurt feelings or lost souls? I'll choose hurt feelings every time.


How do you know?  The closest thing we have to a time is "soon", which is relative and subjective.




> Watch ye therefore, because youknownotthe day nor the hour.


 


> But of that day and _that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father._

----------


## Muwahid

Jokes on all of you anyway, Islam is the one true religion.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Jokes on all of you anyway, Islam is the one true religion.

----------


## Muwahid

> 


_Indeed there have come to you clear proofs from your Lord; whoever will therefore see, it is for his own soul and whoever will be blind, it shall be against himself and I am not a keeper over you_

----------


## robert68

> Not surprised.


I had a traditional Christian upbringing, but have never needed a militant collectivist atheist to enlighten me about the flaws in traditional organized religion. Those views of his must not bother you much, or maybe at all.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> _Indeed there have come to you clear proofs from your Lord; whoever will therefore see, it is for his own soul and whoever will be blind, it shall be against himself and I am not a keeper over you_


Is this out of context, unattributed quote supposed to mean something?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Is this out of context, unattributed quote supposed to mean something?


You can see it in context HERE.  Look for  006.104 .

I have to wonder about the Islamic view of 'free will' vs. 'the elect'.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I had a traditional Christian upbringing, but have never needed a militant collectivist atheist to enlighten me about the flaws in traditional organized religion. Those views of his must not bother you much, or maybe at all.



I have to admit I have not read every Huffington Post article, Blog Post, or even every book Harris has written to evaluate every view he has.  Most of what I've encountered from him seems to be discussed in a reasonable way.  I'm wondering if that Wiki entry is taking some of his hyperbole and treating it as literal.  

In terms of this thread discussion, I was mostly referring to his spiritual studies and discussions.  

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-mosque





> Should a 15-story mosque and Islamic cultural center be built two blocks from the site of the worst jihadist atrocity in living memory? Put this way, the question nearly answers itself. This is not to say, however, that I think we should prevent our fellow citizens from building “the ground zero mosque.” There is probably no legal basis to do so in any case—nor should there be. But the margin between what is legal and what is desirable, or even decent, leaves room for many projects that well-intentioned people might still find offensive. If you can raise the requisite $100 million, you might also build a shrine to Satan on this spot, complete with the names of all the non-believing victims of 9/11 destined to suffer for eternity in Hell. - See more at: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_t....G0rnWDTq.dpuf



I also found Christopher Hitchens quite interesting to listen to in his time, but I was perplexed by some of this foreign policy notions regarding Iraq.

----------


## robert9712000

> I wish it weren't so, but you're probably right.  I wish it were like religion subforums on other sites-people elsewhere tend not to be such rude and insulting jackasses and the general vibe is nicer and more civil.


 I see it different. On reddit i commented alot in the religious forums and after maybe 200 comments my karma was neg 65 . To even have a opinion other than secular liberalism on reddit is something to be scorned . I may have disagreements on here, but ive never felt completely rejected for my veiw point than i do on reddit. I even tried commenting on gracecentered.com and was treated coldly unless i towed the same line. I think i have had the most lively and in depth conversations here, than any other forum. Some may want to spew there propaganda , but alot want to understand the truth over trying to get others to submit to their belief.

  I do understand what Nang was getting at though. Maybe there should be a Christian sub-forum, for while i will gladly debate interpretation of what parts of The Bible are trying to say. I will admit that I have no desire, nor do i see Christianity as simply just my belief, which deserves the equal consideration in the pool of ideas as Muslim Hinduism ect. . 

  It stands not as equal, but as the only idea i will consider worthy of pursuing to try to understand. It is not because I am closed minded or arrogant, but because I am completely convinced that the Christian Bible is the one and only written word of God. To give any consideration to another belief is offensive to the genuineness of my convictions and brings me down to the secular mindset of thinking nothing is an absolute black or white , right or wrong, but decisions and beliefs have grey areas. When you allow yourself to think this way, nothing has any true convictions and you simply become a actor, where your opinions have no depth to them but are merely a parroted response that is given to appease judgement of a world of Godless minds.

----------


## robert9712000

> I think the idea of Sin is weird and vague or leads people into unnecessary guilt and shame over ridiculously trivial things.  In many ways, I think Sin encourages people to hate their own humanity.  
> 
> Humans are certainly not perfect, but we can try to carefully gain perspective on our imperfections and deal with them without so much self loathing.


 I think you misunderstand the Christians perspective of Sin. I used to have guilt for sin, when i was a new Christian, but now that i understand what it means to be free from the law, i have no guilt when i Sin. It is not because i do not see my Sin as a big deal, but because i know that the sin i commit does not properly represent who i am. For i know i am weak in the flesh, but my Spirit desires the things of Christ. So when i Sin, i recognize it for the wrong that it is and try not to do it again, with the hope that God will someday give me enough strength that my desires and hope are the same as my actions.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You can see it in context HERE.  Look for  006.104 .
> *
> I have to wonder about the Islamic view of 'free will' vs. 'the elect'*.


I think Damick talks about that, but I lent my copy of his book out. :/  Hopefully muwahid or osan or someone else can help you.

----------


## Muwahid

> I think Damick talks about that, but I lent my copy of his book out. :/  Hopefully muwahid or osan or someone else can help you.


We have free will in Islam except in special circumstances in which God chooses to seal the disbelievers heart, this is done to those who have committed evil and rejected all good in his or her heart.

----------


## Dr.3D

> We have free will in Islam except in special circumstances in which God chooses to seal the disbelievers heart, this is done to those who have committed evil and rejected all good in his or her heart.


Thank you, that's interesting.

May I ask what the Islamic view on Predestination is?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I think you misunderstand the Christians perspective of Sin. I used to have guilt for sin, when i was a new Christian, but now that i understand what it means to be free from the law, i have no guilt when i Sin. It is not because i do not see my Sin as a big deal, but because i know that the sin i commit does not properly represent who i am. For i know i am weak in the flesh, but my Spirit desires the things of Christ. So when i Sin, i recognize it for the wrong that it is and try not to do it again, with the hope that God will someday give me enough strength that my desires and hope are the same as my actions.


There seems to be a variety of interpretations about Sin as well as Penance.  I mostly posted that as a response to what Kevin said.

----------


## Muwahid

> Thank you, that's interesting.
> 
> May I ask what the Islamic view on Predestination is?


We believe in fate (qadr), as in everything that is going to happen is already "written". But I don't believe in pure predestination. The fact that what will happen is written doesn't imply we don't choose, just that the creator is the all-knowing and has the capacity to know everything on the timeline, certain things may be preordained regardless of the will of man, but not all.

----------


## Dr.3D

> We believe in fate (qadr), as in everything that is going to happen is already "written". But I don't believe in pure predestination. The fact that what will happen is written doesn't imply we don't choose, just that the creator is the all-knowing and has the capacity to know everything on the timeline, certain things may be preordained regardless of the will of man, but not all.


Thanks, that's the same view I have.

----------


## Snew

> We believe in fate (qadr), as in everything that is going to happen is already "written". But I don't believe in pure predestination. The fact that what will happen is written doesn't imply we don't choose, just that the creator is the all-knowing and has the capacity to know everything on the timeline, certain things may be preordained regardless of the will of man, but not all.


Yeah, that's pretty much how I view it, too.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I disagree with all of you.  I believe God is in control of EVERYTHING that occurs.

See Isaiah 46.

----------


## Kevin007

> Kevin, I would say that your soul would be in more danger if you didn't cry over your sin and feel shame.  Don't quit the fight brother..... 
> Lu 18:10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
> Lu 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
> Lu 18:12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
> Lu 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
> Lu 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.



thank you Annie.

----------


## Kevin007

> I am a pretty irreligious believer.
> 
> Religion is Satan's greatest invention. It distorts and confuses the simple truths.
> 
> I think a great many are going to be surprised when they meet the Judge and find that they were wrong about a great many things.


Jesus hated religion. Jesus wants a relationship with us.

----------


## Kevin007

> This is not entirely true.  Certain sacrameants established by God are both physical and intangible and others are intangible-such as the mystery of holy communion.


Jesus established only 3 sacraments, not seven.

----------


## Kevin007

> I think what a lot of people fail to understand is that *God is completely spiritual* and the only way to connect with God is via spiritual means.  There's a realm--another world that exists all around us that we can't see, feel, hear or touch with our carnal senses.  This is the real and true world and not the one we have contact with through the physical realm.  
> 
> The physical world is made up of the elements of the earth---yes--we are dust/dirt and everything we create with our minds and hands is the same.  Through the miracle itself of reproduction we're born into this world never understanding anything other than what we can see and feel with our physical bodies.  Until we are drawn to God and given the knowledge and wisdom that something greater than ourselves exists beyond the physical world that we can't see, feel or touch.
> 
> This is the curse of blindness and ignorance of mankind that sin brought into this world and the freedom and liberty is being set free from our blindness and ignorance that allows us to then spiritually come in contact with that we can not see with our carnal eyes and hear what we can't with our carnal ears.
> 
> Creation alone is enough evidence as the word of God has clearly stated to leave mankind without excuse for their unbelief in what exists beyond the physical senses.
> 
> There's proof enough if anyone has ever sat under a star lit night sky and asked themselves what is beyond, beyond and beyond that only to be led running back to their own limited understanding realizing that there are things we are not meant to know while in our human state of being.  Our tiny minds can't comprehend the vastness of creation, only that we understand that it does exist without the understanding as to why and how it exists.  Because that is something that will remain a mystery until we are transformed from this life into the next in another form of existence ourselves.


not true. Jesus.

----------


## Kevin007

> Your problem is that you still believe in salvation by works.  The only man who's works were good enough was named Jesus Christ.  No man who trusts in their own works in any way to any degree  when they go before God in judgment will ever enter heaven.


exactly brother!

----------


## Kevin007

> I don't know if anyone here has ever said that they trust in "their own" works to make it into heaven.  The argument I see many people making is that the holy spirit prompts us to do good works.  So they wouldn't be "our own works," but the works of God/the holy spirit.


I actually agree TC

----------


## Kevin007

> Glad to see you've come around!  Good for you!  Harmony achieved on the RPF vitriol subforum!


FF did not say that works save.

----------


## Kevin007

> How do you know?  The closest thing we have to a time is "soon", which is relative and subjective.


lots more than that....

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't know if anyone here has ever said that they trust in "their own" works to make it into heaven.  The argument I see many people making is that the holy spirit prompts us to do good works.  So they wouldn't be "our own works," but the works of God/the holy spirit.


spirit-given works are still works.  The false gospel that we're talking about is that the Holy Spirit aids the Christian so he can be good enough to enter heaven.  This is blatant blasphemy.




> So what's wrong with C.S. Lewis?


Oh boy... believed in purgatory, denied inerrancy of scripture, thought the Protestant Reformation was a 'tragic farce', denied penal substitutionary atonement, believed non-Christians (And, for what its worth, I'm not talking about Catholics or Mormons here, I'm talking about people who flat out say they worship Satan but "live like" they worship Christ).  

See here:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=103




> How do you know?  The closest thing we have to a time is "soon", which is relative and subjective.


Well, the Bible says there isn't much time left.  "Not much time left" might be many lifetimes, or it might be 5 seconds, but either way, eventually people die, so the gospel must be preached with earnest regardless.

For what its worth, I do not think eschatology should be the focal point of any gospel presentation, and it should generally (full preterists aside) not divide Christians.




> Jokes on all of you anyway, Islam is the one true religion.






> 


For once I agree with HB on a religious topic




> I actually agree TC


I don't.  You should check out my thread on infused righteousness.  Of course any religious person will claim to have been saved by grace, but they base it on their temporal works (even if those works are spirit led) rather than on what Christ did for them on the cross.  These are false gospels that cannot save.

----------


## Dr.3D

I'm not aware of anybody here who believes works are the gateway to heaven.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Jesus established only 3 sacraments, not seven.


If you consider Jesus "seperate" from God, yes.  I consider Yeshua the second person of God.  Being fully man _and_ fully God and existing as long as God has, I submit to you that Jesus established all the sacrements.  If you disagree, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> lots more than that....


Lots more than what?

----------


## Kevin007

> Lots more than what?


there are a lot of signs happening showing His coming is near; even at the door. Your specialty isn't the endtimes I take it?

----------


## Muwahid

> I disagree with all of you.  I believe God is in control of EVERYTHING that occurs.
> 
> See Isaiah 46.


Are you referring to the above? God is in control, as everything that happens is allowed by God, in other words nothing can happen that God does not allow, this does not mean god loves all actions however or I should say is _responsible_ for all actions (such as evil actions), he simply allowed free-will, and in essence us having free-will is part of God's will. There's no contradiction between God's ultimate control and free-will.

----------


## Kevin007

> Are you referring to the above? God is in control, as everything that happens is allowed by God, in other words nothing can happen that God does not allow, this does not mean god loves all actions however or I should say is _responsible_ for all actions (such as evil actions), he simply allowed free-will, and in essence us having free-will is part of God's will. There's no contradiction between God's ultimate control and free-will.


hey Muwahid- do you believe/agree with the Koran when it says that Jesus will be beheading Christians, Jews and non-Muslims in the end times?

----------


## Beorn

Ugh. This conversation is just so inane.

Christianity is religion. 
Christianity is also more than just religion.

Jesus is a man.
He's also more than just a man.

I'm perfectly fine with trying to differentiate Christianity from other religions, but this is silly.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> there are a lot of signs happening showing His coming is near; even at the door. Your specialty isn't the endtimes I take it?


I don't specialize in anything.  Specialization is for insects.  Note also that the signs you mention do not tell us an exact time at all.  It's not for us to know-all we have is the signs.

----------


## Kevin007

> I don't specialize in anything.  Specialization is for insects.  Note also that the signs you mention do not tell us an exact time at all.  It's not for us to know-all we have is the signs.


well, one third of the Word is about prophecy; maybe you should dust of the book of Daniel and Revelation...just sayin

there is also a CROWN for those of us longing and watching for His appearing.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are you referring to the above? God is in control, as everything that happens is allowed by God, in other words nothing can happen that God does not allow, this does not mean god loves all actions however or I should say is _responsible_ for all actions (such as evil actions), he simply allowed free-will, and in essence us having free-will is part of God's will. There's no contradiction between God's ultimate control and free-will.


Wow...it's just as bad as Arminianism.  The idol of free will can not save.  

[mod delete]

----------


## Muwahid

> Forsake your idol and turn to the living and true God


Well according to you, that's not my choice.




> hey Muwahid- do you believe/agree with the Koran when it says that Jesus will be beheading Christians, Jews and non-Muslims in the end times?


I believe in everything in the Qur'an but perhaps something was lost in translation? We believe Jesus will come during the end of times, and fight the anti-Christ (ad-dajjal). Since we believe Jesus to be one of us, I suppose it's evident that Christians and Jews will follow the dajjal, and there will be war.

If we assume our modern era to be the backdrop to this, it would be something similar to the Zionists and Neocons versus Muslims. We don't know when the end of times will occur, but this is to be put in context. Everyone will choose a side during this time of turmoil, whoever's side the real Jesus will be on, it's up to us to make that determination on our own and commit to a path.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Wow...it's just as bad as Arminianism.  The idol of free will can not save.  
> 
> [mod delete]


Would you compare Arminianism outright to Islam?

If you think they are directly comparable, just for curiosity, why do you not consider those of us who believe at least some Arminians to be saved (Which would include Clark, Hoeksema, and Robbins) to be in the same boat as those who believe at least some Muslims to be saved?

I think this is a problematic comparison for a number of reasons.  Arminianism clearly has a number of elements of Christianity.  You might not think there are enough such elements for Arminians to actually be saved, but Arminians still profess that Jesus was God, that Jesus died to save men from their sins, that he rose again on the third day, that he's coming back again to judge the living and the dead, that only those who profess Christ will be saved (I know this is a "best case scenario" and that some Arminians such as Billy Graham don't actually believe that only those who profess Christ will be saved), and they would say we are saved by grace alone through faith alone, even if their free will theology contradicts this (it does, obviously.)

For that matter, I wouldn't even compare Romanism with Islam outright, because even though I don't think Catholics are any more "Christian" by my definition than Muslims, I don't think saying "I think some Roman Catholics are saved" necessarily indicates lostness, whereas saying "I think some Muslims are saved" would.  

For what its worth, you know I believe Arminianism is wrong, even heretical, but I think comparing a religious system that has mostly Christian elements and a few unChristian elements with a system that has only non-Christian elements is somewhat absurd.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well according to you, that's not my choice.


Irrelevant.  You are confusing metaphysical considerations with the choice that is right in front of you.  Metaphysically I agree with Sola that God chooses who will come to him and who won't (Though I don't necessarily agree that everyone who rejects this is unsaved) but as far as you are concerned you are duty-bound to repent and trust in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, despite the fact that you can only actually do it if God opens your eyes.



> I believe in everything in the Qur'an but perhaps something was lost in translation? We believe Jesus will come during the end of times, and fight the anti-Christ (ad-dajjal). Since we believe Jesus to be one of us, I suppose it's evident that Christians and Jews will follow the dajjal, and there will be war.


As wrong as I think this is , why would we do that?  If it turned out that Jesus was a Muslim, why wouldn't we follow him?  Of course, this is an absurd hypothetical, as Jesus is God himself.




> If we assume our modern era to be the backdrop to this, it would be something similar to the Zionists and Neocons versus Muslims. We don't know when the end of times will occur, but this is to be put in context. Everyone will choose a side during this time of turmoil, whoever's side the real Jesus will be on, it's up to us to make that determination on our own and commit to a path.


What about those of us who hate war and do not support Israel?

----------


## moostraks

> Irrelevant.  You are confusing metaphysical considerations with the choice that is right in front of you.  Metaphysically I agree with Sola that God chooses who will come to him and who won't (Though I don't necessarily agree that everyone who rejects this is unsaved) but as far as you are concerned you are duty-bound to repent and trust in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, despite the fact that you can only actually do it if God opens your eyes.


How is it irrelevant? If one believes a certain way because they are made that way and can only change because they will be made to change then your whole complaint is worthless because no one can choose to change until they are made to change. So y'all are just blowing smoke trying to act important by squawking about folks need to "do" something when you spend all day saying how the individual is unable to do anything until presumably they have some grand epiphany. No use fretting over things till the epiphany hits so might as well kick up one's heels and live as decadently as possible until said moment happens. Once that moment hits than all previous sins will be forgiven so might as well live it to the fullest to get as much bang for one's redemption. Which seems sort of irrelevant anyways because since you still sin and have a magical blanket that covers your sin.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> How is it irrelevant? If one believes a certain way because they are made that way and can only change because they will be made to change then your whole complaint is worthless because no one can choose to change until they are made to change. So y'all are just blowing smoke trying to act important by squawking about folks need to "do" something when you spend all day saying how the individual is unable to do anything until presumably they have some grand epiphany. No use fretting over things till the epiphany hits so might as well kick up one's heels and live as decadently as possible until said moment happens. Once that moment hits than all previous sins will be forgiven so might as well live it to the fullest to get as much bang for one's redemption. Which seems sort of irrelevant anyways because since you still sin and have a magical blanket that covers your sin.


One might as well say that according to Catholic/Orthodox belief one should just sin as much as he wants and then be baptized when on his deathbed.  Its just as ridiculous.

God is sovereign over everything, yet man has a responsibility to repent and believe.  I really don't see the issue, and I think little of the intelligence of those who see an issue that isn't there.

----------


## fisharmor

> Jesus hated religion. Jesus wants a relationship with us.


I would really love to see this backed up with some evidence.

Of course, by so doing, you'd only be defending your religion of one.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I would really love to see this backed up with some evidence.
> 
> Of course, by so doing, you'd only be defending your religion of one.


I guess it depends how you define "religion" (I would also not hold that Jesus wants a relationship with everyone without exception.)  What does "religion" mean?

----------


## moostraks

> One might as well say that according to Catholic/Orthodox belief one should just sin as much as he wants and then be baptized when on his deathbed.  Its just as ridiculous.
> 
> God is sovereign over everything, yet man has a responsibility to repent and believe.  I really don't see the issue, and I think little of the intelligence of those who see an issue that isn't there.


News flash your opinion is inconsequential to me so you can drop the insults about my intelligence as you are wasting breath. You don't see a conflict because you are heavily invested in being a chosen one so you can toss insults around at others and whine when people aren't agreeing with you. People outside of your group of self proclaimed chosen ones see it because they are not invested in a particular outcome to the conversation if they put their own ego aside.

You say a person who is unable to mentally comprehend they are being held hostage is responsible to escape from captivity or the savage who is keeping them chained to the wall has every right to burn them to a crisp at the stake. All well and good for you since you supposedly got your ticket out so now you can throw stones at the other hostages and mock them over their stupidity.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> News flash your opinion is inconsequential to me so you can drop the insults about my intelligence as you are wasting breath. You don't see a conflict because you are heavily invested in being a chosen one so you can toss insults around at others and whine when people aren't agreeing with you. People outside of your group of self proclaimed chosen ones see it because they are not invested in a particular outcome to the conversation if they put their own ego aside.
> 
> You say a person who is unable to mentally comprehend they are being held hostage is responsible to escape from captivity or the savage who is keeping them chained to the wall has every right to burn them to a crisp at the stake. All well and good for you since you supposedly got your ticket out so now you can throw stones at the other hostages and mock them over their stupidity.


[mod delete]  And me saying that has nothing to do with me being a "chosen one".  Its just a fact.

----------


## RJB

> [mod delete] And me saying that has nothing to do with me being a "chosen one".  Its just a fact.


What is this with the 6th grade insults?  I was hoping your mommy would have taken you home when she left after posting this thread.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What is this with the 6th grade insults?  I was hoping your mommy would have taken you home when she left after posting this thread.


Nang is not related to me.  - rep.

----------


## RJB

> Nang is not related to me.  - rep.


So what LOL back at you.

----------


## Brett85

> spirit-given works are still works.  The false gospel that we're talking about is that the Holy Spirit aids the Christian so he can be good enough to enter heaven.  This is blatant blasphemy.


Ok, so you can just be as bad as you want to be and still make it to heaven.

----------


## otherone

> spirit-given works are still works.  The false gospel that we're talking about is that the Holy Spirit aids the Christian *so he can be good enough* to enter heaven.  This is blatant blasphemy.


This statement is a BLATANT distortion of the concept of Grace.  If the Holy Spirit chooses to work through you, why defy Him?  God *asks* that we be OPEN to Him.  I don't understand your motive in misrepresenting what other Christians believe.  Debate and apology are fine, but can you stick to actual theology, as opposed to sophistry?

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> Wow...it's just as bad as Arminianism.  The idol of free will can not save.  
> 
> [mod delete].


Wow. Wow.

From the RPF Usage Guidelines, "Being Respectful":

Religious context:
• "God does not exist" -- not respectful since you are declaring others' religious doctrine wrong without a proof.
• "I disagree with your beliefs" -- respectful, you don't have to agree, but you can still be amicable about it.
• "Your church services are stupid" -- not respectful, you can certainly think they don't have value, or think they are not at all of interest to you, but they may be important to others and there's no point in demonizing them - no public policy will change.

----------


## Brett85

> Wow. Wow.
> 
> From the RPF Usage Guidelines, "Being Respectful":
> 
> Religious context:
> • "God does not exist" -- not respectful since you are declaring others' religious doctrine wrong without a proof.
> • "I disagree with your beliefs" -- respectful, you don't have to agree, but you can still be amicable about it.
> • "Your church services are stupid" -- not respectful, you can certainly think they don't have value, or think they are not at all of interest to you, but they may be important to others and there's no point in demonizing them - no public policy will change.


Yeah, you haven't been around here very long.    Just about every single one of his posts are like that.

----------


## moostraks

> You're a moron.  And me saying that has nothing to do with me being a "chosen one".  Its just a fact.


Well you seem to be looking to get yourself banned from this forum too.

Proverbs 20:11 It is by his deeds that a lad distinguishes himself If his conduct is pure and right.

Galatians 5:But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. 17For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires

Romans 12:14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. 16Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. 17Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. 18If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. 19Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord. 20“BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD.” 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

How very Christian of you. 

Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

James 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.

Oh and as for me being a moron:
Proverbs 17:28 - Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: [and] he that shutteth his lips [is esteemed] a man of understanding.

Have a blessed day FF. May the wisdom of the Scriptures soften your heart.

----------


## fisharmor

​IBTL

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, you haven't been around here very long.    Just about every single one of his posts are like that.


I didn't like that post either, but for a different reason.  You guys dislike it because its "mean".  I don't really care that its mean, I just think its exaggerated.

As for the above correspondence, I was mean and I apologize for that.  I just get frustrated when people completely misrepresent what I believe, which is exactly what moostraks is doing.  I guess I should turn the other cheek and just proclaim the gospel to her rather than getting aggravated.  I am a sinner, saved by grace.

As for TC's comment, that's somewhat of a misrepresentation as well.  When God saves a man that person's life will change.  Continually living in sin can show lostness, as in, having never been saved.  But it is not the changed life that is the basis of our acceptance before God, it is the cross ALONE.

----------


## RJB

> I just get frustrated when people completely misrepresent what I believe,


Yeah, a lot of us know that feeling.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, a lot of us know that feeling.


Do you believe in sola fide (the doctrine, not the poster)?

Do you believe your works in any way provide you merit before God?

If the answer to #2 is no, are you a baptismal regenerationist?

I'm assuming you answered #2 with a "no" and #3 with a "Yes".  If so, you are contradicting yourself, which is the source of our confusion.

----------


## RJB

Nope.  Been there done that with you.  Not getting into this sophistry with you again. There are tons of threads on this that you've ignored in the past.  Start by going to Eduardo's thread with the open question to you if you are sincere.

You do NOT have the capability to look at another person's belief without infecting it with your upbringing.  That's why these are dead end conversations and you wind up calling people idiots, morons or worse.

You start with your strawman and cling to it.  It's pointless.




> Do you believe in sola fide (the doctrine, not the poster)?
> 
> Do you believe your works in any way provide you merit before God?
> 
> If the answer to #2 is no, are you a baptismal regenerationist?
> 
> I'm assuming you answered #2 with a "no" and #3 with a "Yes".  If so, you are contradicting yourself, which is the source of our confusion.

----------


## Brett85

> I didn't like that post either, but for a different reason.  You guys dislike it because its "mean".  I don't really care that its mean, I just think its exaggerated.
> 
> As for the above correspondence, I was mean and I apologize for that.  I just get frustrated when people completely misrepresent what I believe, which is exactly what moostraks is doing.  I guess I should turn the other cheek and just proclaim the gospel to her rather than getting aggravated.  I am a sinner, saved by grace.
> 
> As for TC's comment, that's somewhat of a misrepresentation as well.  When God saves a man that person's life will change.  Continually living in sin can show lostness, as in, having never been saved.  But it is not the changed life that is the basis of our acceptance before God, it is the cross ALONE.


I just have a problem with the way that he phrases things. You can criticize other religions and other theologies and still do it in a way that sounds respectful to other people.  Of course, you'll just see that as being "liberal PC garbage" or whatever, but I just think that Christians are supposed to act in a way that is kind and respectful to other people.  I don't claim to be perfect, but I try to do that the best I can.

----------


## Brett85

> As for TC's comment, that's somewhat of a misrepresentation as well.  When God saves a man that person's life will change.  Continually living in sin can show lostness, as in, having never been saved.  But it is not the changed life that is the basis of our acceptance before God, it is the cross ALONE.


Well, the changed life is the *evidence* that we have real faith in Christ and what he did for us.

I read a comment on the internet the other day that said something like, "If you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?"

----------


## TER

Which Sea of Palestine Are You? 


*There Are Two Seas*

_By Bruce Fairchild Barton_
There are two seas in Palestine. One is fresh, and fish are in it. Splashes of green adorn its banks. Trees spread their branches over it and stretch out their thirsty roots to sip of its healing waters. Along its shores the children play, as children played when He was there. He loved it. He could look across its silver surface when He spoke His parables. And on a rolling plain not far away He fed five thousand people.

The River Jordan makes this sea with sparkling water from the hills. So it laughs in the sunshine. And men build their houses near to it, and birds their nests; and every kind of life is happier because it is there.

The River Jordan flows on south into another sea. Here is no splash of fish, no fluttering leaf, no song of birds, no children's laughter. Travelers choose another route, unless on urgent business. The air hangs heavy above its water, and neither man nor beast nor fowl will drink.

What makes this mighty difference in these neighbor seas? Not the river Jordan. It empties the same good water into both. Not the soil in which they lie not the country about.

This is the difference. The Sea of Galilee receives but does not keep the Jordan. For every drop that flows into it another drop flows out. The giving and receiving go on in equal measure.

The other sea is shrewder, hoarding its income jealously. It will not be tempted into any generous impulse. Every drop it gets, it keeps.

The Sea of Galilee gives and lives. This other sea gives nothing. It is named The Dead. There are two kinds of people in the world. There are two seas in Palestine.


_Bruce Fairchild Barton (5 August 1886  5 July 1967) was an American writer, advertising executive, and politician._

----------


## moostraks

> I didn't like that post either, but for a different reason.  You guys dislike it because its "mean".  I don't really care that its mean, I just think its exaggerated.
> 
> As for the above correspondence, I was mean and I apologize for that.  I just get frustrated when people completely misrepresent what I believe, which is exactly what moostraks is doing.  I guess I should turn the other cheek and just proclaim the gospel to her rather than getting aggravated.  I am a sinner, saved by grace.
> 
> As for TC's comment, that's somewhat of a misrepresentation as well.  When God saves a man that person's life will change.  Continually living in sin can show lostness, as in, having never been saved.  But it is not the changed life that is the basis of our acceptance before God, it is the cross ALONE.


 I am not seeking to misrepresent you but I have been in these churches and was fed their line, and I saw what it turns people into. They sound just like you and S_F and nang. They are covered and they mock others and mistreat them because they have a blanket to hide under. Your sin of mistreating others is perpetual and you seek to excuse it by claims of tough love. You make demands that you yourself claim cannot be accomplished until they are enlightened so your belief system only works for those who have the same needs and a similar experience. It is a different version of what agrammatos crows about. Yet you cry like a child because he excludes you from being saved and harass S_F when he disagrees with your exceptions. I have many years on your experience with this faith structure and it gave me an abusive husband and turned my heart cold for years. All your crying about being misrepresented is just cover for your mouth showing what lies within your heart towards those who disagree with your belief structure.

----------


## eduardo89

> Nope.  Been there done that with you.  Not getting into this sophistry with you again. There are tons of threads on this that you've ignored in the past.  Start by going to Eduardo's thread with the open question to you if you are sincere.


He should start here before he says anything about Catholicism: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ut-Catholicism

And it would be nice if he finally answered the questions posted in the OP here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...865&viewfull=1

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> I just have a problem with the way that he phrases things. You can criticize other religions and other theologies and still do it in a way that sounds respectful to other people.  Of course, you'll just see that as being "liberal PC garbage" or whatever, but I just think that Christians are supposed to act in a way that is kind and respectful to other people.  I don't claim to be perfect, but I try to do that the best I can.


This. TC and I don't see eye to eye on religion. But it means a lot to me that a person like TC, who believes firmly that he has found the truth, treats Atheists, Christians, Olumpianists, Jews, Zoroastrians, etc. with respect.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This statement is a BLATANT distortion of the concept of Grace.  If the Holy Spirit chooses to work through you, why defy Him?  God *asks* that we be OPEN to Him.  *I don't understand your motive in misrepresenting what other Christians believe.*  Debate and apology are fine, but can you stick to actual theology, as opposed to sophistry?


Some people thrive on trolling and being general asses.  I've known a number of them on and off the interwebz.

----------


## Terry1

> I didn't like that post either, but for a different reason.  You guys dislike it because its "mean".  I don't really care that its mean, I just think its exaggerated.
> 
> As for the above correspondence, I was mean and I apologize for that.  I just get frustrated when people completely misrepresent what I believe, which is exactly what moostraks is doing.  I guess I should turn the other cheek and just proclaim the gospel to her rather than getting aggravated.  I am a sinner, saved by grace.
> 
> As for TC's comment, that's somewhat of a misrepresentation as well.  When God saves a man that person's life will change.  Continually living in sin can show lostness, as in, having never been saved.  But it is not the changed life that is the basis of our acceptance before God, it is the cross ALONE.


What you have failed to realize FF is just *whom* Jesus came for and loved enough to suffer, persecution, torture and death on the cross for them.  He told you that it wasn't for the righteous, but the sinners and to lead them to repentance out of His pure love for them.  

Do you believe that the message of our Lord was given to sinners in a way that would drive them further from Him or draw them to Him?  One of the very things that God chastises the Church for in Revelation while commending their service to Him at the same time was losing their first love in their witness to sinners.  These are the ones God wants, not those who try to flaunt their righteousness in the face of them, but those who are lost are the ones God loves and wants to lead them home.

In our youth and zealousness to please God while still on the milk of the word, many fail in their witness to the lost because they have not learned how to love yet.  As much as you give yourself credit so often, you have failed to realize yourself what your true purpose and calling is and how to witness to those who are lost, struggling and in need of hope.  No one will respond in a positive way to unkindness, insults or name calling--if you do this you then become a traitor to your own cause, a hypocrite and are no good to yourself, anyone or God.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This statement is a BLATANT distortion of the concept of Grace.  If the Holy Spirit chooses to work through you, why defy Him?  God *asks* that we be OPEN to Him.  I don't understand your motive in misrepresenting what other Christians believe.  Debate and apology are fine, but can you stick to actual theology, as opposed to sophistry?


Indeed!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I just have a problem with the way that he phrases things. You can criticize other religions and other theologies and still do it in a way that sounds respectful to other people.  Of course, you'll just see that as being *"liberal PC garbage"* or whatever, but I just think that Christians are supposed to act in a way that is kind and respectful to other people.  I don't claim to be perfect, but I try to do that the best I can.


Not necessarily.  It depends on what you mean.




> Well, the changed life is the *evidence* that we have real faith in Christ and what he did for us.
> 
> I read a comment on the internet the other day that said something like, "If you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?"


Yeah, that's a good comment, I've heard that one too  And I agree with your post.  I think the difference is that I see the distinction as being one of life and death.




> I am not seeking to misrepresent you but I have been in these churches and was fed their line, and I saw what it turns people into. They sound just like you and S_F and nang. They are covered and they mock others and mistreat them because they have a blanket to hide under. Your sin of mistreating others is perpetual and you seek to excuse it by claims of tough love. You make demands that you yourself claim cannot be accomplished until they are enlightened so your belief system only works for those who have the same needs and a similar experience. It is a different version of what agrammatos crows about. Yet you cry like a child because he excludes you from being saved and harass S_F when he disagrees with your exceptions. I have many years on your experience with this faith structure and it gave me an abusive husband and turned my heart cold for years. All your crying about being misrepresented is just cover for your mouth showing what lies within your heart towards those who disagree with your belief structure.


I don't give a crap that agrammatos doesn't consider me saved, and that was never my issue with him.  And I don't recall ever "harassing" Sola.




> He should start here before he says anything about Catholicism: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ut-Catholicism
> 
> And it would be nice if he finally answered the questions posted in the OP here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...865&viewfull=1


I'll take a look and see what I missed.

----------


## Muwahid

> Irrelevant.  You are confusing metaphysical considerations with the choice that is right in front of you.  Metaphysically I agree with Sola that God chooses who will come to him and who won't (Though I don't necessarily agree that everyone who rejects this is unsaved) but as far as you are concerned you are duty-bound to repent and trust in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, despite the fact that you can only actually do it if God opens your eyes.


Everything happens through God's will, this is something I'm sure we agree upon. However why is it the case that free-will may not be part of God's will? I'm trying to find the logical train of thought here. 




> As wrong as I think this is , why would we do that? If it turned out that Jesus was a Muslim, why wouldn't we follow him? Of course, this is an absurd hypothetical, as Jesus is God himself.


If you're a believer in God you would follow Jesus. However if we take the examples of the Jews of Medinah, who, in the time of the prophet Muhammad, boasted to the Arabs of the coming of a new prophet, they rejected Muhammad as a prophet when it turned out he was of the lineage of the Arabs, and not the Hebrews. It was out of pride they refused to follow someone other than their own. For a true believer these considerations don't matter, because when the truth is presented, we follow it; unfortunately many are not true believers in God. 




> What about those of us who hate war and do not support Israel?


Well is that insinuating that we love war? Most of us here very passionately believe in self-defense, and if the anti-Christ was to come, with the intention of annihilating all that is good, we would naturally be opposed to this force.

----------


## acptulsa

> [mod delete]





> Nang is not related to me.  - rep.





> ... but can you stick to actual theology, as opposed to sophistry?


Rep to you, otherone, for being so generous, charitable and Christian as to call that stuff 'sophistry'.  I'm afraid I could never pretend I think it rises even to that low level.

FF, what are you doing?  I mean really?  Do you think you're doing God a favor with this?  Do you really think your vinegar is attracting more flies than honey would?  Really?

Why do you spend all your time dodging and blocking and throwing desperate jabs like a boxer against the ropes?  Because your position is unassailable?  Because you have perfect knowledge?  Because you know God is unquestionably on your side?

Ever think about spending a little more effort making sure _you_ are on _God's_ side?  Because even if you're right about all of this your sales technique, shall we say, could use a lot of work.

----------


## moostraks

> I don't give a crap that agrammatos doesn't consider me saved, and that was never my issue with him.  And I don't recall ever "harassing" Sola...


For someone who doesn't "give a crap" about his statements you sure do spend an inordinate amount of time calling aggramatos out on being judgmental regarding those who agree with him on the issues that _you_ find important. You repeat his name frequently enough in regards to this issue and even started your own thread on the issue just to show how non-judgmental you are by comparison. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...nes-right-quot and there is this thread you started over similar issues you have with their group: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Marc-Carpenter All someone has to do is forum search names to see how many times you have posted gossiping about OTC, Chris Duncan, agrammatos, and Carpenter, and all of your commentaries seem to circle back on how the group is so judgmental unnecessarily to those who agree with him rather than focusing on the real heretics. As for S_F being harassed, he probably takes it in stride as you spend the rest of your time stroking his ego and acting like a lap dog so the attention is all good and gives you plausible deniability about being a sycophant.

As an outsider, it seems to boil down to one either parrots your talking points of necessary beliefs or you will shame them and they are hellbound, then same person needs to parrot S_F or they need to fear being hellbound and humiliated, then they can parrot OTC talking points, because evidence of faith through one's walk is not nearly as important as saying the right thing. You judge people based upon how they agree with your comprehension of faith and damn them irregardless of their fruits. Your love seems to be only evident towards those, like nang, who agree with you and then you shame and humiliate people and call it loving (presumably because they are too stupid to know the difference).

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't give a crap that agrammatos doesn't consider me saved...


Just when I think you have no empathy at all for how you affect us, you surprise me.




> I'm trying to find the logical train of thought here.


I suggest prayer.  You're going to need a whole lot of God's help.

----------


## Muwahid

> I suggest prayer.  You're going to need a whole lot of God's help.


As a Muslim prayer is an obligation five times per day. I've got it covered, mate

----------


## acptulsa

> For someone who doesn't "give a crap" about his statements you sure do spend an inordinate amount of time calling aggramatos out on being judgmental regarding those who agree with him on the issues that _you_ find important. You repeat his name frequently enough in regards to this issue and even started your own thread on the issue just to show how non-judgmental you are by comparison. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...nes-right-quot and there is this thread you started over similar issues you have with their group: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Marc-Carpenter All someone has to do is forum search names to see how many times you have posted gossiping about OTC, Chris Duncan, agrammatos, and Carpenter, and all of your commentaries seem to circle back on how the group is so judgmental unnecessarily to those who agree with him rather than focusing on the real heretics. As for S_F being harassed, he probably takes it in stride as you spend the rest of your time stroking his ego and acting like a lap dog so the attention is all good and gives you plausible deniability about being a sycophant.
> 
> As an outsider, it seems to boil down to one either parrots your talking points of necessary beliefs or you will shame them and they are hellbound, then same person needs to parrot S_F or they need to fear being hellbound and humiliated, then they can parrot OTC talking points, because evidence of faith through one's walk is not nearly as important as saying the right thing. You judge people based upon how they agree with your comprehension of faith and damn them irregardless of their fruits. Your love seems to be only evident towards those, like nang, who agree with you and then you shame and humiliate people and call it loving (presumably because they are too stupid to know the difference).


Seems like he said he went off on this tangent because he was sick of politics.

He might have been sick of _talking_ about politics.  But he was obviously not sick of _playing_ politics.

----------


## moostraks

> Seems like he said he went off on this tangent because he was sick of politics.
> 
> He might have been sick of _talking_ about politics.  But he was obviously not sick of _playing_ politics.


 Yep...

----------


## moostraks

> As a Muslim prayer is an obligation five times per day. I've got it covered, mate


 I wish I had that strong a prayer life.

----------


## Kevin007

> As a Muslim prayer is an obligation five times per day. I've got it covered, mate


AHH Legalism, I see.

----------


## Dr.3D

> AHH Legalism, I see.


Well, from what I understand, they don't accept that Jesus died for their sins.

----------


## Brett85

> Well, from what I understand, they don't accept that Jesus died for their sins.


Yeah, I think they're pretty open about that.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Yeah, I think they're pretty open about that.


Here is the dilemma being faced by those who don't accept His gift.   John 14:6

----------


## moostraks

> Here is the dilemma being faced by those who don't accept His gift.   John 14:6


Thing is He will know who knows Him but we might misjudge a relationship in which we are not participating.

----------


## Muwahid

Stop hating on me, guys.

----------


## Brett85

> Stop hating on me, guys.


Don't worry, even those of us who call ourselves Christians get attacked and hated on by some people here for supposedly not being "real Christians."

----------


## Kevin007

> Well, from what I understand, they don't accept that Jesus died for their sins.


NO, I MEANT PRAYING 5 TIMES A DAY....

----------


## moostraks

> NO, I MEANT PRAYING 5 TIMES A DAY....


And this annoys you enough to yell why? Do you get this worked up over all religions?

----------


## Brett85

> And this annoys you enough to yell why? Do you get this worked up over all religions?


Yeah, the all caps is kind of annoying.  I rarely if ever do that.

----------


## RJB

IT'S A BEAUTIFUL DAY IN THE RPFs NEIGHBORHOOD.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Everything happens through God's will, this is something I'm sure we agree upon. However why is it the case that free-will may not be part of God's will? I'm trying to find the logical train of thought here. 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're a believer in God you would follow Jesus. However if we take the examples of the Jews of Medinah, who, in the time of the prophet Muhammad, boasted to the Arabs of the coming of a new prophet, they rejected Muhammad as a prophet when it turned out he was of the lineage of the Arabs, and not the Hebrews. It was out of pride they refused to follow someone other than their own. For a true believer these considerations don't matter, because when the truth is presented, we follow it; unfortunately many are not true believers in God. 
> 
> 
> 
> Well is that insinuating that we love war? Most of us here very passionately believe in self-defense, and if the anti-Christ was to come, with the intention of annihilating all that is good, we would naturally be opposed to this force.


I wasn't insinuating that you loved war.  I was just reminding you that not all Christians are neocons




> Rep to you, otherone, for being so generous, charitable and Christian as to call that stuff 'sophistry'.  I'm afraid I could never pretend I think it rises even to that low level.
> 
> FF, what are you doing?  I mean really?  Do you think you're doing God a favor with this?  Do you really think your vinegar is attracting more flies than honey would?  Really?
> 
> Why do you spend all your time dodging and blocking and throwing desperate jabs like a boxer against the ropes?  Because your position is unassailable?  Because you have perfect knowledge?  Because you know God is unquestionably on your side?
> 
> Ever think about spending a little more effort making sure _you_ are on _God's_ side?  Because even if you're right about all of this your sales technique, shall we say, could use a lot of work.


In that case I was just ticked off, to be quite honest.  It happens.




> For someone who doesn't "give a crap" about his statements you sure do spend an inordinate amount of time calling aggramatos out on being judgmental regarding those who agree with him on the issues that _you_ find important. You repeat his name frequently enough in regards to this issue and even started your own thread on the issue just to show how non-judgmental you are by comparison. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...nes-right-quot and there is this thread you started over similar issues you have with their group: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Marc-Carpenter All someone has to do is forum search names to see how many times you have posted gossiping about OTC, Chris Duncan, agrammatos, and Carpenter, and all of your commentaries seem to circle back on how the group is so judgmental unnecessarily to those who agree with him rather than focusing on the real heretics. As for S_F being harassed, he probably takes it in stride as you spend the rest of your time stroking his ego and acting like a lap dog so the attention is all good and gives you plausible deniability about being a sycophant.
> 
> As an outsider, it seems to boil down to one either parrots your talking points of necessary beliefs or you will shame them and they are hellbound, then same person needs to parrot S_F or they need to fear being hellbound and humiliated, then they can parrot OTC talking points, because evidence of faith through one's walk is not nearly as important as saying the right thing. You judge people based upon how they agree with your comprehension of faith and damn them irregardless of their fruits. Your love seems to be only evident towards those, like nang, who agree with you and then you shame and humiliate people and call it loving (presumably because they are too stupid to know the difference).


I don't even really understand this post.  My purpose is not to "shame and humiliate" anyone.  I'm just here (on the religion subforum) to preach the gospel and let God do what he will do.  I understand that these types of forums are much more impersonal than face to face conversation.  Sometimes I get frustrated and make personal comments, sometimes you guys get offended because I challenge your non-Christian assumptions.  

As for agrammatos... I really don't care much what he thinks about whether or not I'm saved.  I do care slightly more about their absurd theology.  But, in the case of the threads you link, the first one is something I posted a long time ago, while the second one was sort of a playful jab at TC for saying I demanded perfection of knowledge before I would consider someone saved.  

As for Sola_Fide... couldn't it just be that I respect him but don't always agree with him?  Oh no, it couldn't be that, there HAS  to be a conspiracy.  Its this kind of crap that motivates me to start attacking you guys, because its ridiculous.




> Stop hating on me, guys.


We aren't hating on you.  You just need Jesus Christ

----------


## Ecolibertarian

To return to the original topic...she's gone? That's that?

----------


## purplechoe

> If this is the case, I'm unaware at it.


That's because you are dishonest either with us or yourself and are intellectually, philosophically and spiritually bankrupt...

----------


## Terry1

> I am rejecting this forum, for humanistic "religion" is being passed off as "biblical Christianity," which is horribly wrong and false, and something I cannot condone nor endure any longer.
> 
> May God have mercy upon all of you who do not yet see the difference . . .
> 
> Nang


Nah--I don't think that's the reason you're running away at all.  I really believe that you've decided to create this thread and announce you're leaving because you have been proven biblically wrong more than you're used to where you came from where most agree with your flawed theology.

If I really wanted to take the time, I can go back through this forum and dig up post after post after post where you have been proven scripturally incorrect, biblically wrong and have created for yourself a doctrine that supports what you choose to believe, it would take an entire thread to do that.  

For someone as yourself who makes the claim that you've been studying the word of God for 42+ years, you couldn't even rightly interpret Ezekiel 28, which most of us were all in agreement with except you.  Now I find that glaring evidence that you're not used to being in a forum where people who disagree with you can actually back up their belief with the word of God that supports it.  You have failed to do this and when challenged, you then post scripture that is unrelated to the questions asked you.

The entire point of discussing doctrines is to compare them with the word of God and see if Gods word actually does support that belief.  What I find amazing is that people like yourself will choose to believe something even after it's been proven to be unscriptural--just because you have believed something for so long.  When the evidence is presented that proves beyond a doubt that it is wrong--you then can not accept this truth, but then seek further attempts to support it with commentary rather than the word of God.

I have seen people like you before who have become so embedded in a belief system, that when the truth is presented with scriptural proof to back that up will still reject the truth.  The word of God warns against this very thing.  Why someone would run from the truth when it's presented to them is beyond me.  If someone proves me wrong and has backed that up scripturally--I will run to that truth, not away from it.  Pride is a terrible thing and can do horrible things to people who refuse to let go of something just because they may have supported it most of their lives.  

True freedom and liberty in the Lord is being shown the truth and freed from the lies this dark world has foisted upon those who will believe them.  That's something I pray never happens to me is being so full of pride that I can't accept the truth when it's revealed to me.  Truth means more to me than anything else.  Some people are content to live out their lives believing something just because they always have--may God help them and keep me separated from this world.  

I believe people like you do serve a purpose in your unrelenting agenda to push a doctrine that the word of God does not support.  You really frighten me seeing what can and does happen to people who reject the truth.  I know that heaven and hell are real places that exist for a reason.  This life is far too short and uncertain to be screwing around with God and believing lies thinking that we still have time when this very day our life could end.

May God open blind eyes because none of us have control over what can happen to us and we don't know if indeed today may be our last on this earth.

----------


## pcosmar

> Well, from what I understand, they don't accept that Jesus died for their sins.


Of course not.. If they did they would be Christian Believers.

Perhaps they have never heard the Gospel in a way they understand. (without the Sword or Gun)




> Stop hating on me, guys.


I don't. nor do I hate our Atheist members or any other religious zealots.

I would love to share some hospitality in person,, (a beer and a bowl) and discuss the nature of man,, and of God.

----------


## Terry1

Some say, "why can't we all just get along" and leave it at that. Why can't we all just be one big happy family of people and accept what each other believes and just leave it there?  "Why so much contention over beliefs"---"religion is evil", "this is why I hate the religion forum", "people are nasty"--lol

Well, because this is the way things are in the real world, have been and will never change until God changes this world and the people in it.  Everyone is different with different beliefs, but does that justify all beliefs and doctrines?  What does it accomplish if we can't communicate with each other?  People just need to grow thicker skins and learn to take whatever it is that they can dish out to someone else.

How can anyone discuss theology, biblical exegesis, doctrines, beliefs with one-liner drive-by posts that say pretty much nothing?

This is the religion forum for discussion about religions, beliefs and the validity of them according to what we've been given to understand them.  Beliefs are personal, disagreeing with beliefs is taken as a personal attack to some people and there's no getting around that as far as I can tell.  Some people have thicker skin than others and can stay with the message instead of attacking the messenger and some can't.  But there is a great need to discuss them despite the fact that some people might get irate by nothing more than their passion for what they do believe.

Jesus wasn't tolerant of false beliefs, but he was loving and kind delivering the message of truth.  We don't have to be tolerant, but that doesn't mean we need to be abusive either.  It's all about the message and the delivery of that message.  It's harder to say what we need to say when we have to take the time to type it out instead of face to face conversation.  

If we stick to the message and use the word of God as the guide like we're supposed to, we can get a lot more accomplished, unfortunately---it doesn't always happen that way, but eliminating the place where people are free to discuss their beliefs isn't going to accomplish anything other than silencing people, censorship and destroying the very thing that brings about a greater understanding of what others believe and why.  We only hurt ourselves when we silence others because we don't like what they're saying.  That's a mighty slippery slope and especially for people who claim to believe in freedom, liberty and allowing voices to be heard.

I remember how upset I was when the MSM blacked out Ron Paul during the election.  It seems we should all stand for what we claim to believe in.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's because you are dishonest either with us or yourself and are intellectually, philosophically and spiritually bankrupt...


Why are you so *judgmental


*

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Everything happens through God's will, this is something I'm sure we  agree upon. However why is it the case that free-will may not be part of  God's will? I'm trying to find the logical train of thought here.


Can you define "free will"?  What does "free will" mean?

At one point you said only some things are predestined, not all.  Thus, you don't believe God is sovereign over all things without exception.  This is erroneous and heretical teaching.  Of course, I go by the Bible (Isaiah 10, Isaiah 46, John 6, John 10, Romans 8, and Romans 9) with regards to this subject, not the Qu'ran.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Of course not.. If they did they would be Christian Believers.


Hence the legalism.   That was the only point I was trying to make.

If you don't have the blood of Christ to save you from your sins, you then must rely on legalism.

----------


## pcosmar

> Hence the legalism.   That was the only point I was trying to make.
> 
> If you don't have the blood of Christ to save you from your sins, you then must rely on legalism.


I rely on the Judge of all Creation. and believe that Christ died (and lives) for this purpose.

I think a lot of the confusion stems from Babel,, and the confusion of tongues.

but God looks on the heart.

----------


## moostraks

> I don't even really understand this post.  My purpose is not to "shame and humiliate" anyone.  I'm just here (on the religion subforum) to preach the gospel and let God do what he will do.  I understand that these types of forums are much more impersonal than face to face conversation.  Sometimes I get frustrated and make personal comments, sometimes you guys get offended because I challenge your non-Christian assumptions.  
> 
> As for agrammatos... I really don't care much what he thinks about whether or not I'm saved.  I do care slightly more about their absurd theology.  But, in the case of the threads you link, the first one is something I posted a long time ago, while the second one was sort of a playful jab at TC for saying I demanded perfection of knowledge before I would consider someone saved.  
> 
> As for Sola_Fide... couldn't it just be that I respect him but don't always agree with him?  Oh no, it couldn't be that, there HAS  to be a conspiracy.  Its this kind of crap that motivates me to start attacking you guys, because its ridiculous.


You spend the greater portion of your time gossiping about other believers and then elevate _yourself_ above the beliefs that you ridicule. You attack people by insults of their intellect constantly (shaming and humiliating) and make statements about who is or is not saved (again shaming and humiliating) when it isn't something that someone who has humility and love should be doing if the expectation were to show those who don't know the Bible the beauty of its message. You are impulsive and reckless with the message and a danger to the proper sharing of the Word imo.

Your problem with the OTC message is exactly what I was responding to regarding agrammatos but you can't seem to fathom how hypocritical you are being. Those aren't the only posts in which you have brought OTC up. It is a constant whining about how they should be going after others instead of you and those like you. And your logic is because you and those like you (S_F for example) agree with them on the important things (in your mind) so why do they have to be so rude and act as if you are unsaved because they are a damage to the message you agree upon.  According to your repetitive commentary, they are wasting their time which should be spent attacking others that you find offensive. Talk about a waste of energy by all parties for the purpose of not being a fruitful tree of love but one which sows seeds of strife.

As for the issue with S_F that you are attempting to belittle me for making it a claim of "conspiracy", you seem to be lacking experience with human nature. I know you believe yourself to be as wise as those with many years but you show your age in your responses such as this. I was not pointing out a conspiracy between you two but merely observing from an outside position how you two behave and manipulate others, most specifically each other.

----------


## Nang

> Nah--I don't think that's the reason you're running away at all.  I really believe that you've decided to create this thread and announce you're leaving because you have been proven biblically wrong more than you're used to where you came from where most agree with your flawed theology.
> 
> If I really wanted to take the time, I can go back through this forum and dig up post after post after post where you have been proven scripturally incorrect, biblically wrong and have created for yourself a doctrine that supports what you choose to believe, it would take an entire thread to do that.  
> 
> For someone as yourself who makes the claim that you've been studying the word of God for 42+ years, you couldn't even rightly interpret Ezekiel 28, which most of us were all in agreement with except you.  Now I find that glaring evidence that you're not used to being in a forum where people who disagree with you can actually back up their belief with the word of God that supports it.  You have failed to do this and when challenged, you then post scripture that is unrelated to the questions asked you.
> 
> The entire point of discussing doctrines is to compare them with the word of God and see if Gods word actually does support that belief.  What I find amazing is that people like yourself will choose to believe something even after it's been proven to be unscriptural--just because you have believed something for so long.  When the evidence is presented that proves beyond a doubt that it is wrong--you then can not accept this truth, but then seek further attempts to support it with commentary rather than the word of God.
> 
> I have seen people like you before who have become so embedded in a belief system, that when the truth is presented with scriptural proof to back that up will still reject the truth.  The word of God warns against this very thing.  Why someone would run from the truth when it's presented to them is beyond me.  If someone proves me wrong and has backed that up scripturally--I will run to that truth, not away from it.  Pride is a terrible thing and can do horrible things to people who refuse to let go of something just because they may have supported it most of their lives.  
> ...




I do not run away, Terry, but seek to avoid your hypocrisy.  This entire post could be directed back upon you.  Especially the "screwing around with God" comment, for you unrepentantly insert things into Holy Scripture that are not there.

But for the sake of others who might truly desire to learn the bible, I offer this commentary on Ezekiel Chapter 28:

http://www.faithtacoma.org/content/2007-11-04-pm.aspx

The emphasis in this article is ~pride~ and I would really wish you read it for correction, although I know you will not bother.

I have no agenda, but to witness in the world, to the gospel truths of Jesus Christ.   I have as much right to do so on this forum as anyone else, but I am not going to throw pearls to swine, who only seek to trample the promises and grace of God underfoot.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You spend the greater portion of your time gossiping about other believers and then elevate _yourself_ above the beliefs that you ridicule. You attack people by insults of their intellect constantly (shaming and humiliating) and make statements about who is or is not saved (again shaming and humiliating) when it isn't something that someone who has humility and love should be doing if the expectation were to show those who don't know the Bible the beauty of its message. You are impulsive and reckless with the message and a danger to the proper sharing of the Word imo.
> 
> Your problem with the OTC message is exactly what I was responding to regarding agrammatos but you can't seem to fathom how hypocritical you are being. Those aren't the only posts in which you have brought OTC up. It is a constant whining about how they should be going after others instead of you and those like you. And your logic is because you and those like you (S_F for example) agree with them on the important things (in your mind) so why do they have to be so rude and act as if you are unsaved because they are a damage to the message you agree upon.  According to your repetitive commentary, they are wasting their time which should be spent attacking others that you find offensive. Talk about a waste of energy by all parties for the purpose of not being a fruitful tree of love but one which sows seeds of strife.
> 
> As for the issue with S_F that you are attempting to belittle me for making it a claim of "conspiracy", you seem to be lacking experience with human nature. I know you believe yourself to be as wise as those with many years but you show your age in your responses such as this. I was not pointing out a conspiracy between you two but merely observing from an outside position how you two behave and manipulate others, most specifically each other.


Your perception of my issue with OTC is fundamentally correct.  They're so focused on people who tolerate other people or who believe God doesn't proactively cause  a cricket to take a certain number of steps that they don't even really seem to bother to call out the actual works-salvationists and other heretics.

----------


## moostraks

> I do not run away, Terry, but seek to avoid your hypocrisy.  This entire post could be directed back upon you.  Especially the "screwing around with God" comment, for you unrepentantly insert things into Holy Scripture that are not there.
> 
> But for the sake of others who might truly desire to learn the bible, I offer this commentary on Ezekiel Chapter 28:
> 
> http://www.faithtacoma.org/content/2007-11-04-pm.aspx
> 
> The emphasis in this article is ~pride~ and I would really wish you read it for correction, although I know you will not bother.
> 
> I have no agenda, but to witness in the world, to the gospel truths of Jesus Christ.   I have as much right to do so on this forum as anyone else, but I am not going to throw pearls to swine, who only seek to trample the promises and grace of God underfoot.


If we are such swine then why did you bother to come back to cast more of your supposed "pearls" after such a dramatic exit? It was a bit ridiculous considering you had only been here a month in the first place to make such a pronouncement especially after proclaiming yourself a follower to a religion that holds humility in such high regard. Yet you find it necessary after having departed and taking cheap shots at those who disagree with you to return and make a few more insults? 

Psalm 69: 20Reproach has broken my heart and I am so sick.
            And I looked for sympathy, but there was none,
            And for comforters, but I found none.

      21They also gave me gall for my food
            And for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.

----------


## RJB

Tell him this 1000 more times moostraks.  Then he might hear you 




> You spend the greater portion of your time gossiping about other believers and then elevate _yourself_ above the beliefs that you ridicule...
> 
> Your problem with the OTC message is exactly what I was responding to regarding agrammatos but *you can't seem to fathom how hypocritical you are being.* Those aren't the only posts in which you have brought OTC up. *It is a constant whining about how they should be going after others instead of you and those like you.* And your logic is because you and those like you (S_F for example) agree with them on the *important things (in your mind)* so why do they have to be so rude and act as if you are unsaved because they are a damage to the message you agree upon.  According to your repetitive commentary, they are wasting their time which should be spent attacking others that you find offensive. Talk about a waste of energy by all parties for the purpose of not being a fruitful tree of love but one which sows seeds of strife.


  He was taught *his interpretation* of 3 verses is the end all be all.   He will continue on his holy war until his eyes are opened.




> Your perception of my issue with OTC is fundamentally correct.  *They're so focused on people who tolerate other people or who believe God doesn't proactively cause  a cricket to take a certain number of steps that they don't even really seem to bother to call out the actual works-salvationists and other heretics*.

----------


## acptulsa

> I have seen people like you before who have become so embedded in a belief system, that when the truth is presented with scriptural proof to back that up will still reject the truth.  The word of God warns against this very thing.  Why someone would run from the truth when it's presented to them is beyond me.  If someone proves me wrong and has backed that up scripturally--I will run to that truth, not away from it.  Pride is a terrible thing and can do horrible things to people who refuse to let go of something just because they may have supported it most of their lives.


Yeah.  Like get them involved in pointless little wars.  And also cause them to invite tyranny into their own nation, ending the freedom that their grandfathers fought for so their posterity could enjoy it forever.

----------


## Terry1

> I do not run away, Terry, but seek to avoid your hypocrisy.  This entire post could be directed back upon you.  Especially the "screwing around with God" comment, for you unrepentantly insert things into Holy Scripture that are not there.
> 
> But for the sake of others who might truly desire to learn the bible, I offer this commentary on Ezekiel Chapter 28:
> 
> http://www.faithtacoma.org/content/2007-11-04-pm.aspx
> 
> The emphasis in this article is ~pride~ and I would really wish you read it for correction, although I know you will not bother.
> 
> I have no agenda, but to witness in the world, to the gospel truths of Jesus Christ.   I have as much right to do so on this forum as anyone else, but I am not going to throw pearls to swine, who only seek to trample the promises and grace of God underfoot.


You do have an agenda if you've come here to witness lies that you believe are truth--that is your stated agenda that you just denied having here.  This is what I'm talking about with regard to what you say and then do.  You resemble a walking contradiction in not only almost everything you say, but also what you believe and you can not see yourself as others do and that is the problem.

That commentary by this Robert Rayburn you posted is absolutely without a doubt a total perversion of scripture.  I did take the time to read most of it and had to stop when he made the claim that King of Tyre was not being referenced as satan, but rather Adam.  How utterly and deceitfully bold of him when Ezek. 28 clearly states that it's talking about satan himself, who was the guardian cherub that was perfect and cast out of heaven.  How blatant and arrogant and blind can one be to then say that is Adam knowing the history and creation of Adam and that Adam was never cast out of heaven.  

This is the blatant rebellion against the word of God and satan's attack on truth to place the blame for evil, sin and death on God and Adam instead of satan.  This is a doctrine straight out of the bowels of hell itself with satan boldly proclaiming his innocence through this teaching of those who have been deceived.  You can't see it because you choose not to.

Revelation 12:10 
Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come,* for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down.*

Ask yourself just how satan accuses God and the brethren day and night?  satan accuses God and the brethren *through *people** who have been deceived into believing the lies and teach them as light and truth.  This is how and the only way satan can deceive mankind is through mankind themselves.

I don't care how long you've been wrapped up in this belief system, but I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that this kind of heresy and blatant corruption of the word of God by people who want to call themselves a "Dr. of Divinity" is why people like yourself become deceived by them.  I had people with Ph.D's digging ditches for me too, it's no good indication that a lot of accumulated knowledge makes people smarter spiritually.  You have been duped dear lady and you're the one who truly needs to repent if you care about the actual truth at all.

----------


## purplechoe

> exactly!* Treat others how we would want to be treated!* I and you and every person will give an account to God for every word and thought. Thank God for Jesus, because to this moment I still sin everyday and I sin to the point of shame and guilt you would not believe. I have a "secret" sin that if you told me I would do that 5 or 10 years ago- I'd say you were NUTS! I STRUGGLE every day and pray to God to have mercy on me. I cannot even look at myself in the mirror sometimes. Other times I cry. I think bad thoughts
> 
> The worst thing is I sin knowing it is horrible and still do it at times. Praying that God forgives me for all my sins- the "small", the "big", through Jesus. Some days I feel like I have gone BACKWARD.


Yeah, but how does that apply to sadomasochists or psychopaths? I certainly would not advise to them to treat me as they would like to be treated. What if someones idea of pleasure is to be chained to a bed post and whipped repeatedly while being cursed out? A lot of people don't realize the evil that dwells in the hearts of men...

----------


## Muwahid

> I wasn't insinuating that you loved war.  I was just reminding you that not all Christians are neocons


I'm aware and I do not believe Christianity to teach war-mongering or hate. I may be a minority in thought, but I don't believe a "believer" is only someone that professes my religion. This is because, belief is something internal, we believe those with an atoms weight of belief in the one true God will eventually grant one paradise. So when the end of times come, we will choose a side, and God willing we will all choose the side which stands against the dajjal, or anti-christ.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm aware and I do not believe Christianity to teach war-mongering or hate.


That's a good thing.  I don't necessarily think Islam does either (I'll be honest, I don't know much about Islam, but I doubt most Muslims teach warmongering or hate.)  My issues with Islam are doctrinal, relating to the denial of Christ's divinity, his death on the cross to save sinners, and his resurrection.  My issues are not of the "Oh my goodness Muslims are terrorists!"  Sort.




> I may be a minority in thought, but I don't believe a "believer" is only someone that professes my religion. This is because, belief is something internal, we believe those with an atoms weight of belief in the one true God will eventually grant one paradise. So when the end of times come, we will choose a side, and God willing we will all choose the side which stands against the dajjal, or anti-christ.



I don't know how you define "religion."  I believe that anyone who disagrees with 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 certainly is not "on my side" as it were.  Those verses are the heart of the gospel.  Christ died to save sinners and was raised again.  Ephesians 2:8-9 further describes this atonement as being received through faith alone, by grace alone.  Those who reject this do not believe in the finished work of Christ and thus are unsaved, whether they be Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, works-salvationists who say they are Christians, whoever.  I don't say that to be hateful, but because its the most important subject in the world.  The gospel is one thing and only one thing.  All who believe it are saved, all who do not are perishing.  I'd beseech you to repent and believe the true gospel before it is too late!

----------


## acptulsa

> I believe that anyone who disagrees with 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 certainly is not "on my side" as it were.


Take heart, Muwahid.  Most of us are.

And many of us derive some comfort from the fact.

----------


## Christian Liberty

You say you're a Christian and you tell a Muslim "not to worry"?

Wow...  That's blatantly satanic.  The fact that you can say that while calling yourself a Christian is absolutely repulsive.  What does your personal vendetta with me have to do with this?

----------


## acptulsa

> You say you're a Christian and you tell a Muslim "not to worry"?
> 
> Wow...  That's blatantly satanic.


Satanic?  The man isn't even a Wiccan.  I wouldn't say that to a Muslim's face, if I were you.  He might consider it a mite rude.




> The fact that you can say that while calling yourself a Christian is absolutely repulsive.


Why?  Worrying will just bring Eternity on sooner.  If he's to be converted, it won't be done by worrying him to death.




> What does your personal vendetta with me have to do with this?


What vendetta?  I agree with you every single chance I get.  I just don't get a lot of chances.

----------


## Muwahid

> That's a good thing.  I don't necessarily think Islam does either (I'll be honest, I don't know much about Islam, but I doubt most Muslims teach warmongering or hate.)  My issues with Islam are doctrinal, relating to the denial of Christ's divinity, his death on the cross to save sinners, and his resurrection.  My issues are not of the "Oh my goodness Muslims are terrorists!"  Sort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how you define "religion."  I believe that anyone who disagrees with 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 certainly is not "on my side" as it were.  Those verses are the heart of the gospel.  Christ died to save sinners and was raised again.  Ephesians 2:8-9 further describes this atonement as being received through faith alone, by grace alone.  Those who reject this do not believe in the finished work of Christ and thus are unsaved, whether they be Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, works-salvationists who say they are Christians, whoever.  I don't say that to be hateful, but because its the most important subject in the world.  The gospel is one thing and only one thing.  All who believe it are saved, all who do not are perishing.  I'd beseech you to repent and believe the true gospel before it is too late!





> _I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved_


And here I quote 5:46-48 of the Qur'an:



> _And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God.
> 
> Let the people of the Gospel judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.
> 
> To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;_


We do not dispute the overall message in the Gospel or Torah, we affirm it. It is my view, that the divinity of Christ was an emphasis later pushed by the Church. This is why many Muslim apologists ask for one quote where Jesus asserts himself as God, instead we get a very convoluted triune theory, to the extent that the separate states of God are both *dependant* and *independant* entities-- an example is when we look in the gospel and find the limitations of Christ regarding many things, such as knowledge, or the quote where he rebukes on for calling him good as "Only God is good!", but then all of this is on top of the trinity.

From logical, scriptural, and historical information, although I agree with the overall message in Christianity, I cannot subscribe wholly to it, because of this issue, but I find in Islam, the exact same underlying message, without the necessity of the triune God, which is not only an issue for Muslims, but for sects of Christianity both in modern times and in historical times.

As for how I view religion, to clarify, I do believe one who openly rejects the message is damned, but so many of us have obstacles in the way of finding the truth, so we as humans cannot firmly say "So-and-so is damned to hell", we can say in a general says "unbelievers are damned", but at the end if someone was shown the truth unadulterated, if they would believe in it as the truth instead of letting pride and arrogance blind them, they will enter the gates of paradise, and this shows the true mercy of God.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Satanic?  The man isn't even a Wiccan.


Jesus says anyone who isn't against him is for him.






> I wouldn't say that to a Muslim's face, if I were you.  He might consider it a mite rude.


I probably wouldn't be that blunt either with a Muslim.   At least he doesn't claim to represent Christ.  I'd be much more inclined to say this to the face of a "Christian" who told a Muslim not to worry about his soul.   You are speaking peace to a man who denies that Jesus came in the flesh (2 John 9-11) and you share in his sins.





> Why?  Worrying will just bring Eternity on sooner.  If he's to be converted, it won't be done by worrying him to death.


I believe God is powerful enough to save his people through the preaching of the gospel.  I'm just playing the part God has called me to play.  You are actively opposing this by telling this Muslim he is "OK" and condemning me for telling him he is lost.  You're tickling his ears and you know it.  And why do you tickle his ears?  Because you too are unsaved.




> What vendetta?  I agree with you every single chance I get.  I just don't get a lot of chances.


Well, agreeing that a Muslim needs to believe in Christ for salvation seems like an obvious point, but I guess not

----------


## RJB

> I believe that anyone who disagrees with 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 certainly is not "on my side" as it were.


I agree with 1 Cor 15:1-4.  I will go to bed knowing that my brother, FF, the 19 year old internet dude who I never met who likes to insult me, is on my side and that I have his assurance of Salvation.

Good night all!!!  I'm at peace

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And here I quote 5:46-48 of the Qur'an:
> 
> 
> We do not dispute the overall message in the Gospel or Torah, we affirm it. It is my view, that the divinity of Christ was an emphasis later pushed by the Church. This is why many Muslim apologists ask for one quote where Jesus asserts himself as God, instead we get a very convoluted triune theory, to the extent that the separate states of God are both *dependant* and *independant* entities-- an example is when we look in the gospel and find the limitations of Christ regarding many things, such as knowledge, or the quote where he rebukes on for calling him good as "Only God is good!", but then all of this is on top of the trinity.
> 
> From logical, scriptural, and historical information, although I agree with the overall message in Christianity, I cannot subscribe wholly to it, because of this issue, but I find in Islam, the exact same underlying message, without the necessity of the triune God, which is not only an issue for Muslims, but for sects of Christianity both in modern times and in historical times.
> 
> As for how I view religion, to clarify, I do believe one who openly rejects the message is damned, but so many of us have obstacles in the way of finding the truth, so we as humans cannot firmly say "So-and-so is damned to hell", we can say in a general says "unbelievers are damned", but at the end if someone was shown the truth unadulterated, if they would believe in it as the truth instead of letting pride and arrogance blind them, they will enter the gates of paradise, and this shows the true mercy of God.


John 10:30.  The Jews clearly understood what Christ meant when he said "I and the Father are One" and they tried to stone him for it.  If the Jews misunderstood, that would have been the time for Jesus to correct them, but he doesn't. Why?  Because he was in fact claiming that Jesus was God.

The person of Jesus Christ, and his work on the cross, are both essential gospel doctrines.  If you don't believe either or both, you do not believe the gospel.  See John 3:18 and Romans 1:16-17.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I agree with 1 Cor 15:1-4.  I will go to bed knowing that my brother, FF, the 19 year old internet dude who I never met who likes to insult me, is one my side and that I have his assurance of Salvation.
> 
> Good night all!!!  I'm at peace


I was talking to a Muslim here.  And, I did not say everyone who says they agree with 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is saved, only that everyone who disagrees with it (ie. all Muslims) are lost.

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> You are actively opposing this by telling this Muslim he is "OK" and condemning me for telling him he is lost.  You're tickling his ears and you know it.  And why do you tickle his ears?  Because you too are unsaved.





> I was talking to a Muslim here. And, I did not say everyone who says they agree with 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is saved, only that everyone who disagrees with it (ie. all Muslims) are lost.


From the Religion Board Usage Guidelines:

If you wish to engage in debate and be critical of others religion, or lack thereof, it is important that you:
• Maintain a respectful disposition.
• Do not claim something to be true/false without presenting a proof. Without a proof the issue is a matter of faith / belief and should be presented as such.
• Debate only in proper context, do not turn discussion threads on a specific religious topic into a debate thread on the belief system necessary for the context of that topic. Such posts are off-topic to that discussion, you are welcome to start a new thread.
• Work to get along with those you are discussing with, ask clarifying questions before casting negative assumptions.
• Use extreme care to not misrepresent others' religion. Ask clarifying questions before casting potentially inflammatory misrepresentation.
• Remember to be respectful and work to achieve the primary purpose of peaceful social exchange and personal enrichment.


Below are some example statements and how the guidelines apply:
• "God does not exist" -- based on context, this is generally not respectful since you are declaring others' religious doctrine wrong without a proof.
• "You don't believe in God, you're going to hell" -- not respectful as it can't be proven.
• "I disagree with your beliefs" -- respectful, you don't have to agree, but you can still be amicable about it.
• "Your church services are stupid" -- not respectful, you can certainly think they don't have value, or think they are not at all of interest to you, but they may be important to others and there's no point in demonizing them.

...

*Question 10: Can I apply labels to people?

Answer: Applying labels to others that they do not self-subscribe to is just an ad hominem attack with no positive debate value. It is in effect, a judgement, generally negative.*

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...r-lack-thereof

----------


## acptulsa

> Well, agreeing that a Muslim needs to believe in Christ for salvation seems like an obvious point, but I guess not


At least he believes in Jesus.  That gives him a head start on the satanic people you were blathering about.

Tell you what.  You argue with him, and I'll treat him like a human being, and we'll see which one of us converts him first.

By the way, since you're comprehension challenged, let me just point out one fact, lest someone merely skimming this thread believe your version of events.  I told him it was or was not a good idea to be _on your side._  I didn't actually say anything at all about whether he needs to entrust his heart to Jesus or not.  You assumed that part.

See, you and Jesus are two different creatures.  It's a historic fact.

----------


## RJB

> I was talking to a Muslim here.  And, I did not say everyone who says they agree with 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is saved, only that everyone who disagrees with it (ie. all Muslims) are lost.


LOL  I'm laughing too hard to hit the rolled eyes smiley...  Oh wait.  Here it is:    LOL.  You're too much.

----------


## Brett85

I believe what the Bible says, which is that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light, and no one comes to the father except through him.  That said, I don't feel the need to constantly go around and tell other people that they're unsaved and headed for destruction, even if I feel that way privately.  It's not necessary to bring up whether certain people are saved in every single thread.  I'll be honest about what I believe is going to happen to those who don't accept Christ if the issue comes up, but there's no reason to constantly initiate the conversation and constantly bring the issue up.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> At least he believes in Jesus.  That gives him a head start on the satanic people you were blathering about.


He doesn't believe in the same Jesus I believe in.  




> Tell you what.  You argue with him, and I'll treat him like a human being, and we'll see which one of us converts him first.


Who says you must not treat someone like a human being in order to argue propositions?  



> By the way, since you're comprehension challenged, let me just point out one fact, lest someone merely skimming this thread believe your version of events.  I told him it was or was not a good idea to be _on your side._  I didn't actually say anything at all about whether he needs to entrust his heart to Jesus or not.  You assumed that part.
> 
> See, you and Jesus are two different creatures.  It's a historic fact.



OK, then you are judging that I am not on Jesus' side.  That's fine, but you also lose your leg to stand on when you complain about other people judging.  Which, ironically, is your chief complaint about me.  You are being a hypocrite.



> LOL  I'm laughing too hard to hit the rolled eyes smiley...  Oh wait.  Here it is:

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I believe what the Bible says, which is that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light, and no one comes to the father except through him.  That said, I don't feel the need to constantly go around and tell other people that they're unsaved and headed for destruction, even if I feel that way privately.  It's not necessary to bring up whether certain people are saved in every single thread.  I'll be honest about what I believe is going to happen to those who don't accept Christ if the issue comes up, but there's no reason to constantly initiate the conversation and constantly bring the issue up.


Matthew 28:19-20.

----------


## Christian Liberty

TC, your response shows by your actions that you hate the people who you believe are lost.  If you cared for them why wouldn't you warn them that their (metaphorical) houses are on fire?

----------


## Brett85

> TC, your response shows by your actions that you hate the people who you believe are lost.  If you cared for them why wouldn't you warn them that their (metaphorical) houses are on fire?


How much luck have you had converting people to what you believe by attacking their beliefs?

----------


## Brett85

> Matthew 28:19-20.


Did I say that we shouldn't make disciples of all nations?  Of course not.  If you think that your blunt style is the only way to convert people to Christianity, (Or Calvinism) I don't really know what to tell you.

----------


## acptulsa

> Who says you must not treat someone like a human being in order to argue propositions?


I do not know, FF.  I'm just sorry you have so much misplaced faith in him.

You don't know how old Muhawid is.  His house might not be on fire.  It might just barely be beginning to smoulder.  The shock and awe isn't getting the job done.  Have you no other tricks up your sleeve?  Are you a one-trick pony?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> How much luck have you had converting people to what you believe by attacking their beliefs?


Is temporal success the primary measuring stick?

BTW: I do not "attack" people's beliefs in person, but I do tell them that without Christ they are eternally lost, and I explain the gospel to them.  Most people I've talked to in real life have not seen me as attacking them.  I think that's kind of the way it is with impersonal internet message boards.  Its hard if not impossible to see th emotion behind things that are said, so things will be taken offensively.  Its the nature of the beast, but I believe God can use those conversations despite this.  One time when I was talking to two agnostics I offended one of them by something I said but the other one corrected him and said that what I said wasn't offensive. But.. the Bible says the gospel message is offensive.  Just look at the last verse of Romans 9.  You cannot live the Christian life without offending people.

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> Is temporal success the primary measuring stick?


Is there any other point?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Did I say that we shouldn't make disciples of all nations?  Of course not.  If you think that your blunt style is the only way to convert people to Christianity, (Or Calvinism) I don't really know what to tell you.


I think what you call "blunt" is just Biblical.  I mean, how do you "not bluntly" tell someone that they are evil and that they will go to Hell if they don't repent and trust in Christ?  I guess your annihilation doctrine makes it a little easier, but even still, its an offensive message and it is what it is.  That said, I think conversations do go differently for me face to face when compared to online because online is less personal.



> I do not know, FF.  I'm just sorry you have so much misplaced faith in him.
> 
> You don't know how old Muhawid is.  His house might not be on fire.  It might just barely be beginning to smoulder.  The shock and awe isn't getting the job done.  Have you no other tricks up your sleeve?  Are you a one-trick pony?


Who cares how old he is?  The Bible says nobody is guaranteed another hour.  TODAY is the day of salvation.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Is there any other point?


Honoring God by proclaiming his gospel.

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> I think what you call "blunt" is just Biblical.  I mean, how do you "not bluntly" tell someone that they are evil and that they will go to Hell if they don't repent and trust in Christ?


The answer is that you don't. Again, the Usage Guidelines:

Below are some example statements and how the guidelines apply:
• "God does not exist" -- based on context, this is generally not respectful since you are *declaring others' religious doctrine wrong without a proof.*
• "You don't believe in God, you're going to hell" -- *not respectful as it can't be proven.*
• *"I disagree with* your beliefs" -- respectful, you don't have to agree, but you can still be amicable about it.
• "Your church services are stupid" -- not respectful, *you can certainly think they don't have value, or think they are not at all of interest to you, but they may be important to others and there's no point in demonizing them.*

----------


## acptulsa

> Is temporal success the primary measuring stick?


Success is the only measuring stick.

Several experienced Christians are here telling you, in a variety of ways, that your technique sucks.  Here Muhawid is quoting the Koran and trying to talk about it and you respond with irrelevant verses proffered seemingly as an excuse for not reading it.

You clan't convert him to Christ if you're so paranoid about your Calvinism that you can't even listen to the man and respond to what _he_ cares about.  If addressing your obsession doesn't do the trick, try listening to him.

Yeah, it takes time.  So?  God willing, we have some.  Just because it could be within the hour doesn't mean it will be.  It isn't disobedient to God to plan ahead.

----------


## Brett85

> I think what you call "blunt" is just Biblical.  I mean, how do you "not bluntly" tell someone that they are evil and that they will go to Hell if they don't repent and trust in Christ?


Why do you have to phrase it like that to convert people to Christ?  I had a conversation with my pastor the other day, and he told me that the issue of hell never really even comes up when he witnesses to people, and he's brought people to Christ.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The answer is that you don't. Again, the Usage Guidelines:
> 
> Below are some example statements and how the guidelines apply:
> • "God does not exist" -- based on context, this is generally not respectful since you are *declaring others' religious doctrine wrong without a proof.*
> • "You don't believe in God, you're going to hell" -- *not respectful as it can't be proven.*
> • *"I disagree with* your beliefs" -- respectful, you don't have to agree, but you can still be amicable about it.
> • "Your church services are stupid" -- not respectful, *you can certainly think they don't have value, or think they are not at all of interest to you, but they may be important to others and there's no point in demonizing them.*


'

You're trying to disprove the Bible with Bryan's usage guidelines?  Lol!

You know what, I don't care.  Bryan can ban me if he wants.  But, with all respect to him, those guidelines are some of the dumbest I've ever seen and completely stifle debate.  I know its a political forum, but still.  Truth is propositional.  Nothing can be proven without accepting certain propositions.  And, of course, you are not Bryan so maybe you can let him do his job.

To clarify something, I will not say that any individual IS going to Hell without attaching certain conditions to the statement.  For instance "If you do not believe in Jesus Christ you will go to Hell."  But, I do not know whether any individual will ultimately be saved by God or not, and I NEVER claim to know.  I am ALWAYS careful to clarify this, especially in face to face evangelism.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why do you have to phrase it like that to convert people to Christ?  I had a conversation with my pastor the other day, and he told me that the issue of hell never really even comes up when he witnesses to people, and he's brought people to Christ.


What do people need to be saved *from?*

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> What do people need to be saved *from?*


You told us, it was house fires.

----------


## acptulsa

> What do people need to be saved *from?*


Someone's road to hell being paved by some overeager young idiot's good intentions.

Now, mind you, I'm not mentioning any _names..._

But I'm seeing the kind of behavior that _has_ driven people _raised_ Christian _out_ of the church.

----------


## Brett85

> What do people need to be saved *from?*


Of course we disagree on that.  If I was talking to someone about Christ and becoming a Christian, I would bring up that issue if the issue came up.  But, I wouldn't just talk about that as a main part of what I was presenting to that person.  I would just say that we're saved through what Christ did for us on the cross.  If that person asked what we're "saved" from, then I would give my view on that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Of course we disagree on that.  If I was talking to someone about Christ and becoming a Christian, I would bring up that issue if the issue came up.  But, I wouldn't just talk about that as a main part of what I was presenting to that person.  I would just say that we're saved through what Christ did for us on the cross.  If that person asked what we're "saved" from, then I would give my view on that.


My point wasn't to debate the duration of torment in Hell.  But unless someone knows they risk Hell, how in the world would they even know they needed to be saved?  You are kidding yourself if you think you can present the gospel without talking about salvation.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Of course we disagree on that.  If I was talking to someone about Christ and becoming a Christian, I would bring up that issue if the issue came up.  But, I wouldn't just talk about that as a main part of what I was presenting to that person.  I would just say that we're saved through what Christ did for us on the cross.  If that person asked what we're "saved" from, then I would give my view on that.


Repent and be saved.....from God ending your existence?   What is wrong with that?  I know a lot of people who wouldn't mind that at all.  Ridiculous. ...

----------


## Brett85

> Repent and be saved.....from God ending your existence?   What is wrong with that?  I know a lot of people who wouldn't mind that at all.  Ridiculous. ...


You might want to ask all of the people on death row if they're looking forward to being put to death.  The death penalty is the harshest penalty that we have in our country.  It's considered to be a far worse penalty than life in prison.  You don't seem to have much gratitude for the life that God has given us if you don't consider the cessation of life to be a major punishment.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Repent and be saved.....from God ending your existence?   What is wrong with that?  I know a lot of people who wouldn't mind that at all.  Ridiculous. ...


It seems even worse than that to me.  It seems like TC is saying he wouldn't talk about Hell at all in the gospel presentation. 

I can imagine the conversation going like this (TC is short for Traditional Conservative, while AA is short for annonymous agnostic.)

TC- Repent of your sins and trust in Jesus and you'll be saved.

AA- Saved from what?  Why do I need to be saved?

TC- I'm not really supposed to talk about this, because its not a gospel issue and Christians can disagree on it.  I just want to talk about God's love.  After all, I wouldn't want to be like Sola_Fide and FreedomFanatic just spreading doom and gloom all the time, and that would turn you off to the gospel message anyways.

AA- What gospel message?  What do I need to be saved from?  Am I dying?

TC- Well, I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings.  That would turn you off to the message, and this isn't part of the gospel.  You don't need to know what you're being saved from in order to be saved, as long as you know Jesus saves.

AA- Well, in that case, I think Jesus was just a carpenter who "saved me" by setting a good example that I can follow.

TC- Well, OK then, why am I wasting my time?  After all, you know nothing about sin and who Christ is, but you believe he saved you, so I guess you're good.

AA-

(This is somewhat tongue in cheek.)

----------


## Brett85

No, I said that I would talk about what we're saved from if the issue came up, if I was asked about it.  But there's no need to go into detail about that until the issue actually comes up.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, I said that I would talk about what we're saved from if the issue came up, if I was asked about it.  But there's no need to go into detail about that until the issue actually comes up.


OK, so here's my modified version:

TC- Repent and trust Jesus and you'll be saved.

AA- OK

TC- Yeah!

AA goes home thinking Jesus was a carpenter who "saves" him by giving him a good example to follow.  TC goes home thinking he actually shared the gospel without having to talk about all that offensive "Hell stuff"

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You might want to ask all of the people on death row if they're looking forward to being put to death.  The death penalty is the harshest penalty that we have in our country.  It's considered to be a far worse penalty than life in prison.  You don't seem to have much gratitude for the life that God has given us if you don't consider the cessation of life to be a major punishment.


People want to die every single day.   They want the torment to end.  Death is a release.  The death penalty is not the harshest punishment. 

And anyway, no amount of suffering could satisfy God's wrath against a man's sin.  This is shown by the magnitude of the price paid for the sin of a man: God's own Son.  You do not have a biblical theology of Hell because you do not have a biblical theology of sin.

----------


## Brett85

> And anyway, no amount of suffering could satisfy God's wrath against a man's sin.  This is shown by the magnitude of the price paid for the sin of a man: God's own Son.  You do not have a biblical theology of Hell because you do not have a biblical theology of sin.


Um, Jesus bore the punishment for our sin, and the punishment that he paid was several hours of suffering and then death.  Death was the ultimate punishment he paid.  If the punishment for our sins is eternal torment in hell, then Jesus never paid the punishment for our sins.

----------


## Brett85

> People want to die every single day.   They want the torment to end.  Death is a release.  The death penalty is not the harshest punishment.


No, the death penalty is the ultimate penalty that we have in our country.  Defense attorneys regularly enter into plea deals to try to get life in prison for whoever they're defending, rather than the death penalty.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Um, Jesus bore the punishment for our sin, and the punishment that he paid was several hours of suffering and then death.  Death was the ultimate punishment he paid.  If the punishment for our sins is eternal torment in hell, then Jesus never paid the punishment for our sins.


This doesn't follow, because Jesus was a perfect sacrifice and we are imperfect.  He is also infinitely more valuable to us.  Its kind of like if I kill your mother and I had 200 dogs all of those dogs could be tortured for as long as you wanted and that could never pay the price for what I did.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> People want to die every single day.   They want the torment to end.  Death is a release.  The death penalty is not the harshest punishment. 
> 
> And anyway, no amount of suffering could satisfy God's wrath against a man's sin.  This is shown by the magnitude of the price paid for the sin of a man: God's own Son.  You do not have a biblical theology of Hell because you do not have a biblical theology of sin.





> No, the death penalty is the ultimate penalty that we have in our country.  Defense attorneys regularly enter into plea deals to try to get life in prison for whoever they're defending, rather than the death penalty.


This is a purely subjective debate.  Some people want to die and some don't.

----------


## Brett85

> This doesn't follow, because Jesus was a perfect sacrifice and we are imperfect.  He is also infinitely more valuable to us.  Its kind of like if I kill your mother and I had 200 dogs all of those dogs could be tortured for as long as you wanted and that could never pay the price for what I did.


What follows is that the main penalty that Jesus paid on our behalf was *death.*  If the penalty that we face is simply being alive for all eternity and being tormented for all eternity, then it wasn't necessary for Jesus to die.  He could've simply suffered for several hours on the cross and then gotten down without ever dying.  You overlook the fact that Jesus actually died on the cross, and the penalty that Jesus faced on our behalf was physical death.

----------


## acptulsa

> (This is somewhat tongue in cheek.)





> OK, so here's my modified version:


I suppose I shouldn't be surprised you're arrogantly putting words in the man's mouth.  I've seen you put words in Jesus' mouth before, so I guess _this_ is _mild_ arrogance...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What follows is that the main penalty that Jesus paid on our behalf was *death.*  If the penalty that we face is simply being alive for all eternity and being tormented for all eternity, then it wasn't necessary for Jesus to die.  He could've simply suffered for several hours on the cross and then gotten down without ever dying.  You overlook the fact that Jesus actually died on the cross, and the penalty that Jesus faced on our behalf was physical death.


You're basically saying the penalty has to be exactly the same for him to have paid for our sins?  Will people in Hell suffer on crosses before dying?

----------


## Brett85

> You're basically saying the penalty has to be exactly the same for him to have paid for our sins?  Will people in Hell suffer on crosses before dying?


I would say that the penalty at least has to be similar.  The penalty isn't similar if people are actually going to be alive for all eternity and suffer for all eternity.  That would basically be the exact opposite of the price that Jesus paid for us.  But I suppose it's possible that the lake of fire is merely symbolic, and every unsaved person will die on the cross to pay their sins.  I don't know.  The Bible doesn't necessarily rule out that possibility.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I would say that the penalty at least has to be similar.  The penalty isn't similar if people are actually going to be alive for all eternity and suffer for all eternity.  That would basically be the exact opposite of the price that Jesus paid for us.  But I suppose it's possible that the lake of fire is merely symbolic, and every unsaved person will die on the cross to pay their sins.  I don't know.  The Bible doesn't necessarily rule out that possibility.


I think you'd have to affirm that to be consistent.  But, the penalties do not have to be similar because Jesus' worth is not similar to ours, it is far greater.

----------


## Brett85

> I think you'd have to affirm that to be consistent.  But, the penalties do not have to be similar because Jesus' worth is not similar to ours, it is far greater.


But the Bible says that Jesus bore the punishment for *our* sins.  The punishment that Jesus went through didn't come close to resembling being alive for all eternity and suffering for all eternity.  It was the exact opposite.  Jesus *died* for our sins.  He bore the punishment for our sins, which was *death.*

----------


## Kevin007

> Um, Jesus bore the punishment for our sin, and the punishment that he paid was several hours of suffering and then death.  Death was the ultimate punishment he paid.  If the punishment for our sins is eternal torment in hell, t*hen Jesus never paid the punishment for our sins.*


He paid the punishment for all, but only those who accept Him as Savior do not get punished.

----------


## Nang

> He paid the punishment for all, but only those who accept Him as Savior do not get punished.



Those *the Father has accepted,* are freed from punishment, because the Son paid their death sentence, in their stead.

----------


## Brett85

> He paid the punishment for all, but only those who accept Him as Savior do not get punished.


I agree.  I was just saying that if the penalty for our sins is eternal torment in hell, then Jesus never paid that penalty.  The penalty that Jesus bore on our behalf was *death.*  That's also the penalty that the unsaved will receive.

----------


## Kevin007

yes Nang, but it was a genuine offer to all; as I said just because God knew who would accept it or not does not imo change the fact that God offered salvation to all man, not some men. Yes only few will accept His free gift but it was offered to all.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> yes Nang, but it was a genuine offer to all; as I said just because God knew who would accept it or not does not imo change the fact that God offered salvation to all man, not some men. Yes only few will accept His free gift but it was offered to all.


Oh... boy, the "free offer".  Calvinists debate each other on that one.

I think TurretinFan's post here is helpful: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011...d-limited.html

I think both Nang and Sola reject the "free offer".  I'm sure they both have good reasons for doing so.  But there's no inherent reason why a Calvinist must reject it, as TurretinFan correctly points out.

----------


## Nang

> Oh... boy, the "free offer".  Calvinists debate each other on that one.
> 
> I think TurretinFan's post here is helpful: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011...d-limited.html
> 
> I think both Nang and Sola reject the "free offer".  I'm sure they both have good reasons for doing so.  But there's no inherent reason why a Calvinist must reject it, as TurretinFan correctly points out.


There is a difference between genuinely and indiscriminately preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to all, and the wrong notion of "offering" the gospel to all contingent upon choice.

The gospel truth is not an offer that can be accepted or rejected.

*God's grace is irresistible,* and those God calls through the preaching of the Gospel, WILL be given ears to hear, and believe, without fail.

----------


## Terry1

> There is a difference between genuinely and indiscriminately preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to all, and the wrong notion of "offering" the gospel to all contingent upon choice.
> 
> The gospel truth is not an offer that can be accepted or rejected.
> 
> *God's grace is irresistible,* and those God calls through the preaching of the Gospel, WILL be given ears to hear, and believe, without fail.


There is no such thing as "irresistible grace".  That is a fabrication of Augustine and John Calvin's lies and is nowhere in the Bible because it's not biblical at all.

*Grace is resistible* *and that is biblical as referenced here*: *John 15:5, Heb 6:4, Gal. 5:4,*

These false doctrines are ancient lies that the true body of Christ has been fighting against since their beginning.

----------


## Deborah K

> The fact that you reference Mother Theresa, a lost, unregenerate heretic, as a good person to emulate, is sad in and of itself.


This is incredibly hateful.  neg rep.

----------


## Deborah K

> But I do agree with her, the religion forum is on RPFs is one of the most hateful places on the internet.  It's become pointless at best and a mockery at worst.  It would probably be a good thing if it were eliminated.  Other than TER's threads it's turned into nothing more than a gossip rag.


The reason this forum has become a failure is because of the self-important, judgmental, false Christians who have infiltrated it with their twisted versions of the Bible.  "You shall know them by their fruit".  There is nothing loving or worth learning in their harsh and unyielding words.  

These people, have ruined what was a fairly reasonable forum to discuss faith in.  Now it has become a forum that needs heavy moderation in order to even 'seem' civil.  It's shameful that people who call themselves Christians would degrade so easily.  Your words are not worthy representatives of goodness.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The reason this forum has become a failure is because of the self-important, judgmental, false Christians who have infiltrated it with their twisted versions of the Bible.  "You shall know them by their fruit".  There is nothing loving or worth learning in their harsh and unyielding words.  
> 
> These people, have ruined what was a fairly reasonable forum to discuss faith in.  Now it has become a forum that needs heavy moderation in order to even 'seem' civil.  It's shameful that people who call themselves Christians would degrade so easily.  Your words are not worthy representatives of goodness.


+mega rep

----------


## Nang

> The reason this forum has become a failure


Did it used to be a success?

Or do you mean it used to be dominated by Roman Catholics?

----------


## Kevin007

> Oh... boy, the "free offer".  Calvinists debate each other on that one.
> 
> I think TurretinFan's post here is helpful: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011...d-limited.html
> 
> I think both Nang and Sola reject the "free offer".  I'm sure they both have good reasons for doing so.  But there's no inherent reason why a Calvinist must reject it, as TurretinFan correctly points out.

----------


## Nang

Do folks here realize the Latin word "offero" (translated "offer" in English) means to "proclaim?"

Believers are commissioned to preach or "proclaim" (_offero)_ the gospel  . . . not to simply suggest the good news of Jesus Christ dying on the cross, is a conditional offering subject to being accepted or rejected.

----------


## Brett85

> Do folks here realize the Latin word "offero" (translated "offer" in English) means to "proclaim?"
> 
> Believers are commissioned to preach or "proclaim" (_offero)_ the gospel  . . . not to simply suggest the good news of Jesus Christ dying on the cross, is a conditional offering subject to being accepted or rejected.


I certainly wouldn't tell someone that Christ's death on the cross saves them if they don't make the choice to believe in him and accept his gift.  I would say that Christ's death only saves those who accept him as their Lord and Savior.

----------


## Nang

> I certainly wouldn't tell someone that Christ's death on the cross saves them if they don't make the choice to believe in him and accept his gift.  I would say that Christ's death only saves those who accept him as their Lord and Savior.


And you base this message upon what scripture?

If your gospel message is not scriptural, it is preached without power, and will not save a single soul.

----------


## Brett85

> And you base this message upon what scripture?
> 
> If your gospel message is not scriptural, it is preached without power, and will not save a single soul.


John 3:16-17

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that *whoever* believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.  17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the* world* through Him *might be saved.*"

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This is incredibly hateful.  neg rep.


You think its hateful because you are self-righteous and do not see the importance of God's sovereignty. 

Mother Theresa was a Catholic.  She believed in Roman Catholic sacramentalism.  She believed a false gospel.  When she believed and taught those things she was lost, no matter how many "good works" she did.  I am not saying I know where she is spending eternity, I do not.  I do not know what she believed when she died.  But she was certainly a false Catholic teacher throughout her life.

If identifying false gospel is "hateful", I am proud to be hateful right next to Paul (Galatians 1:8-9), Peter (2 Peter 3:16), and John (2 John 7-11)

You can have your false teachers.




> Did it used to be a success?
> 
> Or do you mean it used to be dominated by Roman Catholics?


Maybe not just Catholics, but certainly theological liberals.  I was even somewhat theologically liberal when I first got here.  God has dramatically changed me and my outlook in the past year.  Incidentally, I couldn't stand Sola_Fide when I first started posting here, and I do not feel that way anymore.



> Do folks here realize the Latin word "offero" (translated "offer" in English) means to "proclaim?"
> 
> Believers are commissioned to preach or "proclaim" (_offero)_ the gospel  . . . not to simply suggest the good news of Jesus Christ dying on the cross, is a conditional offering subject to being accepted or rejected.



I didn't know that actually.  What are your thoughts on the TurretinFan link I posted?



> John 3:16-17
> 
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that *whoever* believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.  17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the* world* through Him *might be saved.*"


Your definition of "might" is faulty.

I explained it this way in my Christian group I attend at college:

I used to live a mile away from 7-11, and when I did, I really liked to get the huge double gulps.  If I were to say "I'm going to walk a mile that I might get a double gulp" I am not saying that I might just walk a mile for fun.  The "might" indicates a "shall" or at least intent, which is what it means in that passage.

----------


## pcosmar

*Religion
*
6. 	archaic (Original meaning)
 	a. the practice of sacred ritual observances
 	b. sacred rites and ceremonies
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

I have no religion.
I have faith in Christ.

They are not the same thing.

----------


## Nang

> John 3:16-17
> 
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that *whoever* believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.  17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the* world* through Him *might be saved.*"


John 3:16-17 says nothing about the condition of "accepting" or refusing to believe.

Rather, it is a promise that those for whom Christ was sent, *would* believe unto everlasting life.

So why insert conditions upon these wonderful proclamations of grace?  No need to do so.

----------


## RJB

> You think its hateful because you are self-righteous and do not see the importance of God's sovereignty.


You are her judge!?  Why do you accuse her of self-righteousness and doubting the importance of God's sovereignty???  You don't know her heart!!!  *You only know what you were taught to think about her heart with your upbringing.  * 





> Mother Theresa was a Catholic.  She believed in Roman Catholic sacramentalism.  She believed a false gospel.  When she believed and taught those things she was lost, no matter how many "good works" she did.  I am not saying I know where she is spending eternity, I do not.  I do not know what she believed when she died.  But she was certainly a false Catholic teacher throughout her life.


Has it occurred to you that it is through her love of God that she obeyed his word and trusted God, NOT her self-righteousness!?  You know nothing about other denominations, only your brainwashing!




> If identifying false gospel is "hateful", I am proud to be hateful right next to Paul (Galatians 1:8-9), Peter (2 Peter 3:16), and John (2 John 7-11)
> 
> You can have your false teachers.


You would not know the Christianity if the Bread of Life from heaven was offered to you.




> Maybe not just Catholics, but certainly theological liberals.  I was even somewhat theologically liberal when I first got here.  God has dramatically changed me and my outlook in the past year.  Incidentally, I couldn't stand Sola_Fide when I first started posting here, and I do not feel that way anymore.


Because you are Sola-Fide.  Next you will be Chris Duncan.




> I used to live a mile away from 7-11, and when I did, I really liked to get the huge double gulps.  If I were to say "I'm going to walk a mile that I might get a double gulp" I am not saying that I might just walk a mile for fun.  The "might" indicates a "shall" or at least intent, which is what it means in that passage.


  You know the high fructose corn syrup in the Big Gulps lead to obesity, foggy brain, and diabetes?  Stay away from the 7-11, and read John 3:16.  WE ALL (ALL as in ALL CHRISTIANS) should rally around it.  Not fight over it.

----------


## Terry1

> Your definition of "might" is faulty.
> 
> I explained it this way in my Christian group I attend at college:
> 
> I used to live a mile away from 7-11, and when I did, I really liked to get the huge double gulps.  If I were to say "I'm going to walk a mile that I might get a double gulp" I am not saying that I might just walk a mile for fun.  The "might" indicates a "shall" or at least intent, which is what it means in that passage.


Do you realize FF that the phrase* "MIGHT BE" and "THEY MIGHT" is used over 200 times throughout the word of God regarding our state of elect and salvation? 

*

Do you actually realize just how much of the word of God you'd have to literally rewrite, change and corrupt to support your belief then??  This is the fantasy world that you and your kind live in, who would rather change who God is to suit what you would want Him to be, which isn't who He is at all.  Your belief has turned God and mankind in the monsters that satan wants the world to believe they are, boldly proclaiming his innocence.  Your doctrine does not worship God--it worships satan. 

And for people who subscribe to the doctrine that you do that would turn God into some sadistic monster who would "create evil, sin and death"--for the purpose of then destroying His most beloved guardian cherub angel who now lives as satan, a third of heavenly angels and to cause mankind to fall into sin and death---Just so--God could then turn around and send His Son to be persecuted, tortured and murdered on the cross to save mankind--is indeed the most evil, sick, twisted belief that anyone could possibly subscribe themselves to.

*"MIGHT BE" AND "THAT THEY MIGHT"--*means exactly what the word of God inidicates they mean because the rest of Gods word supports the fact that we have been created with the perfect liberty to choose at any time throughout eternity whom we will serve.  If this were not so--there never would have been a war in heaven and a rebellion against God in the first place which was the cause and creation of evil, sin and death on the part of Lucifer/satan who created them by abandoning Gods pure light.

You don't have to accept what anyone else believes---but you certainly shouldn't believe what you do now just because Daddy/pastor may have told you so or anyone else, because they're wrong too.

----------


## Terry1

> John 3:16-17 says nothing about the condition of "accepting" or refusing to believe.
> 
> Rather, it is a promise that those for whom Christ was sent, *would* believe unto everlasting life.
> 
> So why insert conditions upon these wonderful proclamations of grace?  No need to do so.


The monster you have created and worship is not the God of the Christian Bible.  The monster that you describe is satan that believes God and mankind are to blame for evil, sin and death.  You can twist,  pervert and rob God of His true glorious nature all day long just the same as satan does, but it won't change the fact that you're wrong and you have been blinded by your own willingness to believe this horrific lie that you call "gospel" and that you want to call a god that is not God at all.

Thank God that the majority of Christians in this forum do not believe this.  Some of them may be missing the mark to other lessor offenses because we all see through the glass darkly, but this horrific doctrine that you spew as the Gospel of Christ is no less than a message straight out of the bowels of hell IMO and something that satan created using mankind that will believe this doctrine as his pawns to spread these lies about God.

You have accused the other brethren in here of being the "wicked, evil, trolls, heretics, unregenerate and lost souls that your doctrine calls them, when you and your kind of the very thing that you have called and accused them of.  Only a subscriber to a satanic belief would accuse so many brethren of such without proof and the lies you spread that can not be found in the word of God or supported by it.

You people have to elimite words, change meanings, corrupt and pervert who God truly is to support this cult you have subscribed to that changes the truth into a lie and leaving God and mankind to blame for something that satan did and created, whom God is going to destroy because of this.  Yet--you cling tight to this belief because you always have and it will lead you down one path--one wide highway to the one place that was designed for this and those who subscribe to it.

You and your friends here are always neg repping people and telling them to repent.  I'm telling you now that if you don't stop and change your minds that you too will see all too late what you have done.

----------


## Terry1

I want to make it clear that I'm not coming against sinners here, but rather I'm fighting a dark lie born of the one who uses mankind as his pawns to spread them.  There's only one way to speak to people who support satan's lies and that is to tell the truth to them.  Just the same they believe that what they're doing is justified in the eyes of God by their willingness to believe this lie and to pass that off as Gods truth.  The truth needs to be told to them in way only they will understand it.

They have been given scriptures to support the truth and they have rejected them by changing their meanings and corrupting the truth.  They have been shown so many times in here where they err according to the word of God when they have demanded proof---it has been provided, yet they do not answer or reply when they see it.  They run back to their lies.

How many times has Sola asked me to prove something exists within the word of God and I have shown him, Nang and FF.  The two laws that Paul refers to that reveal the difference between a dead work and a work of faith.  How they have been shown that all of Gods word reconciles with these teachings, yet they persist to twist the word of God.  They create their own meanings, words that completely change the entire context of scripture to support their belief as in Ezekiel 28, Heb 6:4, James 2:17, John 15:5, Gal. 5:4, Romans 2:13, John 3:16 and on and on I could go pasting in scripture that they have all disputed that clearly mean what they say because the entire word of God supports them and reconciles with them.

This is how people walk away from Christ without even realizing they've done it and this is caused by being willingly deceived.  How sad that so many will do this when the truth is presented they refuse to accept it and must change the truth into a lie.  Surly there must be tears shed in heaven for the loss of so many who rebel against Gods truth in this way.

----------


## Brett85

> John 3:16-17 says nothing about the condition of "accepting" or refusing to believe.
> 
> Rather, it is a promise that those for whom Christ was sent, *would* believe unto everlasting life.
> 
> So why insert conditions upon these wonderful proclamations of grace?  No need to do so.


No, it says *whosoever* believes in him shall not perish but receive everlasting life.

----------


## RJB

> No, it says *whosoever* believes in him shall not perish but receive everlasting life.


Whosoever does NOT mean whosoever.  In this text it is CLEARLY shown that whosoever means as in "whosoever is a Calvinist and believes in him shall not perish..."

ETA:  It is also implied that to be a "whosoever" you must believe that Mother Theresa is in hell.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Whosoever does NOT mean whosoever.  In this text it is CLEARLY shown that whosoever means as in "whosoever is a Calvinist and believes in him shall not perish..."
> 
> ETA:  It is also implied that to be a "whosoever" you must believe that Mother Theresa is in hell.


That's right, whosoever is in reference to the elect, because only the elect would believe in Him.

----------


## erowe1

I don't understand this fixation on the word "whosoever." What do people think that word proves?

If there's any belief that is challenged by this verse, and the use of this word, it's the belief that believing is not enough to be saved, that there's some additional condition, such that someone can believe in Jesus and still not have eternal life.

But I gather that a lot of people think that "whosoever" somehow means that faith can't be predestined, which is a really odd non sequitur.

----------


## Deborah K

> Did it used to be a success?
> 
> Or do you mean it used to be dominated by Roman Catholics?


I hope you still believe this place isn't for you.  Your destructive way of "proclaiming the gospel" serves Satan only.

----------


## Terry1

> Did it used to be a success?
> 
> Or do you mean it used to be dominated by Roman Catholics?


Frankly, your treatment of the Catholic brethren in this forum along with some others has been nothing short of shameful and ignorant.  How many times are you going to announce you're leaving before you actually do it.  Go back to your hidey-hole where you can wallow with your own ilk if you can't be at least civil to the other brethren without insulting them.  The gloves have come off and I'm pretty well sick of you at this point and shaking the dust off myself with you.

----------


## Brett85

> I don't understand this fixation on the word "whosoever." What do people think that word proves?
> 
> If there's any belief that is challenged by this verse, and the use of this word, it's the belief that believing is not enough to be saved, that there's some additional condition, such that someone can believe in Jesus and still not have eternal life.
> 
> But I gather that a lot of people think that "whosoever" somehow means that faith can't be predestined, which is a really odd non sequitur.


Well, James said that even the demons believe, and obviously they aren't saved.  If this verse means that you only have to believe in Jesus to be saved, does that mean that you can be saved if you just believe that Jesus was just a good man who taught people important lessons?  I don't think you can necessarily draw a conclusion regarding whether belief alone saves you from this one verse.  You have to compare this verse to other verses.  If you look at what Paul said, he listed a whole number of lifestyle choices that people can't habitually engage in and be saved, such as adultery, homosexuality, etc.  So according to what Paul said, people who engage in habitual sin won't make it to heaven even if they "believe."

----------


## erowe1

> Well, James says that even the demons believe, and obviously they aren't saved.  If this verse means that you only have to believe in Jesus to be saved, does that mean that you can be saved if you just believe that Jesus was just a good man who taught people important lessons?  I don't think you can necessarily draw a conclusion regarding whether belief alone saves you from this one verse.  You have to compare this verse to other verses.  If you look at what Paul said, he listed a whole number of lifestyle choices that people can't habitually engage in and be saved, such as adultery, homosexuality, etc.  So according to what Paul said, people who engage in habitual sin won't make it to heaven even if they "believe."


I don't see how any of this has anything to do with my question about the fixation on "whosoever" in John 3:16, unless your point is that now you actually don't think it really means "whosoever" after all, since it doesn't include demons.

Also, James doesn't say that demons believe in Jesus. And they don't.

----------


## Brett85

> Also, James doesn't say that demons believe in Jesus. And they don't.


Why would you say that the demons don't believe in Jesus?  I guess what James said is that the demons believe that there's one God.

----------


## moostraks

> I don't see how any of this has anything to do with my question about the fixation on "whosoever" in John 3:16, unless your point is that now you actually don't think it really means "whosoever" after all, since it doesn't include demons.
> 
> Also, James doesn't say that demons believe in Jesus. And they don't.


James 2:19You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 

You are just being argumentative because TC was not phrasing it how you like. And you wonder why some of us don't care to have discussions with you because of your methods.

----------


## erowe1

> I guess what James said is that the demons believe that there's one God.


That makes a pretty big difference.

Of course they don't believe in Jesus. He didn't come to save them. There's nothing for them to trust him for.

----------


## Brett85

> That makes a pretty big difference.
> 
> Of course they don't believe in Jesus. He didn't come to save them. There's nothing for them to trust him for.


So they believe in God but not Jesus?  Is Jesus not God?

----------


## erowe1

> James 2:19You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 
> 
> You are just being argumentative because TC was not phrasing it how you like. And you wonder why some of us don't care to have discussions with you because of your methods.


That's nonsense. The way it's phrased makes all the difference in the world. What does the fact that demons believe there is one God have to do with the question I asked? John 3:16 refers to believing in Jesus, not believing that there is one God.

----------


## erowe1

> So they believe in God but not Jesus?  Is Jesus not God?


James doesn't even say they believe in God.

Obviously when John refers to believing in Jesus he's not talking about simply believing the fact that Jesus existed. All the people throughout the whole Gospel of John whom that same Gospel says did not believe in Jesus still believed the fact that he existed. But they did not believe in Jesus. And in the same sense, demons don't believe in Jesus.

Is this really being debated here?

----------


## erowe1

Here's John 8:42-47.



> 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 *You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.*”


Those who did not believe in Jesus were following after the pattern of the Devil.

This is not talking about just believing the proposition that God is one, which the Devil believes. It is faith in a person, not a proposition.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't see how any of this has anything to do with my question about the fixation on "whosoever" in John 3:16, unless your point is that now you actually don't think it really means "whosoever" after all, since it doesn't include demons.
> 
> Also, James doesn't say that demons believe in Jesus. And they don't.


All of the fallen angels/demons and satan certainly do believe in Jesus and know who He is.  Jesus said if you have seen Him--you have seen God Himself.  satan can't do anything without permission from God and for Gods own reason and purpose He allows satan to perform to fulfill His plan.  Who did satan have to get permission from to test the faith of Job?  

The demons certainly do understand and better than you do who Jesus is and they know they're eternally damned and is why they want to take as many souls of mankind with them as they possibly can.  God allows this because God is sorting out the wheat from the chaff--those who will remain faithful and those who won't.  Those that won't will follow satan to his firey pit and be destroyed with him.

----------


## moostraks

> That's nonsense. The way it's phrased makes all the difference in the world. What does the fact that demons believe there is one God have to do with the question I asked? John 3:16 refers to believing in Jesus, not believing that there is one God.





> James doesn't even say they believe in God.
> 
> Obviously when John refers to believing in Jesus he's not talking about simply believing the fact that Jesus existed. All the people throughout the whole Gospel of John whom that same Gospel says did not believe in Jesus still believed the fact that he existed. But they did not believe in Jesus. And in the same sense, demons don't believe in Jesus.
> 
> Is this really being debated here?


The way it is phrased was proper for his belief. You just don't like the way it was phrased likely because you disagree with his conclusion of his assertion on what the phrase God is one is referring to in James.

The verse is the demons also believe that God is one. One what? Let us take 3 days and 10 pages to argue why don't we? You are argumentative over the pettiest issues and waste people's time and energy parsing words. It is why I rarely want to discuss anything with you. Now why would I say this, well because your other post is arguing over the word in. Having a discussion with you means that one must be very, very careful not to slip and open the door for you to misrepresent what is likely being stated and you waste people's energy trying to disprove your assertions. It is not the behavior of someone who loves their neighbor but rather someone who sets traps to snare a victim.

----------


## moostraks

> All of the fallen angels/demons and satan certainly do believe in Jesus and know who He is.  Jesus said if you have seen Him--you have seen God Himself.  satan can't do anything without permission from God and for Gods own reason and purpose He allows satan to perform to fulfill His plan.  Who did satan have to get permission from to test the faith of Job?  
> 
> The demons certainly do understand and better than you do who Jesus is and they know they're eternally damned and is why they want to take as many souls of mankind with them as they possibly can.  God allows this because God is sorting out the wheat from the chaff--those who will remain faithful and those who won't.  Those that won't will follow satan to his firey pit and be destroyed with him.


Using the word in is falling into the word trap with erowe. He will have you arguing circles over things until you relent to speak as he demands and use the word of.

----------


## erowe1

> The way it is phrased was proper for his belief. You just don't like the way it was phrased likely because you disagree with his conclusion of his assertion on what the phrase God is one is referring to in James.
> 
> The verse is the demons also believe that God is one. One what? Let us take 3 days and 10 pages to argue why don't we? You are argumentative over the pettiest issues and waste people's time and energy parsing words. It is why I rarely want to discuss anything with you. Now why would I say this, well because your other post is arguing over the word in. Having a discussion with you means that one must be very, very careful not to slip and open the door for you to misrepresent what is likely being stated and you waste people's energy trying to disprove your assertions. It is not the behavior of someone who loves their neighbor but rather someone who sets traps to snare a victim.


If somebody claims that James says that demons believe in Jesus, in the sense that the phrase "whosoever believes in him" in John 3:16 uses it, then that someone is the person playing word games.

Furthermore, that still only reinforces my earlier question about why the fixation on "whosoever" in John 3:16, which was what led to these other questions. And I still don't know the answer to that one.

If you aren't interested, nobody is forcing you to get involved.

----------


## Terry1

> Using the word in is falling into the word trap with erowe. He will have you arguing circles over things until you relent to speak as he demands and use the word of.


He's tried that with me before--it didn't work out for him so well, so he neg repped me. LOL

----------


## erowe1

> He's tried that with me before--it didn't work out for him so well, so he neg repped me. LOL


That's a lie.

----------


## Terry1

> That's a lie.


No it's not.  You have neg repped me before when you were caught in your word game.  I see I just got another one from you.  I consider those little red dots from the Calvinists awards.

----------


## erowe1

> No it's not.  You have neg repped me before when you were caught in your word game.  I see I just got another one from you.  I consider those little red dots from the Calvinists awards.


If you're going to say those things, then show the posts the neg reps were actually for. It's never been for disagreeing with me about any doctrine.

This one was for falsely accusing me of previously neg-repping you for something like that.

----------


## moostraks

> If somebody claims that James says that demons believe in Jesus, in the sense that the phrase "whosoever believes in him" in John 3:16 uses it, then that someone is the person playing word games.
> 
> Furthermore, that still only reinforces my earlier question about why the fixation on "whosoever" in John 3:16, which was what led to these other questions. And I still don't know the answer to that one.
> 
> If you aren't interested, nobody is forcing you to get involved.


When I first posted it was prior to him opening the door for you to attack based upon his use of the word in, as he would not have given you the ammunition for the pettiness which is being displayed subsequently. I responded to save someone else some grief on a discussion that would likely be a waste of time and energy on their part. He was quicker than I so maybe he can now see where this might be going without it taking him another 10 pages and hours of headache. I won't "discuss" things with you because of your tactics. I learned the hard way. Life is too short for these types of petty disputes between people. 

Sometimes I think we become so mired down over the small stuff that we cannot see the forest for the trees.

----------


## moostraks

> He's tried that with me before--it didn't work out for him so well, so he neg repped me. LOL





> No it's not.  You have neg repped me before when you were caught in your word game.  I see I just got another one from you.  I consider those little red dots from the Calvinists awards.





> If you're going to say those things, then show the posts the neg reps were actually for. It's never been for disagreeing with me about any doctrine.
> 
> This one was for falsely accusing me of previously neg-repping you for something like that.


This conversation is like deja vu, except I am fairly certain it did happen before. I think Terry could check her neg reps and find out for sure if this same discussion occurred just a few weeks ago maybe? This sub forum is like groundhog's day. Ugh!

----------


## Terry1

> If you're going to say those things, then show the posts the neg reps were actually for. It's never been for disagreeing with me about any doctrine.
> 
> This one was for falsely accusing me of previously neg-repping you for something like that.


Oddly enough, those neg reps from you are now gone from my rep center or they are old enough that they're not showing up any longer.  The only neg rep I have showing from you now is one that you gave me for a response to Nangs vitriol.  I have posted the other ones you gave me in another older thread, but I'd have to look that up as well.

----------


## Brett85

> James doesn't even say they believe in God.


You've got to be kidding.  How in the world can you claim that?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So they believe in God but not Jesus?  Is Jesus not God?


The demons don't believe in the right propositions.  Monotheism alone is not saving faith.

----------


## Brett85

> The demons don't believe in the right propositions.  Monotheism alone is not saving faith.


The demons also don't demonstrate their belief through their actions.  They don't bear any good fruit.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The demons don't believe in the right propositions.  Monotheism alone is not saving faith.



You don't think the demons believe Jesus is God?  That he died for the sins of his people and rose from the grave in three days?

Of course they do.  The demons are not saved primarily because Jesus did not die for them, and he did not choose to justify them.  This is borne out in their lives of wickedness.

----------


## moostraks

> You don't think the demons believe Jesus is God?  That he died for the sins of his people and rose from the grave in three days?
> 
> Of course they do.  The demons are not saved primarily because Jesus did not die for them, and he did not choose to justify them.  This is borne out in their lives of wickedness.


I think the demons believe Jesus and God are one. They are lost because they do not believe _in_ God, which means one knows (hears) and accepts (believes) his leadership and does His Will.

----------


## erowe1

> You've got to be kidding.  How in the world can you claim that?


Are you not talking about the verse Moostraks quoted in post 271? If so, it's right there. You can see for yourself that that's not what he says.

Maybe you're trying to change the meaning of "believe in," so that anyone who believes that God exists believes in God. And maybe that's a colloquial modern English way of putting that. But when John uses the phrase "believe in," as he does in John 3:16, that's obviously not what he means.

See the quote I gave from John 8. The Devil himself does not believe in either Jesus or God, the Father, in the sense that John uses that phrase.

ETA: Notice how moostraks also put it in the post above this one. As she says in her own words, with which I agree, the demons do not believe in God.

----------


## erowe1

> I think the demons believe Jesus and God are one. They are lost because they do not believe _in_ God, which means one knows (hears) and accepts (believes) his leadership and does His Will.


Interesting.

You italicized the word "in." Do you mean that it makes a difference when you put it that way? Because that looks an awful lot like what you were mocking me for saying.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are you not talking about the verse Moostraks quoted in post 271? If so, it's right there. You can see for yourself that that's not what he says.
> 
> Maybe you're trying to change the meaning of "believe in," so that anyone who believes that God exists believes in God. And maybe that's a colloquial modern English way of putting that. But when John uses the phrase "believe in," as he does in John 3:16, that's obviously not what he means.
> 
> See the quote I gave from John 8. The Devil himself does not believe in either Jesus or God, the Father, in the sense that John uses that phrase.


OK, that makes sense.

----------


## Brett85

> Are you not talking about the verse Moostraks quoted in post 271? If so, it's right there. You can see for yourself that that's not what he says.
> 
> Maybe you're trying to change the meaning of "believe in," so that anyone who believes that God exists believes in God. And maybe that's a colloquial modern English way of putting that. But when John uses the phrase "believe in," as he does in John 3:16, that's obviously not what he means.
> 
> See the quote I gave from John 8. The Devil himself does not believe in either Jesus or God, the Father, in the sense that John uses that phrase.
> 
> ETA: Notice how moostraks also put it in the post above this one. As she says in her own words, with which I agree, the demons do not believe in God.


Ok, I agree that there's a difference between "believing that God exists" and believing *in* God.  I just wasn't sure what you were saying before.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You don't think the demons believe Jesus is God?  That he died for the sins of his people and rose from the grave in three days?
> 
> Of course they do.  The demons are not saved primarily because Jesus did not die for them, and he did not choose to justify them.  This is borne out in their lives of wickedness.


James simply says that the demons believe God is one, right?  Or does he say something else about the demons belief?

----------


## moostraks

> Interesting.
> 
> You italicized the word "in." Do you mean that it makes a difference when you put it that way? Because that looks an awful lot like what you were mocking me for saying.


I never disagreed with what you were saying, I disagreed with _how_ you discuss things with people. I was trying to save TC grief because I had an inkling what you were getting at but you were taking your sweet time in getting there as that is what you do. It is just like baiting a trap. (Which he walked right into before I responded) If you were sympathetic to the person you were speaking at rather than to you would have got around to your point faster. Now I could have been wrong and TC could have meant the demons believe in rather than of but I doubted it highly because I have watched what he says and that seemed unlikely. I left the interpretation up to him as he was the one you were going after for his statement. I didn't go any further with you regarding my own opinion on the issue lest I use a different word for which you would like to take me to task over and waste time and energy on.

----------


## erowe1

> I never disagreed with what you were saying, I disagreed with _how_ you discuss things with people. I was trying to save TC grief because I had an inkling what you were getting at but you were taking your sweet time in getting there as that is what you do. It is just like baiting a trap. (Which he walked right into before I responded) If you were sympathetic to the person you were speaking at rather than to you would have got around to your point faster. Now I could have been wrong and TC could have meant the demons believe in rather than of but I doubted it highly because I have watched what he says and that seemed unlikely. I left the interpretation up to him as he was the one you were going after for his statement. I didn't go any further with you regarding my own opinion on the issue lest I use a different word for which you would like to take me to task over and waste time and energy on.


The words of mine that you're talking about were simply, "James doesn't say that demons believe in Jesus. And they don't."

That was clear, concise, and accurate. It was a wonder to me that the whole debate that ensued could possibly even happen.

The proper response, as your recent posts reveal, would simply have been. "Oh yeah. Good point."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> James simply says that the demons believe God is one, right?  Or does he say something else about the demons belief?


Yes, but its obvious what James' point was.  He was clearly making some point about the relation between faith and works.  Now, I agree with how  erowe1 explained the demons belief.  They don't believe "in" Jesus, not because they don't know that he's God (Of course they do) but because Christ did not die for them and so they have nothing to trust in them for.

Now, I obviously don't believe James is teaching synergism.  But I do believe James is saying that a God-given, saving faith will always include works.  God doesn't save one of his people and then leave them in an immoral lifestyle.  

Consider the "Christian" homosexual pastor who was supposedly "converted", yet still has a male partner and is committing the sin of sodomy on a daily basis.  This man has never been justified.  Its not that this man needs the work of ceasing homosexual relations in order to be saved.  But, the fact that he is living as a homosexual proves that he has never been saved.  He may or may not believe the historic facts of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, but he certainly does not trust in Christ's finished work to save him, as evidenced by his deeds.  And the same is true for the demons.

There are no conditions to be justified.  But when God justifies a man, he gives him faith.  As James says, this faith will include works  if it is living.  

If James' point was just that the demons didn't believe the right facts about God, I don't think the context bears this out.  If it did, James would say something about doctrine.  But he doesn't.  He says something about works.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Consider a man who believes that salvation is conditioned solely on the atoning blood and imputed rightousness of Jesus Christ.  He believes in unconditional election, limited atonement, monergistic regeneration, monergistic sanctification, he believes that Jesus Christ is the God-man mediator, he believes in the Trinity, he believes the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God, and he *hates* the message, even though he  knows it is true.  Because he hates the message, he chooses to work for Satan rather than God, and to oppose God's efforts with every ounce of his being, even though he knows he will ultimately only be cast into Hell for it.

Does this man "Believe the right propositions"?  Well, I'd say no because he doesn't believe God is *good.*  But he does believe the facts about Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.  The demons, I would say, are in the same boat.  They don't believe God is good, hence why they oppose him, but they do believe the facts.

----------


## moostraks

> The words of mine that you're talking about were simply, "James doesn't say that demons believe in Jesus. And they don't."
> 
> That was clear, concise, and accurate. It was a wonder to me that the whole debate that ensued could possibly even happen.
> 
> The proper response, as your recent posts reveal, would simply have been. "Oh yeah. Good point."


No, it is not my job to fluff the ego of those who are being devious and yours is not the proper response. TC posts quite a bit here and if you would have taken the time to clarify your position with him rather than bait a trap you would never have had a debate in the first place. It is no different than your ridiculous deception with the Calvin thread. You figured you would set the trap to see who bites and try to make a fool of them. It is unkind. My interests were to prevent someone from walking into your trap and being harmed. If I would have responded as you believe I should then TC or someone else would likely become ensnared in your word trap leaving you free to toy with them. Only cowards stand by when someone puts a foot out to trip the unsuspecting.

----------


## Nang

> Consider a man who believes that salvation is conditioned solely on the atoning blood and imputed rightousness of Jesus Christ.  He believes in unconditional election, limited atonement, monergistic regeneration, monergistic sanctification, he believes that Jesus Christ is the God-man mediator, he believes in the Trinity, he believes the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God, and he *hates* the message, even though he  knows it is true.  Because he hates the message, he chooses to work for Satan rather than God, and to oppose God's efforts with every ounce of his being, even though he knows he will ultimately only be cast into Hell for it.
> 
> Does this man "Believe the right propositions"?  Well, I'd say no because he doesn't believe God is *good.*  But he does believe the facts about Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.  The demons, I would say, are in the same boat.  They don't believe God is good, hence why they oppose him, but they do believe the facts.


An important factor to not lose sight of, is that God determines who believes and who does not.  (Isaiah 6:9-10)  It is the Holy Spirit who convinces and convicts any one of the gospel truths.  Pure intellectual reasoning cannot save.

And so propositions, in themselves, cannot save . . . but the gospel (revelation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ) that does save, consists of propositional truth.

As far as angels or demons believing, Peter said they "desire to look into" the gospel of Jesus Christ.  I Peter 1:12  But here again, they are not gifted with faith to believe as justified souls are gifted with faith and repentance.  Salvation in Christ is unique to elect men . . . it does not pertain to angels at all.

----------


## Terry1

> An important factor to not lose sight of, is that God determines who believes and who does not.  (Isaiah 6:9-10)  It is the Holy Spirit who convinces and convicts any one of the gospel truths.  Pure intellectual reasoning cannot save..


In Isaiah 6:9-10, God hardened their hearts because He foreknew they wouldn't choose Him.  There's a difference between God making our choices for us and God foreknowing those that are made as His vessels of wrath/ the ones He knows won't choose Him.  God gives everyone space and time to repent and change their minds until His patience runs out and He turns them over to their own strong delusions permanently.  Then they're lost forever.  




> And so propositions, in themselves, cannot save . . . but the gospel (revelation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ) that does save, consists of propositional truth.


Salvation comes to those who choose to abide in Him and that is how the Elect are chosen and not that God just randomly picked certain people out of the whole lump.  The entire Bible is an instruction, warnings as to what will happen if we don't abide in Christ.  The entire Bible indicates mankind is free to either choose to serve the Lord or the devil.  We have perfect liberty until God foreknows those who will never come or return to Him.  Mankind chooses for themselves.




> As far as angels or demons believing, Peter said they "desire to look into" the gospel of Jesus Christ.  I Peter 1:12  But here again, they are not gifted with faith to believe as justified souls are gifted with faith and repentance.  Salvation in Christ is unique to elect men . . . it does not pertain to angels at all.


That is incorrect.  What 1 Peter 1:12 is saying about the angels in heaven is that even they too desire to understand Gods complete plan, but even they do not have the same knowledge of Gods plan as God does Himself, but they have the same desire as the prophets did who foretold of the coming of Christ and just as eager to understand the knowledge and wisdom of God.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> An important factor to not lose sight of, is that God determines who believes and who does not.  (Isaiah 6:9-10)  It is the Holy Spirit who convinces and convicts any one of the gospel truths.  Pure intellectual reasoning cannot save.
> 
> And so propositions, in themselves, cannot save . . . but the gospel (revelation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ) that does save, consists of propositional truth.
> 
> As far as angels or demons believing, Peter said they "desire to look into" the gospel of Jesus Christ.  I Peter 1:12  But here again, they are not gifted with faith to believe as justified souls are gifted with faith and repentance.  Salvation in Christ is unique to elect men . . . it does not pertain to angels at all.


Yes, I agree.  I am saying that the demons are aware of and "believe" the gospel is true ,but they know it does not apply to them, and they hate the message.  By contrast, when man believes salvifically, he trusts in Christ's finished work on the cross to save him.  Sola seemed like he was saying that the demons are completely ignorant of Christian doctrine beyond a belief that there is only one God, which is where I was disagreeing.

----------


## Brett85

> Yes, but its obvious what James' point was.  He was clearly making some point about the relation between faith and works.  Now, I agree with how  erowe1 explained the demons belief.  They don't believe "in" Jesus, not because they don't know that he's God (Of course they do) but because Christ did not die for them and so they have nothing to trust in them for.
> 
> Now, I obviously don't believe James is teaching synergism.  But I do believe James is saying that a God-given, saving faith will always include works.  God doesn't save one of his people and then leave them in an immoral lifestyle.  
> 
> Consider the "Christian" homosexual pastor who was supposedly "converted", yet still has a male partner and is committing the sin of sodomy on a daily basis.  This man has never been justified.  Its not that this man needs the work of ceasing homosexual relations in order to be saved.  But, the fact that he is living as a homosexual proves that he has never been saved.  He may or may not believe the historic facts of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, but he certainly does not trust in Christ's finished work to save him, as evidenced by his deeds.  And the same is true for the demons.
> 
> There are no conditions to be justified.  But when God justifies a man, he gives him faith.  As James says, this faith will include works  if it is living.  
> 
> If James' point was just that the demons didn't believe the right facts about God, I don't think the context bears this out.  If it did, James would say something about doctrine.  But he doesn't.  He says something about works.


If you just walked up to a non Christian and told them that the way to be saved was by "faith alone," and you said absolutely nothing else to them, do you think that person would understand from that that they're still supposed to stay from certain activities?  Would they understand from the phrase "faith alone" that they can't be a Christian and habitually engage in homosexual acts, for example?

----------


## Terry1

> Consider a man who believes that salvation is conditioned solely on the atoning blood and imputed rightousness of Jesus Christ.  He believes in unconditional election, limited atonement, monergistic regeneration, monergistic sanctification, he believes that Jesus Christ is the God-man mediator, he believes in the Trinity, he believes the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God, and he *hates* the message, even though he  knows it is true.  Because he hates the message, he chooses to work for Satan rather than God, and to oppose God's efforts with every ounce of his being, even though he knows he will ultimately only be cast into Hell for it.
> 
> Does this man "Believe the right propositions"?  Well, I'd say no because he doesn't believe God is *good.*  But he does believe the facts about Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.  The demons, I would say, are in the same boat.  They don't believe God is good, hence why they oppose him, but they do believe the facts.



Faith is not the gift---Grace is the "gift" least anyone should boast.  We are saved *by grace* and through faith.  Grace is the gift alone.  Faith is something we have to act upon to give evidence that Gods grace is still any effect in our lives.  Faith is what we say and do in response to the voice of the Holy Spirit.  That isn't something God does for us, we have to literally act upon that willingly.  

This is where you fall short in understanding what the word of God is actually saying because you interpret as many others have done as well that this scripture *8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God*,  means that faith is also a gift when it's not--Grace is the gift.

I just edited this post, sorry for accidentally posting the corned beef and cabbage recipe instead of the scripture.   I just happened to be cooking a 6 lb. brisket.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Faith is not the gift---Grace is the "gift" least anyone should boast.  We are save *by grace* and through faith.  Grace is the gift alone.  Faith is something we have to act upon to give evidence that Gods grace is still any effect in our lives.  Faith is what we say and do in response to the voice of the Holy Spirit.  That isn't something God does for us, we have to literally act upon that willingly.  
> .


No.  You're wrong.  By the way the sentence is constructed in the Greek, it implies that both grace and faith are gifts of God.  This is described in other places in the Bible.  Faith is a gift given by God:




> *Philippians 1:29 
> 
> For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him 
> *


Both the belief of the Philippians, and their suffering were granted to them by God.


God gave each Christian in Rome a certain measure of faith:



> *Romans 12:3 
> 
> For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you 
> *




Look at what the Apostles prayed:



> * Luke 17:5
> 
> The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”*


It is the Lord that gives faith.

----------


## Terry1

> No.  You're wrong.  By the way the sentence is constructed in the Greek, it implies that both grace and faith are gifts of God.  This is described in other places in the Bible.  Faith is a gift given by God:
> 
> 
> Both the belief of the Philippians, and their suffering were granted to them by God.
> 
> 
> God gave each Christian in Rome a certain measure of faith:
> 
> 
> ...


The "gifts of the spirit" are according to grace and "measured through our faith".  Faith is an action based upon the belief and "gifts" are all according to grace, which are the gifts themselves.  The gifts can not be used without the believer *acting in belief upon them*--that is the faith that is measured out in different amounts according to those who exercise their faith more than others.  The gifts can be then used as a result of our faith in action--again--our works of faith.

Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.  4 For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function,  5 so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another.  6* Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; * 7 or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching;  8 he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.

Everyone is given enough faith to believe, but then faith is measured according to how often we exercise that same faith.  Some have greater faith than others and that is not because God just handed larger amounts out some and not others.  Those with greater faith have it because they willingly act upon it more often than others do.  That is not a gift--that is the believer choosing to abide in Christ and walk closer with Him.  

Because grace is the gift--grace remains the same until we lose our faith.  If faith was the gift and God maintained that gift always-- then we couldn't lose it and it couldn't die as James tells you is can and does.  Because we bear the burden of maintaining our own faith by choosing to abide in Christ continually.

How do people fall from the gift of grace---it's because they stopped trusting and believing in God by losing their faith.  So our faith isn't something that God maintains for us as a "gift"---that part is ours to willing do or not.

----------


## Brett85

I agree that faith is a gift from God, but like all gifts, the gift of faith can be rejected.

----------


## Terry1

> I agree that faith is a gift from God, but like all gifts, the gift of faith can be rejected.


Yes everything that comes from God can be considered "a gift", but the gift of grace can only be maintained and sustained through faith.  If God gave us faith as a gift and maintains that faith for us as Sola believes---then it would be impossible to lose faith and for faith to die as James 2:17 tells us.  God gives a measure of faith enough to believe and then we are expected to maintain that same faith through our works of faith---those are not gifts from God.  They are what we do willingly to remain, abide in Christ that sustains the "gift of grace".

----------


## Brett85

> Yes everything that comes from God can be considered "a gift", but the gift of grace can only be maintained and sustained through faith.  If God gave us faith as a gift and maintains that faith for us as Sola believes---then it would be impossible to lose faith and for faith to die as James 2:17 tells us.  God gives a measure of faith enough to believe and then we are expected to maintain that same faith through our works of faith---those are not gifts from God.  They are what we do willingly to remain, abide in Christ that sustains the "gift of grace".


I agree.  I can't really go along with the idea that God simply "maintains our faith," since I believe in the concept of free will.  I think people have the free will to turn away from him.  It happens all the time.

----------


## Nang

> I agree.  I can't really go along with the idea that God simply "maintains our faith," since I believe in the concept of free will.  I think people have the free will to turn away from him.  It happens all the time.



When men fail to live and exhibit faith, and fall away from their profession of faith, it only proves they were never born again to begin with.

They prove to be counterfeits.

For what God has raised from the dead, cannot refuse to live in that resurrected state, any more than a baby born from the womb can refuse to take its first breath.

These matters of life, and new spiritual life, are determined and ordained by God, alone.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> If you just walked up to a non Christian and told them that the way to be saved was by "faith alone," and you said absolutely nothing else to them, do you think that person would understand from that that they're still supposed to stay from certain activities?  Would they understand from the phrase "faith alone" that they can't be a Christian and habitually engage in homosexual acts, for example?


I probably wouldn't get it.  

If anything I get the opposite message.  Being Elect = Off the hook for sin.  Which is partly why I can understand the enthusiastic support for this view.  If you come to believe this, it probably sounds like the best deal of all if you also believe you're one of the chosen.

----------


## erowe1

> I agree.  I can't really go along with the idea that God simply "maintains our faith," since I believe in the concept of free will.  I think people have the free will to turn away from him.  It happens all the time.


It happens all the time. And whenever it doesn't happen, it's because of some gracious act of God in that person who doesn't turn away, such that if it were not for God's grace they would have.

----------


## Kevin007

> You don't think the demons believe Jesus is God? That he died for the sins of his people and rose from the grave in three days?
> 
> Of course they do. The demons are not saved primarily because Jesus did not die for them, and he did not choose to justify them. This is borne out in their lives of wickedness.


Jesus died for man, not angels or demons.

----------


## Nang

> Jesus died for man, not angels or demons.


Right!

Why?

Because only man (Adam) was created in the image of God, and held accountable under
covenant with God.  Therefore, man alone is in need of divine redemption for failing to
keep and breaking the Covenant of Creation (Works).

----------


## Christian Liberty

> When men fail to live and exhibit faith, and fall away from their profession of faith, it only proves they were never born again to begin with.
> 
> They prove to be counterfeits.
> 
> For what God has raised from the dead, cannot refuse to live in that resurrected state, any more than a baby born from the womb can refuse to take its first breath.
> 
> These matters of life, and new spiritual life, are determined and ordained by God, alone.


Yes, amen... I don't understand how a new creation couldn't be an old creation again.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Jesus died for man, not angels or demons.


I agree, but do you think I'm not aware of this?  We were talking about James 2:19.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If you just walked up to a non Christian and told them that the way to be saved was by "faith alone," and you said absolutely nothing else to them, do you think that person would understand from that that they're still supposed to stay from certain activities?  Would they understand from the phrase "faith alone" that they can't be a Christian and habitually engage in homosexual acts, for example?


There are two things at stake here.

First of all, if one were just to say "faith alone" without saying anything else that would be a false gospel, or at least a vague one.  Faith in what?  Specifically, faith that Jesus paid the price for those sins on the cross.  One has to come to realization of what Christ did for them on the cross.  And if someone's eyes are opened to that, why would they just knowingly and unrepentantly live in sin?  I don't think that's possible, and if it does happen I think its symptomatic of unbelief.  In other words, I don't think the "Christian" homosexual is unsaved because of his homosexual actions, rather, his homosexual actions are a symptom of his lack of belief in the true gospel.

Second of all, "abstain from homosexuality" (or insert your sin here) is something you tell to someone AFTER they get saved, not as a proposition one accepts as part of saving faith.  Its not a direct part of the gospel, rather, abstaining from such activities is a FRUIT of believing the gospel.  

I don't generally lead people into "sinners prayers" when I preach the gospel, I simply leave them with the message and tell them it is their duty to submit to God's command and believe.  If I were to find that someone who I shared the gospel with had believed, and that person was an active homosexual (or whatever) prior to his conversion its definitely something I'd talk to them about.  I was once asked by an unbeliever about someone who hypothetically believes the gospel and then just goes on being an evil person, and I stated that that doesn't happen because God does not leave his people in rebellion against him when he saves them.

----------


## RJB

> That's right, whosoever is in reference to the elect, because only the elect would believe in Him.


Hey!  That's me!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Whosoever does NOT mean whosoever.  In this text it is CLEARLY shown that whosoever means as in "whosoever is a Calvinist and believes in him shall not perish..."


Nobody ever said this, but let's roll with it.  If a Jehovah's Witness says he believes in Christ, but his version of Christ is not God, would you consider his faith to be valid, or is he worshipping an idol and imposing the name "Christ" on this idol?  It seems obvious to me that it is the latter.

Playing devil's advocate now, assume that Calvinism is true and that God died to guarantee the salvation of his people who were chosen before the beginning of time.  The Arminian, or Roman Catholic, or any other synergist believes that Christ died to pay for everyone's sins, but this death only made salvation possible, not guaranteed.  There is not a single person who is actually guaranteed to make it to heaven on the basis of Christ's sacrifice, rather, he died to give everyone a chance.  

Is this the same Christ?

I'm still somewhat open-minded on this point, because I don't know.  I do know that Galatians 1:8 anathemizes anyone who adds *works* of any kind as a requirement to be justified.  I'm not sure whether the Arminian version, which requires a free will choice to trust but nonetheless asserts salvation by faith alone, would fall under the same anathemization.  I'm also not sure how a new believer would understand the issue, and I'm curious in exactly what way people like Sola_Fide, who do indeed believe all Arminians are unsaved, explain the gospel to flat out unbelievers.  Its easy to tell an Arminian that he needs to assent to propositions about unconditional election and limited atonement and that he's conditioning salvation on himself if he doesn't, but how would you explain it to an atheist?  Would they even understand it?  I tell people that Christ died for the sins of anyone who will trust in him and that trusting in him means an acceptance that they are saved by grace alone through faith alone in his finished work.  While these ideas logically rule out Arminianism, I'm not sure how or that an agnostic that just hears that message and accepts it is going to see the connection.  It seems to me that at the very least the contradiction would have to be explained to them before we can judge them lost.  I've even seen Sola say things like this at certain points, that someone might not understand the logical implications of grace alone when they first get saved but that they won't oppose them when they are explained.  I'm curious which doctrines Sola (and any others who are of the "Arminianism is a damnable heresy" persuasion if there are any) would say a believer immediately assents to at the moment of conversion, and which ones a believer may never have thought about but would not oppose.  I asked Sola a question about this awhile ago and I don't think he answered this.




> ETA:  It is also implied that to be a "whosoever" you must believe that Mother Theresa is in hell.


I guess I'm unsaved then, as I would not make this judgment.  I would certainly judge that when she held to Catholic doctrine that she was unregenerate, but I do not know if God saved her before her death or not, and I would consider anyone who made such a claim to be on dangerous ground.  I've never heard of anyone make this claim though, even the OTC people.  Its just a strawman that's been constructed to discredit people, right along with the "you have to know every single little doctrine" line. Its a strawman to avoid real debate.  There is no room for debate over what beliefs cause someone to be a reprobate.  There are no such beliefs, there is no belief that someone could hold that would make it impossible for them to ever be saved.  There are certainly certain beliefs that prove that someone who holds this is not CURRENTLY saved.  That's a critically important distinction.

Even still, I know at least one person who I consider to be saved who will not judge that Mother Theresa was unsaved *based on the doctrines she was known to have professed*  While I certainly have questions for any Protestant who would say Roman Catholics preach the same gospel that they preach, I don't generally judge people based on the way they judge other people.  So, this is another strawman.  I don't necessarily think that everyone who does not know or believe that Roman Catholicism is a damnable heresy is unsaved.

----------


## Christian Liberty

This issue is WAY more complicated than I anyone here is realizing.  Its easy to make statements like "You don't have to have all your doctrines in line in order to be saved" and "It says whosoever believes in Him and not this list of doctrines."  It gets a lot more complicated when you really start thinking about it.  Nobody is saying "perfect" knowledge but how much?  What's the line between the God of the Bible and a counterfeit?  What's the line between the Christ the Bible presents and a counterfeit?

What if  someone "believes in Him" meaning a Christ who was fully God and fully German Shepherd?  This is clearly a false Christ that cannot save.  What about a Christ who's actually a demigod, half god and half man?  This is clearly a false Christ that cannot save.  What about a Jesus that is just man and not God (Jehovah's Witnesses)?  This is clearly a false Christ that cannot save.   What about a Christ that  does his part on the cross, and promises to save you if you do your part?  I don't see how this isn't a false Christ, but when I start challenging people to think seriously about this they just throw the "perfection of understanding" strawman out there  and shut down.  I know people can believe contradictory propositions at the same time... but what if someone asserted that Jesus was both God and not God at the same time?  I'd assert that they are worshipping a false Christ, despite the fact that they are inconsistent.  I suspect that some here might let the inconsistency  go, based on the responses.

At the same point, there's obviously a point where one demands too much doctrinal assent that a new believer would not possibly know after a single gospel presentation.  So, its not like this is only complex from one angle.  Its complicated from many different angles.  And I've seen a lot of intelligent people on all different sides of it, from Roman Catholics themselves to relatively harsh "tolerant calvinists", cop out of giving it the thought it deserves.

----------


## RJB

> The fact that you reference Mother Theresa,* a lost, unregenerate heretic,* as a good person to emulate, is sad in and of itself.





> .  *I would certainly judge* that when she held to Catholic doctrine that she was unregenerate, but *I do not know if God saved her before her death or not,* and *I would consider anyone who made such a claim to be on dangerous ground...  
> *
> *Even still, I know at least one person who I consider to be saved* who will not judge that Mother Theresa was unsaved *based on the doctrines she was known to have professed*  While I certainly have questions for any Protestant who would say Roman Catholics preach the same gospel that they preach, I don't generally judge people based on the way they judge other people.  So, this is another strawman.  I don't necessarily think that everyone who does not know or believe that Roman Catholicism is a damnable heresy is unsaved.





> Mother Theresa was a Catholic.  She believed in Roman Catholic sacramentalism. * She believed a false gospel.  When she believed and taught those things she was lost, no matter how many "good works" she did.*  I am not saying I know where she is spending eternity, I do not.  I do not know what she believed when she died.  *But she was certainly a false Catholic teacher throughout her life*.
> 
> If identifying false gospel is "hateful", I am proud to be hateful right next to Paul (Galatians 1:8-9), Peter (2 Peter 3:16), and John (2 John 7-11)
> 
> You can have your false teachers.


Kid, you're all over the place.  You make judgments then tiptoe back just as you cross the line.

And based on the fact that you really don't understand what Catholics believe as well as expressing a poor understanding of the bible, I will sleep peacefully tonight even though some 19 year old dude on the internet, whom I've never met and who likes insult others, has not given me his assurance of salvation.  Someday you will find your pastor/dad has filled your head with a lot of falsehoods about others.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Kid, you're all over the place.  You make judgments then tiptoe back just as you cross the line.


OK, I can see why you think I was contradicting myself, but I actually wasn't.  

I would claim to know *based on what Mother Theresa believed* that she was unsaved.  I do not know what she professed at the moment of her death, so while it seems likely that she died Catholic, we don't actually know.  So, I think its possible that she's in heaven, but I don't think its possible that she was saved when confessing baptismal regeneration, transubstantiation, infused righteousness, etc.  

Deborah K clearly considered Mother Theresa an example of a Christian who should be emulated (hence her taking offense at my statement.)  Her issue was clearly not the possibility of a deathbed conversion, it was that I condemned her as a lost heretic based on what she taught.  Which I stand by, if she believed Catholic doctrine until the day she died she is in Hell.  But I do not know with any kind of certainty that this is the case.  

If you said that Osama Bin Laden was a lost, unregenerate heretic, would you be making a definitive judgment that he is in Hell, or would you be making a qualified judgment based on what he professed to the best of your knowledge?

I say that Osama Bin Laden was a lost, unregenerate heretic based on the doctrines he professed.  He was a Muslim.  He denied the deity of Christ and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on  the cross to save sinners.  I judge that he was not saved based on what he believed.  Does this definitely mean he is in Hell?  No.  He might have repented and been converted before his death.  Its unlikely but certainly not impossible.  Even still, I'd be comfortable describing him as a "lost, unregenerate heretic", throughout his life despite him possibly not being reprobate.

Furthermore, while I said Deborah K's considering Mother Theresa a good Christian example to be "sad", I didn't say she was lost because she said it.  So that's another lie.



> And based on the fact that you really don't understand what Catholics believe as well as expressing a poor understanding of the bible, I will sleep peacefully tonight even though *some 19 year old dude on the internet,* whom I've never met and who likes insult others, has not given me his assurance of salvation.  Someday* you will find your pastor/dad has filled your head with a lot of falsehoods about others*.


Why do you do things like this?  Respond or don't, but stop trivializing me.

----------


## RJB

> Why do you do things like this?  Respond or don't, but stop trivializing me.


  I'm not trivializing you, but rather trivializing your judgment of me and others.  You are not as wise as you think.  Your opinion is based on imperfect teachings of the scripture and imperfect logic.  It used to aggravate me, but now, meh...  I see your judgments as just silly.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Hey!  That's me!


That's right, so now you know the test to see if you are one of the elect.   Just see if you believe in Jesus and if you do, you are one of the elect.    

I just passed the test.....

Yippee, we are of the elect.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not trivializing you, but rather trivializing your judgment of me and others.  You are not as wise as you think.  Your opinion is based on imperfect teachings of the scripture and imperfect logic.  It used to aggravate me, but now, meh...  I see your judgments as just silly.


What is the gospel?

----------


## RJB

> That's right, so now you know the test to see if you are one of the elect.   Just see if you believe in Jesus and if you do, you are one of the elect.    
> 
> I just passed the test.....
> 
> Yippee, we are of the elect.


  That's what gets me.  Those who have felt the peace of Christ in their hearts at the moment that He came into their lives, know it.  I've had some awesome experiences in my life but it pales in comparison.  To know that the peace of the Lord in prayer is pale in consideration to heaven when we are in his presence is literally Earth shattering.

  And to hear from someone I've never met tell me that I do not know God and that I'm damned... As I said, Meh...

----------


## Terry1

> Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post 
> 
> Why do you do things like this? Respond or don't, but stop trivializing me.

----------


## RJB

> What is the gospel?


Read Eduardo's open question to you, he addressed it, and I notice you did your best to talk about everything in the world except what he posted.  There are quite a few pages of ducking and dodging.

I'm in no mood to rehash it for the 200th time because I do not believe you are sincere.  See my response to Dr. 3D.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's what gets me.  Those who have felt the peace of Christ in their hearts at the moment that He came into their lives, know it.  I've had some awesome experiences in my life but it pales in comparison.  To know that the peace of the Lord in prayer is pale in consideration to heaven when we are in his presence is literally Earth shattering.


Why couldn't a Muslim say the same thing about their God?  You have to go by scripture and not experiences.




> And to hear from someone I've never met tell me that I do not know God and that I'm damned... As I said, Meh...



Quit lying.  Nobody has ever said that you're damned.  Heaven forbid.  I said you were unregenerate, but I've never said you were damned. Is the distinction between being damned and being unregenerate really that complicated to you?

----------


## Deborah K

> That's what gets me.  Those who have felt the peace of Christ in their hearts at the moment that He came into their lives, know it.  I've had some awesome experiences in my life but it pales in comparison.  To know that the peace of the Lord in prayer is pale in consideration to heaven when we are in his presence is literally Earth shattering.
> And to hear from someone I've never met tell me that I do not know God and that I'm damned... As I said, Meh...


The very fact that they feel justified in making those kinds of judgments about people whose hearts they don't know, tells me that the best thing for this forum and its users is to ignore them, ignore their threads, until finally they go away.  They are a detriment and add nothing of value to the discussion of faith.  "You will know them by their fruits."  I am actually beginning to think it is spiritually dangerous for the faithful to engage them.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Thank goodness for ignore, else I'd be getting splattered with FF's bull$#@! like y'all are.  Congrats on being classy, RJB, et al.  ~hugs~

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The very fact that they feel justified in making those kinds of judgments about people whose hearts they don't know, tells me that the best thing for this forum and its users is to ignore them, ignore their threads, until finally they go away.  They are a detriment and add nothing of value to the discussion of faith.  "You will know them by their fruits."  I am actually beginning to think it is spiritually dangerous for the faithful to engage them.





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Deborah K again.


  Sorry, babe.  Use the ignore button.  It's marvelous.  Too bad I can't ignore threads started by people on my list. :/

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Thank goodness for ignore, else I'd be getting splattered with FF's bull$#@! like y'all are.  Congrats on being classy, RJB, et al.  ~hugs~


What an absolute wimp you've become.  I never would have thought this cowardice would come from you.  Unbunch your girl pants and join the conversation.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What an absolute wimp you've become.  I never would have thought this cowardice would come from you.  Unbunch your girl pants and join the conversation.


I neg repped him and told him he was afraid.  These kinds of threads just remind me of how narrow the way is.  To be honest if it wasn't for you, Nang, and erowe1 I'd probably quit the religion forum altogether as well.  I'm just getting sick of getting attacked constantly with baseless attacks.  I don't mind when the attacks actually make sense but when it doesn't its just aggravating.

----------


## RJB

> Why couldn't a Muslim say the same thing about their God?  You have to go by scripture and not experiences.


I do go by scripture.  Just not your interpretation.  Do I need to re-bump a few of Eduardo's thread again?





> Quit lying.  Nobody has ever said that you're damned.  Heaven forbid.  I said you were unregenerate, but I've never said you were damned. Is the distinction between being damned and being unregenerate really that complicated to you?


  I know what you mean.  (wink wink)  That's your escape clause to avoid thinking you are passing judgment and possibly to avoid a banning.  So if it makes you happy I'll no longer use the word damned and rephrase what I wrote:  "And to hear from someone I've never met tell me that I do not know God and that I'm unregenerate... As I said, Meh..."

----------


## Deborah K

> Sorry, babe.  Use the ignore button.  It's marvelous.  Too bad I can't ignore threads started by people on my list. :/


Fanatic just neg repped me and told me I was afraid.  He's right.  I am afraid of evil.

----------


## Deborah K

> What an absolute wimp you've become.  I never would have thought this cowardice would come from you.  Unbunch your girl pants and join the conversation.


There's nothing cowardice about not wanting to engage nonsense that couples itself with evil.  You people are evil.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There's nothing cowardice about not wanting to engage nonsense that couples itself with evil.  You people are evil.


I'm "evil"?   

Why?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I do go by scripture.  Just not your interpretation.  Do I need to re-bump a few of Eduardo's thread again?


Go ahead.





> I know what you mean.  (wink wink)  That's your escape clause to avoid thinking you are passing judgment


Nope.  I admit I'm judging.  You do too, even if you deny it.  But just because I judge doesn't mean I will say who is and is not going to Hell, which I do not know.




> and possibly to avoid a banning.


I couldn't care less.  I really don't claim to know who goes to Hell.  I make this distinction when I share the gospel with atheists,agnostics, and pagans as well.  I tell them flat out that I believe that if they die without trusting in what Jesus did on the cross they will go to Hell, but that I am not saying they are definitely going to Hell because I don't know if they will ultimately trust in Christ or not.  I don't really care if the mods decide to ban me or not.  



> So if it makes you happy I'll no longer use the word damned and rephrase what I wrote:  "And to hear from someone I've never met tell me that I do not know God and that I'm unregenerate... As I said, Meh..."



Yes, its a critical distinction.  I do not know if you are among God's elect or not.  If I knew you weren't I wouldn't waste my time proclaiming the gospel to you.  I take the time precisely because I don't know. 




> Fanatic just neg repped me and told me I was afraid.  He's right.  I am afraid of evil.


Explain how Sola_Fide or myself is proclaiming evil.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There's nothing cowardice about not wanting to engage nonsense that couples itself with evil.  You people are evil.





> I'm "evil"?   
> 
> Why?


Yeah, I wanted to know the answer to that.

If she was alive during Paul's era she would have sided with the Judaizing heretics, and she'd be calling Paul "evil."  If just one of these people will actually exegete Galatians 1:6-9 for me I'll gladly give them a +rep.

This forum is showing me how sick the world is.  Narrow is the gate.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There's nothing cowardice about not wanting to engage nonsense that couples itself with evil.  You people are evil.


Notice his Orwellian use of "conversation".  In Oldspeak, a conversation is a back and forth engagement.  In SF's Newspeak, a "conversation" is listening to him insult and berate and lie about you and your beliefs so he can feel better about himself.  Whether the Nefarious 3 (whom I have on ignore) truly are evil, I'm not sure.  But what they've been saying for many moons tell me they aren't Godly people-at least in the Christian sense.

----------


## Deborah K

Mathew 7:15"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.…

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Notice his Orwellian use of "conversation".  In Oldspeak, a conversation is a back and forth engagement.  In SF's Newspeak, a "conversation" is listening to him insult and berate and lie about you and your beliefs so he can feel better about himself.


The funny thing is that SF will probably chuckel at this, but if he had said something like this about basically anyone else they'd get mad and cry to the mods.




> Mathew 7:15"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.…


Sounds like Catholicism and Arminianism to me...

----------


## RJB

> What an absolute wimp you've become.  I never would have thought this cowardice would come from you.  Unbunch your girl pants and join the conversation.


What conversation?  You mean this daily drama you and FF perform.  It's not cowardice to avoid someone who just stirs the pot.  In real life I would never associate with you and FF.  If I owned a business and you two raised the hell you do here, I'd throw you out. 

I'm seriously considering asking for a few months ban.  I'm addicted to this stupid drama you guys create.  I wish I had HBs sense and discipline to flatout ignore you.

----------


## Deborah K

> The funny thing is that SF will probably chuckel at this, but if he had said something like this about basically anyone else they'd get mad and cry to the mods.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like Catholicism and Arminianism to me...


Self righteous pride is a device of Satan's and you people regularly exhibit a mountain of it.  I truly do wish you would go away.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What conversation?  You mean this daily drama you and FF perform.  It's not cowardice to avoid someone who just stirs the pot.  In real life I would never associate with you and FF.  If I owned a business and you two raised the hell you do here, I'd throw you out.


I kind of doubt this actually.  In real life its a lot easier to see the emotions that are behind statements and even I don't exclusively debate IRL.  There's something different at a fundamental level about discussion on a discussion forum vs face to face.




> I'm seriously considering asking for a few months ban.


For us or yourself?




> I'm addicted to this stupid drama you guys create.  I wish I had HBs sense and discipline to flatout ignore you.


I should probably just ignore most of you guys too.  I really only stay in the religion section for a handful of people at this point.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Self righteous pride is a device of Satan's and you people regularly exhibit a mountain of it.


Proof?




> I truly do wish you would go away.



Noted.  But you didn't say that, you said we were "evil."  That's an accusation that you need to prove.

----------


## Deborah K

> Proof?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noted.  But you didn't say that, you said we were "evil."  That's an accusation that you need to prove.


I don't need to prove anything to you.  Get thee behind me, Satan.

----------


## RJB

> Fanatic just neg repped me and told me I was afraid.  He's right.  I am afraid of evil.


Neg reps are so stupid.  I've only neg repped people who neg repped me and the 3 times it was someone who has less rep points then me-- Pretty pointless on the other's part.

Second, Everytime, I've received a neg rep, I've received quite a number of + reps to more than make up.  You've got a few from me and a few others I'm sure to make up  for the measely one you lost

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't need to prove anything to you.  Get thee behind me, Satan.





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Deborah K again.


   ~applauds loudly for Deb~

----------


## Deborah K

> Neg reps are so stupid.  I've only neg repped people who neg repped me and the 3 times it was someone who has less rep points then me-- Pretty pointless on the other's part.
> 
> Second, Everytime, I've received a neg rep, I've received quite a number of + reps to more than make up.  You've got a few from me and a few others I'm sure to make up  for the measely one you lost


I like to expose people when they neg rep me.  It doesn't affect me other than when someone I like does it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't need to prove anything to you.  Get thee behind me, Satan.






> ~applauds loudly for Deb~


And we're the "ungodly and mean ones"  Wow... You guys are unbelievably hypocritical.  I think I'm done here.  I'll keep praying.  I was a sinner, completley depraved and evil, yet God saved me in spite of my rebellion.  He can do it for you too.  To be frank, I pray that God will have more compassion on you guys than I have for you guys.

----------


## RJB

> I should probably just ignore most of you guys too.  I really only stay in the religion section for a handful of people at this point.


Seriously, we should make a truce.  You and Sola stay out of threads where people post about their spiritual life and I will stay out of threads like your justification and imputed/infused threads. 

It may be rough to stay away, but you'll get free range in your own threads without me being a pain in the neck.

----------


## Kevin007

sticking to the Bible and avoiding personal attacks is usually a good thing

----------


## RJB

> For us or yourself?


For me.  The worst of me has been coming out in the last few weeks.  I don't act this way in real life.  I should behave the same way here.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Seriously, we should make a truce.  You and Sola stay out of threads where people post about their spiritual life and I will stay out of threads like your justification and imputed/infused threads. 
> 
> It may be rough to stay away, but you'll get free range in your own threads without me being a pain in the neck.





> For me.  The worst of me has been coming out in the last few weeks.  I don't act this way in real life.  I should behave the same way here.


Yeah, I'm with you.  I'm starting to get aggravated to.  And even though I can be somewhat "judgmental" even face to face, it comes across differently and I use harsher terminology on the internet.  And you're right that we should act the same way.

I'm fine with keeping debate to debate threads.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> sticking to the Bible and avoiding personal attacks is usually a good thing


This thread is illustrative of why this is often easier said than done.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> sticking to the Bible and avoiding personal attacks is usually a good thing


As well as Church tradition.  ~hugs~

----------


## Deborah K

> And we're the "ungodly and mean ones"  Wow... You guys are unbelievably hypocritical.  I think I'm done here.  I'll keep praying.  I was a sinner, completley depraved and evil, yet God saved me in spite of my rebellion.  He can do it for you too.  To be frank, I pray that God will have more compassion on you guys than I have for you guys.


Oh, I see.  You don't like the taste of your own medicine.

----------


## Kevin007

> As well as Church tradition.  ~hugs~

----------


## Kevin007

imho we should ALL act more Christ-like to each other guys....

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Oh, I see.  You don't like the taste of your own medicine.


I couldn't care less what anyone thinks of me.  This thread is showing just how hypocritical the "oh why can't we just get along" people are.




Romans 1:16-17, Galatians 1:8-9

That's it.

----------


## Deborah K

> imho we should ALL act more Christ-like to each other guys....


Christ rebuked Satan.  So must we.

----------


## Deborah K

> I couldn't care less what anyone thinks of me.  This thread is showing just how hypocritical the "oh why can't we just get along" people are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 1:16-17, Galatians 1:8-9
> 
> That's it.


You and your ilk do nothing but wreak havoc.  It's high time you were routed out.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Christ rebuked Satan.  So must we.


Its funny, I've made this exact same argument to defend the comparatively tame "judgmental" things that I've said, I usually referred to mortal men (Paul, Peter, John) rather than Christ directly, and I was still challenged on the basis that I was comparing myself to the these great men of God by invoking them to defend my comments.

Yet, I suspect this comment will not be challenged at all, despite the fact that your comment was objectively false (Even you don't believe that I am literally Satan) because people like you and they don't like me.  Why do they like you?  Why does the world like you?  Have you ever asked yourself that question?  If the world likes you, the Bible says you have a problem.

I'm flabbergasted by just how hypocritical this forum is.

----------


## Kevin007

I'm def. NOT holier than thou and do not pretend to be. If anything these threads show lurkers how not to be A CHRISTIAN. What about all the people who are unbeliever's looking in here. This is our witness?

----------


## Kevin007

> Christ rebuked Satan.  So must we.


satan is NOT any person in here, trust me.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You and your ilk do nothing but wreak havoc.  It's high time you were routed out.


And you think these kinds of hypocritical personal attacks will accomplish what exactly?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm def. NOT holier than thou and do not pretend to be. If anything these threads show lurkers how not to be A CHRISTIAN. What about all the people who are unbeliever's looking in here. This is our witness?


Online message boards are good about this sort of thing

----------


## Christian Liberty

> satan is NOT any person in here, trust me.


Yeah, and they think I'm judgmental because I say works-salvationists are not Christians.

----------


## Deborah K

> And you think these kinds of hypocritical personal attacks will accomplish what exactly?


I turned the tables on you, Fanatic.  Doesn't feel too good, does it?  What you call hypocrisy I call a dose of your own medicine.  Take your lumps like a man.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I turned the tables on you, Fanatic.  Doesn't feel too good, does it?  What you call hypocrisy I call a dose of your own medicine.  Take your lumps like a man.



I don't make baseless personal attacks.  That, and I couldn't care less what you say about me, I just appreciate some form of logical back up.

----------


## Deborah K

> satan is NOT any person in here, trust me.


I disagree.  He lurks around and uses people to wreak havoc.  He is in this forum, which is why it has degraded so badly in the past few months.

----------


## Kevin007

> I disagree.  He lurks around and uses people to wreak havoc.  He is in this forum, which is why it has degraded so badly in the past few months.


poppycock.

----------


## RJB

> Yeah, I'm with you.  I'm starting to get aggravated to.  And even though I can be somewhat "judgmental" even face to face, it comes across differently and I use harsher terminology on the internet.  And you're right that we should act the same way.
> 
> I'm fine with keeping debate to debate threads.


  Really I think not discussing stuff period with each other is best for a month or two.  After that we'll see.  I don't dislike you guys, but I'm starting to.  Before I cross that line, I'd prefer to step away, and re-evaluate.  After a break, I know I'll debate with more consideration and a clearer head than I have now. I'm too revved up for war and that isn't fair to either of us.   The worst thing is that I'm enjoying it too much.  That ain't good either.

----------


## Deborah K

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.  John 10:10

----------


## Christian Liberty

> poppycock.


No, she's right, but she doesn't realize she's doing Satan's work when she calls true Christians who believe the gospel "evil."

----------


## Dr.3D

> That's what gets me.  Those who have felt the peace of Christ in their hearts at the moment that He came into their lives, know it.  I've had some awesome experiences in my life but it pales in comparison.  To know that the peace of the Lord in prayer is pale in consideration to heaven when we are in his presence is literally Earth shattering.
> 
>   And to hear from someone I've never met tell me that I do not know God and that I'm damned... As I said, Meh...


Yeah, it gets me too.  From what I can see, we all believe we have passed the elect test, yet there are some who are still questioning if the others are elect.  

Just how they know what's in the heart of the other person is beyond me.   Could it be they are observing the works of those other people.   If there are no good works, it seems like that might indicate perhaps they just think they have passed the elect test.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Really I think not discussing stuff period with each other is best for a month or two.  After that we'll see.  I don't dislike you guys, but I'm starting to.  Before I cross that line, I'd prefer to step away, and re-evaluate.  After a break, I know I'll debate with more consideration and a clearer head than I have now. I'm too revved up for war and that isn't fair to either of us.   The worst thing is that I'm enjoying it too much.  That ain't good either.


Fair enough.  I'm OK with that.  

I don't really "enjoy it", and I've considered backing out several times.  The reasons I haven't are twofold, first of all, there are a few people here that I learn a lot from, and I don't want to leave those people without help in these debates.  But I think its negatively affecting me too.

----------


## Deborah K

> No, she's right, but she doesn't realize she's doing Satan's work when she calls true Christians who believe the gospel "evil."


Just neg repped me and called me an illogical hypocrite.  LOL.

----------


## Deborah K

> Yeah, it gets me too.  From what I can see, we all believe we have passed the elect test, yet there are some who are still questioning if the others are elect.  
> 
> Just how they know what's in the heart of the other person is beyond me.   Could it be they are observing the works of those other people.   If there are no good works, it seems like that might indicate perhaps they just think they have passed the elect test.


But who really has the right to judge who is going to heaven and who isn't?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, it gets me too.  From what I can see, we all believe we have passed the elect test, yet there are some who are still questioning if the others are elect.  
> 
> Just how they know what's in the heart of the other person is beyond me.   Could it be they are observing the works of those other people.   If there are no good works, it seems like that might indicate perhaps they just think they have passed the elect test.


I am certain that I've been justified by God, because I know I believe the gospel, and God promises that only the elect will believe the true gospel.  I know my own heart.

But, as for anyone else, I do not claim that any given person is elect or not.  God brings his people to the true gospel in his own timing, some later than others.  But I do claim that I can know a given person is regenerate/unregenerate based on what they preach.

I base this off Galatians 1:6-9.  You can know someone is unregenerate if they bring a gospel other than the one Paul brought.  The gospel Paul brought is seen in Romans 4:5, Ephesians 2:8-9, and Romans 1:16-17.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But who really has the right to judge who is going to heaven and who isn't?


I agree.  I have no idea.   And if you pay careful attention to what I write, I've always been consistent about this point.  I have claimed that Christians have the right to judge certain people unregenerate and lost based on what doctrines they teach, but that Christians do not have a right to judge someone eternally lost or reprobate because God may still save them.  You will not find a single post of mine that contradicts this.

----------


## RJB

> Just neg repped me and called me an illogical hypocrite.  LOL.


I must spread some around.  I give you some + rep tomorrow.

The rep is another silly game here.  I really just need to throw my idiot computer out the window.

----------


## Deborah K

> No, she's right, but she doesn't realize she's doing Satan's work when she calls true Christians who believe the gospel "evil."


Well?  Kevin??  Are you gonna call "poppycock"???  Or does it only apply to me?

----------


## Dr.3D

> But who really has the right to judge who is going to heaven and who isn't?


There is only One that I know of who has the right to judge.   

It doesn't do any good to attempt to ascertain their elect status anyway if they believe there is no help for someone who isn't one of the elect.

----------


## Deborah K

> I must spread some around.  I give you some + rep tomorrow.
> 
> The rep is another silly game here.  I really just need to throw my idiot computer out the window.


No worries.  I appreciate it.  I don't expose the neg reps to get more plus rep.  I do it just to expose it.  I don't care about getting make ups really I don't.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well?  Kevin??  Are you gonna call "poppycock"???  Or does it only apply to me?


I'll retract if you actually explain what your standard of judgment is, right now its just coming across as "We don't like Sola_Fide and FreedomFanatic so let's just call them evil."  At least I actually have a standard for judgment, you don't.  Because you're a hypocrite.



> There is only One that I know of who has the right to judge.   
> 
> It doesn't do any good to attempt to ascertain their elect status anyway if they believe there is no help for someone who isn't one of the elect.


Doc, this is a strawman.  Nobody is saying they can know who is and is not of the elect.  I've never heard anyone say that.  I preach the gospel in hopes that unregenerate elect people, which could include some here, will be regenerated by God's power through the means of the preaching of the true gospel.  Claiming that you can judge someone unregenerate because they bring a false gospel is not the same thing as saying they are not elect.  Much the same as there are no Muslims who believe in Jesus Christ but there are some who might believe in him in the future, I'm saying the same thing about "Christians" who believe false gospels.

----------


## Deborah K

> There is only One that I know of who has the right to judge.   
> 
> It doesn't do any good to attempt to ascertain their elect status anyway if they believe there is no help for someone who isn't one of the elect.


And as far as I can tell, calling someone an unregenerate implies they are unrepentant and not born again.  Just another way of saying they aren't getting into heaven, imo.

I'm just really tired of the attacks and judgments.  I came in here tonight to turn the tables and prove a point.  Seems the point was lost on them.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I'll retract if you actually explain what your standard of judgment is, right now its just coming across as "We don't like Sola_Fide and FreedomFanatic so let's just call them evil."  At least I actually have a standard for judgment, you don't.  Because you're a hypocrite.
> 
> 
> Doc, this is a strawman.  Nobody is saying they can know who is and is not of the elect.  I've never heard anyone say that.  I preach the gospel in hopes that unregenerate elect people, which could include some here, will be regenerated by God's power through the means of the preaching of the true gospel.  Claiming that you can judge someone unregenerate because they bring a false gospel is not the same thing as saying they are not elect.  Much the same as there are no Muslims who believe in Jesus Christ but there are some who might believe in him in the future, I'm saying the same thing about "Christians" who believe false gospels.


Then the problem becomes one of who has the true interpretation of the gospel?

What gives anybody the authority to proclaim they have the best, most accurate interpretation?

----------


## Kevin007

> Well?  Kevin??  Are you gonna call "poppycock"???  Or does it only apply to me?


turn the other cheek; both of you please. Deb shouldn't have called FF what she did- and FF DEB IS NOT EVIL....

----------


## Deborah K

> Then the problem becomes one of who has the true interpretation of the gospel?
> 
> What gives anybody the authority to proclaim they have the best, most accurate interpretation?


This.  +rep

----------


## Deborah K

> turn the other cheek; both of you please. Deb shouldn't have called FF what she did- and FF DEB IS NOT EVIL....


He neg repped me, and I plus repped him.  Who is turning the other cheek?

----------


## Dr.3D

> He neg repped me, and I plus repped him.  Who is turning the other cheek?


That was a Christian thing to do.

----------


## Kevin007

> That was a Christian thing to do.


+1

----------


## Brett85

> I'm just getting sick of getting attacked constantly with baseless attacks.  I don't mind when the attacks actually make sense but when it doesn't its just aggravating.


Don't you think it kind of goes both ways?

----------


## Brett85

> I do know that Galatians 1:8 anathemizes anyone who adds *works* of any kind as a requirement to be justified.


Hmmm.  That's certainly not what my Bible says when I read Galatians 1:8.  Perhaps there's a new translation of the Bible that contains this language that I just haven't read?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Hmmm.  That's certainly not what my Bible says when I read Galatians 1:8.  Perhaps there's a new translation of the Bible that contains this language that I just haven't read?


What was Paul condemning in Galatia?

----------


## Brett85

> What was Paul condemning in Galatia?


He was condemning the idea that the Gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved.  But yet you somehow take that to mean that any person who adds *any* work to salvation is unsaved, even though the context behind this passage is that Paul was talking about one particular work.

Beyond that, Paul said that anyone who *preaches* a false gospel will be condemned.  He never said that if someone holds to a "false gospel," or a gospel that isn't 100% correct, that they'll be damned.

----------


## Brett85

> I don't make baseless personal attacks.


...




> You're a moron. And me saying that has nothing to do with me being a "chosen one". Its just a fact.

----------


## Terry1

> He neg repped me, and I plus repped him.  Who is turning the other cheek?


Hey Deb, I look at FF this way--if I could get locked up for nothing more than buying him a shot of Ouzo and having a drink with him, he's really not fit for adult conversation and social interaction at least until he's out of diapers.

----------


## Voluntarist

> I'm def. NOT holier than thou and do not pretend to be. If anything these threads show lurkers how not to be A CHRISTIAN. What about all the people who are unbeliever's looking in here. This is our witness?


I fall into the skeptic category ... no need to stop showing me what's practiced rather than preached.

----------


## Terry1

> I'll retract if you actually explain what your standard of judgment is, right now its just coming across as "We don't like Sola_Fide and FreedomFanatic so let's just call them evil."  At least I actually have a standard for judgment, you don't.  Because you're a hypocrite.
> 
> 
> Doc, this is a strawman.  Nobody is saying they can know who is and is not of the elect.  I've never heard anyone say that.  I preach the gospel in hopes that unregenerate elect people, which could include some here, will be regenerated by God's power through the means of the preaching of the true gospel.  Claiming that you can judge someone unregenerate because they bring a false gospel is not the same thing as saying they are not elect.  Much the same as there are no Muslims who believe in Jesus Christ but there are some who might believe in him in the future, I'm saying the same thing about "Christians" who believe false gospels.


The false Gospel is as the false Gospel does FF.  Life is 10 percent what happens to us and 90 percent how we react to it.  Want to preach the Gospel?  First you have to learn how to live it before anyone will take you seriously.

----------


## Nang

When one saved by the grace of Christ, meets another soul also saved by the grace of Christ, there is sweet communion and fellowship that passes earthly description.

There is no hatred, malice, arguing, or jealousies.  

Only wonderful discussion and spiritual discovery, centered around the Word of God.

When this does not evidence itself on forums such as this, one can know the curse of enmity remains in the hearts of some participants, and what comes out of their mouths (computers) reveals the heart.

God is not mocked.  He alone can read hearts.  

And the rest of us will stand accountable to Him for every idle word we speak . . .

----------


## moostraks

> *When one saved by the grace of Christ, meets another soul also saved by the grace of Christ*, there is sweet communion and fellowship that passes earthly description.
> 
> There is no hatred, malice, arguing, or jealousies.  
> 
> Only wonderful discussion and spiritual discovery, centered around the Word of God.
> 
> When this does not evidence itself on forums such as this, one can know the curse of enmity remains in the hearts of some participants, and what comes out of their mouths (computers) reveals the heart.
> 
> God is not mocked.  He alone can read hearts.  
> ...


Matthew 5: 43You have heard that it was said, YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy. 44But I say to you,* love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you*, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47*If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?* 

Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: [i]immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. 26 Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.

Proverbs Chapter 6
16 These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

19 A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

----------


## Terry1

> When one saved by the grace of Christ, meets another soul also saved by the grace of Christ, there is sweet communion and fellowship that passes earthly description.
> 
> There is no hatred, malice, arguing, or jealousies.  
> 
> Only wonderful discussion and spiritual discovery, centered around the Word of God.
> 
> When this does not evidence itself on forums such as this, one can know the curse of enmity remains in the hearts of some participants, and what comes out of their mouths (computers) reveals the heart.
> 
> God is not mocked.  He alone can read hearts.  
> ...


I'm glad you said "us" after you bounced in here your first few days of subscription running rough-shod through the threads announcing your glorious coming by initiating unprovoked attacks upon the brethren here calling them and me "wicked evil trolls and abominations" while shouting "repent" and neg repping people who didn't follow the same path of chaos, hatred and mayhem you left behind.  Yes indeed---evil is as evil does and the spirit can certainly recognize the spirit.

----------


## Nang

> Matthew 5: 43“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ 44“But I say to you,* love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you*, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46“For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47*“If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?*


*
*
Do you apply these scriptures to yourself?

----------


## Terry1

> [/B]
> Do you apply these scriptures to yourself?


You need to work on Nang before you cast any more stones.  You, FF and Sola seem to have really short memories regarding your own behavior and why they were temporarily banned for theirs as well.  You have given a really poor example of what you attempt to preach in your previous post.

----------


## moostraks

> Do you apply these scriptures to yourself?


Well that was subtle, they apply to everyone. Doesn't this verse speak to your heart at all and make you wince when you post, " When one saved by the grace of Christ, meets another soul also saved by the grace of Christ there is sweet communion and fellowship that passes earthly description.

There is no hatred, malice, arguing, or jealousies. "

As for me, I make and have made attempts to bridge gaps with even those who insult me constantly and slander my name. There are several who I have dealt with for years here whom I choose not to engage with for the most part because it is a game for them and plays into their abusive nature. I don't turn my nose up and claim I have all the answers when others disagree with me. I don't care for bullies, manipulators, and narcissists who stir trouble and feign ignorance. Anything else you want to know?

----------


## moostraks

> You need to work on Nang before you cast any more stones.  You, FF and Sola seem to have really short memories regarding your own behavior and why they were temporarily banned for theirs as well.  You have given a really poor example of what you attempt to preach in your previous post.


How does every requote with this person end up being screwed up? Is it like that can see them in a mirror sort of thing or what???

----------


## Terry1

> How does every requote with this person end up being screwed up? Is it like that can see them in a mirror sort of thing or what???


I don't know, but I've had to fix the quote on almost every post Nang makes.  I have no idea what's so difficult about the quote feature that they can't fix it themselves. LOL

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He was condemning the idea that the Gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved.  But yet you somehow take that to mean that any person who adds *any* work to salvation is unsaved, even though the context behind this passage is that Paul was talking about one particular work.


I don't see the difference.  Why would adding one work to salvation be OK and another not?  The passage is clear.



> Beyond that, Paul said that anyone who *preaches* a false gospel will be condemned.  He never said that if someone holds to a "false gospel," or a gospel that isn't 100% correct, that they'll be damned.


I've heard this argument before and I see it as somewhat of a stretch.  Basically your argument would be that false teachers are condemned but that those who simply hold to false gospels are not condemned.  However, Galatians 5:1-2 is even more explicit and does not allow for this distinction.



> ...


That wasn't "Baseless."  




> Hey Deb, I look at FF this way--if I could get locked up for nothing more than buying him a shot of Ouzo and having a drink with him, he's really not fit for adult conversation and social interaction at least until he's out of diapers.




I thought we were for liberty on this forum?  I certainly don't agree with the drinking laws (even though I don't drink.)  That said the mockery of age is really, really pathetic.  1 Timothy 4:12.  Engage in the debate and stop whining because you're getting shown up by a "kid."

----------


## Brett85

> When one saved by the grace of Christ, meets another soul also saved by the grace of Christ, there is sweet communion and fellowship that passes earthly description.
> 
> There is no hatred, malice, arguing, or jealousies.  
> 
> Only wonderful discussion and spiritual discovery, centered around the Word of God.
> 
> When this does not evidence itself on forums such as this, one can know the curse of enmity remains in the hearts of some participants, and what comes out of their mouths (computers) reveals the heart.
> 
> God is not mocked.  He alone can read hearts.  
> ...


Wow, I think everyone can see the hypocrisy in this statement.

----------


## Brett85

> I don't see the difference.  Why would adding one work to salvation be OK and another not?  The passage is clear.


How do you define a "work?"  How do you know that Paul defined "works" the same way that you define "works?"

----------


## moostraks

> I don't know, but I've had to fix the quote on almost every post Nang makes.  I have no idea what's so difficult about the quote feature that they can't fix it themselves. LOL


Lol! At least you figured out what I meant as it should have been can't see them in a mirror. Typing with my brain in gear might help. Well off to shop. Hope you have a blessed day!

----------


## Terry1

> I thought we were for liberty on this forum?  I certainly don't agree with the drinking laws (even though I don't drink.)  That said the mockery of age is really, really pathetic.  1 Timothy 4:12.  Engage in the debate and stop whining because you're getting shown up by a "kid."


The ironic thing is that we all claim we're for liberty with regard to our political beliefs, but then the religious message you give is one of "no choice", "bondage" and we are nothing more than puppets to some master tyrannical dictator who causes evil, sin and death for the pure enjoyment of curing it by allowing His Son to be tortured and put to death on a cross.  

How anyone can be so divided within themselves regarding two opposing ideologies is shocking.

----------


## Terry1

> Lol! At least you figured out what I meant as it should have been can't see them in a mirror. Typing with my brain in gear might help. Well off to shop. Hope you have a blessed day!


You too moos, God bless you dear and enjoy what is left of this beautiful day.  It's sunny and 70 degrees and I'm ready to head out the door and do some yard work.

----------


## Nang

> The ironic thing is that we all claim we're for liberty with regard to our political beliefs, but then the religious message you give is one of "no choice", "bondage" and we are nothing more than puppets to some master tyrannical dictator who causes evil, sin and death for the pure enjoyment of curing it by allowing His Son to be tortured and put to death on a cross.  
> 
> How anyone can be so divided within themselves regarding two opposing ideologies is shocking.


Pelagianism is not an ideology but a heresy.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Wow, I think everyone can see the hypocrisy in this statement.


Not at all.  She's right.  Most people on this forum are not Christians.  




> How do you define a "work?"  How do you know that Paul defined "works" the same way that you define "works?"


Well, to me it seems pretty obvious that something you have to "do" externally is certainly a work.  I suppose one could argue whether or not a choice to assent to the truth and trust in Christ is a "work"  but certainly any external activity that is a prerequesite in order to be saved is undeniably a "work."

----------


## Terry1

> Pelagianism is not an ideology but a heresy.


Bla-bla-bla--  I don't believe you because everything in the word of God tells us the exact opposite with warnings and instructions of what will happen to believers if they do not continue to abide in Christ.  You're wrong Nang and it's just that simple actually.  Have a nice Saturday--get outside and get some sun on your face.  I'm headed out to do that now.  Byh-bye.

----------


## moostraks

> I don't make baseless personal attacks.





> You're a moron. And me saying that has nothing to do with me being a "chosen one". Its just a fact.





> That wasn't "Baseless."


If you want to be treated as an adult you should act like one. So enlighten everyone how it wasn't baseless to call me names because I disagree with you. So it is fine to make personal attacks in your opinion and the only justification you need is that the person in question doesn't roll over to your beliefs but expresses a contrary opinion. Gottcha...

Matthew 7:12"In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> When one saved by the grace of Christ, meets another soul also saved by the grace of Christ, there is sweet communion and fellowship that passes earthly description.
> 
> There is no hatred, malice, arguing, or jealousies.  
> 
> Only wonderful discussion and spiritual discovery, centered around the Word of God.
> 
> When this does not evidence itself on forums such as this, one can know the curse of enmity remains in the hearts of some participants, and what comes out of their mouths (computers) reveals the heart.
> 
> God is not mocked.  He alone can read hearts.  
> ...


I agree.  There is a true spiritual brotherhood when two or more people understand what grace really is.

----------


## moostraks

> Pelagianism is not an ideology but a heresy.


And a false accusation to many who disagree with your belief structure. You shut your ears and eyes when anyone speaks outside the structured talking points you want to put forth so you may refute any contrary argument.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The ironic thing is that we all claim we're for liberty with regard to our political beliefs, but then the religious message you give is one of "no choice", "bondage" and we are nothing more than puppets to some master tyrannical dictator who causes evil, sin and death for the pure enjoyment of curing it by allowing His Son to be tortured and put to death on a cross.  
> 
> How anyone can be so divided within themselves regarding two opposing ideologies is shocking.





> Pelagianism is not an ideology but a heresy.


Yes.  libertarian politics and libertarian free will are COMPLETELY different things.  There is literally no relation between them at all.

I worship the Sovereingn Maker of the Universe.  I hate it when human governments pretend to be him. I hate it when nominal Christians think that they are being persecuted because the State won't impose whatever particular moral crusade they happen to be on at the moment.  I hate it when nominal Christians try to use the State to impose their own will on the rest of society.

I'd explain more, but I really just don't see any kind of connection at all here.  God is God.  He's supposed to control everything.  That's just part of being God.  That doesn't make him "tyrannical", because God is the standard of right and wrong.  Tyranny is evil because God says it is evil.  By contrast, God is the potter and has the right to do as he likes with the clay.

Who are you to talk back to him?

The State is not in any way comparable.  The State is not God.  You have numerous cases in the Bible where prophets speak against the State (1 Samuel 8 is the first one that comes to mind.)  Incidentally, it is Calvinistic theology that allows one to say the State is "ordained" by God without simultaneously saying it is a good thing.  Your semi-pelagian theological system does not allow for this.  Thus, since Romans 13 says the State is ordained by God, people with your theology should support it.  I do not because I know the difference between God's secret (decretive) will and his revealed (prescriptive) will.  The existance of the State violates God's prescriptive will as per 1 Samuel 8, but is consistent with God's decretive will as per Romans 13.

I see no contradiction between saying God can do as he likes with his creations and that human beings should respect the liberty of other human beings.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I agree.  There is a true spiritual brotherhood when two or more people understand what grace really is.


Amen.

----------


## Brett85

> Not at all.  She's right.  Most people on this forum are not Christians.


It usually seems clear who's a Christian and who's not a Christian by the fruit that they bear.  Those who are judgmental and condemn other people show bad fruit, and those on this forum who do that should examine themselves and see whether or not they're truly in the faith.  Actually, everyone should do that, but particularly those who show bad fruit and treat others poorly.

----------


## Nang

> And a false accusation to many who disagree with your belief structure. You shut your ears and eyes when anyone speaks outside the structured talking points you want to put forth so you may refute any contrary argument.



Have you ever looked into the errors of *Pelagianism?*  If not, you should do so, for your own sake.

Any person who handles the word of God should make themselves aware of errors others have fallen into.  Otherwise,
history just repeats itself.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It usually seems clear who's a Christian and who's not a Christian by the fruit that they bear.  Those who are judgmental and condemn other people show bad fruit, and those on this forum who do that should examine themselves and see whether or not they're truly in the faith.  Actually, everyone should do that, but particularly those who show bad fruit and treat others poorly.


As Sola_Fide explained awhile back, "fruit" includes doctrine as well as works.

----------


## Brett85

> As Sola_Fide explained awhile back, "fruit" includes doctrine as well as works.


Then certain people can still have the right doctrine and treat others poorly, which would still mean that they wouldn't have the kind of good fruit that Jesus said true believers would have.

----------


## Nang

> Then certain people can still have the right doctrine and treat others poorly, which would still mean that they wouldn't have the kind of good fruit that Jesus said true believers would have.


I think you, as a Christian male, are responsible to keep those who treat others poorly in line.  That should be your fruit.

And I think you should do so with equality, by rebuking each and every occurrence of non-charity and insult.

I would be more receptive to your rebukes, if I saw you also rebuking those who treat me poorly.

(You cannot possibly tell me I have been treated fairly and nicely and lovingly at RPF, can you?)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Then certain people can still have the right doctrine and treat others poorly, which would still mean that they wouldn't have the kind of good fruit that Jesus said true believers would have.


I don't think "treating others poorly" is a sin that is indicative of lostness.  It is a sin yes, but not one that indicates lostness, as far as I can tell.  That said, I would say that someone who IS living in a sin that indicates lostness does not actually believe the gospel.

----------


## Kevin007

> I think you, as a Christian male, are responsible to keep those who treat others poorly in line.  That should be your fruit.
> 
> And I think you should do so with equality, by rebuking each and every occurrence of non-charity and insult.
> 
> I would be more receptive to your rebukes, if I saw you also rebuking those who treat me poorly.
> *
> (You cannot possibly tell me I have been treated fairly and nicely and lovingly at RPF, can you?*)


agreed

----------


## moostraks

> Have you ever looked into the errors of *Pelagianism?*  If not, you should do so, for your own sake.
> 
> Any person who handles the word of God should make themselves aware of errors others have fallen into.  Otherwise,
> history just repeats itself.


I know what Pelagianism is and I know it is a slur used by certain parties that lack the capacity of extending grace to others. Life ain't as tidy as you'd like to make it. There is more than  just a choice of your way and heresy.

----------


## Terry1

> I think you, as a Christian male, are responsible to keep those who treat others poorly in line.  That should be your fruit.
> 
> And I think you should do so with equality, by rebuking each and every occurrence of non-charity and insult.
> 
> I would be more receptive to your rebukes, if I saw you also rebuking those who treat me poorly.
> 
> (You cannot possibly tell me I have been treated fairly and nicely and lovingly at RPF, can you?)


Nang, have you received more unfair treatment than you have dished out in this forum?  Why not include yourself in those same standards you've set for everyone else.  You have the nerve to be whining--

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Bla-bla-bla--  I don't believe you because everything in the word of God tells us the exact opposite with warnings and instructions of what will happen to believers if they do not continue to abide in Christ.  You're wrong Nang and it's just that simple actually.  Have a nice Saturday--get outside and get some sun on your face.  I'm headed out to do that now.  Byh-bye.


He's right about the Pellagian heresy.  The Catholic and Orthodox Churches recognize Pellagianism as a heresy, and none other than Augustine wrote voluminously against the Pellagians.  Now that this is out there, Nang will change her mind just to spite the Church.  lolz

----------


## Terry1

> He's right about the Pellagian heresy.  The Catholic and Orthodox Churches recognize Pellagianism as a heresy, and none other than Augustine wrote voluminously against the Pellagians.  Now that this is out there, Nang will change his mind just to spite the Church.  lolz


I must have misunderstood the meaning of Pellagianism then because I thought it was simply a belief in the free will of man.   I should wiki that. lol

----------


## Terry1

> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
> 
> Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. This theological theory is named after Pelagius (354 420 or 440), although he denied, at least at some point in his life, many of the doctrines associated with his name.
> 
> The teachings of Pelagius are generally associated with the rejection of original sin and the practise of infant baptism.[1] Although the writings of Pelagius are no longer extant, the eight canons of the Council of Carthage provided corrections to the perceived errors of the early Pelagians. These corrections include:
> 1.Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.
> 2.New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
> 3.Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
> 4.The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
> ...


No, I don't believe this either, sorry for the misunderstanding on my part--Glad you caught that one HB--thanks.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Technically Rome is semi-pelagian, not full out pelagian.  Arminianism is technically different from semi-pelagianism too, as Arminianism proper still accepts that  man cannot come to God on his own.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No, I don't believe this either, sorry for the misunderstanding on my part--Glad you caught that one HB--thanks.


y/w ~hugs~ It's kind of amusing how many Catholic beliefs our militant anti-Catholic forum mates have.

----------


## Brett85

> I think you, as a Christian male, are responsible to keep those who treat others poorly in line.  That should be your fruit.
> 
> And I think you should do so with equality, by rebuking each and every occurrence of non-charity and insult.
> 
> I would be more receptive to your rebukes, if I saw you also rebuking those who treat me poorly.
> 
> (You cannot possibly tell me I have been treated fairly and nicely and lovingly at RPF, can you?)


That's a good point, and I'll consider what you said.  But I'll say that while the attacks that come from the non Calvinists aren't right either, they are at least understandable.  The non Calvinists on this forum basically get attacked everyday on this forum for one reason or another.  So it's basically like if someone came up to me and started punching me in the face, and the first few punches I just turned the other check and didn't respond.  But then once that person punched me ten times, I finally couldn't take it anymore and started hitting back.  Sometimes you can withstand the punches for a while and refrain from punching back, but no one is perfect, and everyone seems to eventually reach their breaking point where they feel like they should fight back.  So while it isn't necessarily right and may be a sin, fighting back after you've been hit over and over again is far more understandable than constantly starting altercations.  I can't really remember a time when any of the non Calvinists on this forum have ever started one of these altercations.  It just seems like they eventually reach their breaking point and respond in the same way to the Calvinists as the Calvinists treat them.  So it seems understandable to me, even though it isn't right.

----------


## RJB

> y/w ~hugs~ It's kind of amusing how many Catholic beliefs our militant anti-Catholic forum mates have.


What's even more amusing is how far back they bend to try to say we don't really believe them.

----------


## Terry1

> What's even more amusing is how far back they bend to try to say we don't really believe them.


I have to look up some of the twelve letter crap I get accused of.

----------


## moostraks

> He's right about the Pellagian heresy.  The Catholic and Orthodox Churches recognize Pellagianism as a heresy, and none other than Augustine wrote voluminously against the Pellagians.  Now that this is out there, Nang will change her mind just to spite the Church.  lolz


Excellent point as to how absurd the accusation is when you think about it as it is so often lodged against Catholics and EO.

----------


## Nang

> Excellent point as to how absurd the accusation is when you think about it as it is so often lodged against Catholics and EO.


So  . . . you deny your beliefs are different than Pelagianism?

How?

----------


## RJB

> I have to look up some of the twelve letter crap I get accused of.


True.  It's first, Faith Alone, then Grace Alone, then Imputed VS Infused..., then what ever crap they come up with to tell themselves they are special from other Christians and then they go back to where they started as if we've never had any discussion... 

It's all Crap.  I’m in a homeschool co-op with mainly Baptists, whom I respect ( I live in the "bible belt") and my kids attend their bible camps and occasional Wednesday classes.  I never minded that until I started reading *some* of the Calvinist's posts.  Now I find myself suspicious of them and all Protestants, when in reality it’s just those 2 or 5 on this forum, not Protestants in general that I distrust.  They really do Protestants a disservice, because in general I respect Protestants.

----------


## RJB

> So  . . . you deny your beliefs are different than Pelagianism?
> 
> How?


Who FIRST called Pelagian a heretic, and why don't you EVER mention any other heresies first called out by THAT Church?




> I am rejecting this forum, for humanistic "religion" is being passed off as "biblical Christianity," which is horribly wrong and false, and something I cannot condone nor endure any longer.
> 
> May God have mercy upon all of you who do not yet see the difference . . .
> 
> Nang


 BTW what happened to this first post?  Or was that just the usual RPF's religion forum drama (as I predicted?)

----------


## Terry1

> True.  It's first, Faith Alone, then Grace Alone, then Imputed VS Infused..., then what ever crap they come up with to tell themselves they are special from other Christians and then they go back to where they started as if we've never had any discussion... 
> 
> It's all Crap.  I’m in a homeschool co-op with mainly Baptists, whom I respect ( I live in the "bible belt") and my kids attend their bible camps and occasional Wednesday classes.  I never minded that until I started reading *some* of the Calvinist's posts.  Now I find myself suspicious of them and all Protestants, when in reality it’s just those 2 or 5 on this forum.  Not Protestants in general that I distrust.  They really do Protestants a disservice, because in general I respect Protestants.


I agree that there are some good very charismatic protestants.  I would make sure they weren't indoctrinating my kids with that Calvin crap though.  Years ago when I attended a Baptist church, we didn't teach the Calvin doctrine, but many of them still do.  It all depends on who's leading the church in a lot of them.  There are many good protestant Christians, this I know. 

We all see through the glass darkly, but some can't see through it at all.  Any doctrine that teaches God is the author/creator of evil, sin and death is really dangerous IMO.

----------


## Nang

> True.  It's first, Faith Alone, then Grace Alone, then Imputed VS Infused..., then what ever crap they come up with to tell themselves they are special from other Christians and then they go back to where they started as if we've never had any discussion... 
> 
> It's all Crap.  I’m in a homeschool co-op with mainly Baptists, whom I respect ( I live in the "bible belt") and my kids attend their bible camps and occasional Wednesday classes.  I never minded that until I started reading *some* of the Calvinist's posts.  Now I find myself suspicious of them and all Protestants, when in reality it’s just those 2 or 5 on this forum, not Protestants in general that I distrust.  They really do Protestants a disservice, because *in general I respect Protestants.*


I don't believe you.

----------


## Nang

> I agree that there are some good very charismatic protestants.  I would make sure they weren't indoctrinating my kids with that Calvin crap though.  Years ago when I attended a Baptist church, we didn't teach the Calvin doctrine, but many of them still do.  It all depends on who's leading the church in a lot of them.  There are many good protestant Christians, this I know. 
> 
> We all see through the glass darkly, but some can't see through it at all.*  Any doctrine that teaches God is the author/creator of evil, sin and death is really dangerous IMO.*




Such is the error of the heretic, Pelagius.

He excused Adam from all blame for sin.

----------


## Terry1

> Technically Rome is semi-pelagian, not full out pelagian.  Arminianism is technically different from semi-pelagianism too, as Arminianism proper still accepts that  man cannot come to God on his own.



I believe that we're drawn to God, but then we can resist anything.  This is pretty much what I believe.  The word of God tells us that we have perfect liberty.  Perfect liberty can not be perfect without choice.

1.Prior to being drawn and enabled, one is unable to believe able only to resist.
2.Having been drawn and enabled, but prior to regeneration, one is able to believe able also to resist.
3.After one believes, God then regenerates; one is able to continue believing able also to resist.
4.Upon resisting to the point of unbelief, one is unable again to believe able only to resist

----------


## RJB

> I don't believe you.


My kids regularly go to homeschool gatherings at Baptist Churches...  If you don't believe it, Meh...  LOL

----------


## Terry1

> [/B]
> 
> Such is the error of the heretic, Pelagius.
> 
> He excused Adam from all blame for sin.


I've never excused Adam for his sin, you were the one who claimed that God created evil, sin and death for the purpose of using Adam as His fall guy that cursed mankind until the crucifixion of Jesus.  Which is a sick belief. 


satan created evil, sin and death.  Adam and Eve were deceived by satan in the Garden of Eden that caused the fall of manknind, but God nor Adam created evil, sin and death.  God came to redeem mankind.  satan's the one who's damned for all eternity and those who follow him.

----------


## Brett85

> I believe that we're drawn to God, but then we can resist anything.  This is pretty much what I believe.  The word of God tells us that we have perfect liberty.  Perfect liberty can not be perfect without choice.


Yeah, I find it strange that people who are such hardcore libertarians politically believe in a theology that's extremely anti liberty and anti freedom.  I believe in freedom politically and theologically.

----------


## Terry1

> Yeah, I find it strange that people who are such hardcore libertarians politically believe in a theology that's extremely anti liberty and anti freedom.  I believe in freedom politically and theologically.


Yeah, our political and religious beliefs match up don't they.  James told us to "continue" in the perfect law of liberty--meaning that we do have a choice and we can resist and fall from grace.

James 1:25 
*But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful* hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.

----------


## Nang

> I've never excused Adam for his sin, you were the one who claimed that God created evil, sin and death for the purpose of using Adam as His fall guy that cursed mankind until the crucifixion of Jesus.  Which is a sick belief.



This is not my belief at all.  It is your sick version of my witness. 





> satan created evil, sin and death.


No created being, can create like God.  

Satan is not a creator, like God.








> Adam and Eve were deceived by satan in the Garden of Eden that caused the fall of manknind,


Eve was deceived.  Adam was not.  That is why God blames Adam for sin and death entering the world.  (Romans 5:12)





> but God nor Adam created evil, sin and death.


Who exactly COMMITTED sin that led to evil and death?






> God came to redeem mankind.


Amen.  And from what?




> satan's the one who's damned for all eternity and those who follow him.


Finally . . . you said it!!!

----------


## RJB

Hey Nang. You only doubted my respect for protestants, without proof and ignored a few of my points.  Anything else to add.

----------


## Nang

> Hey Nang. You only doubted my respect for protestants, without proof and ignored a few of my points.  Anything else to add.



I am a Protestant.  Have you shown me respect?

----------


## RJB

> I am a Protestant.  Have you shown me respect?


I have shown lots of Protestants respect.  Not just here but off the forum.  However, I have lost respect for, as I said, 2-5 protestants on THIS forum.

----------


## RJB

> I am a Protestant.  Have you shown me respect?


BTW, Have you shown any non-Calvinist Christians any respect?

And you still avoided my other points.

----------


## Nang

> BTW, Have you shown any non-Calvinist Christians any respect?



There is no such thing . . . 




> And you still avoided my other points.


Oh.  You made points?  What were they?

----------


## RJB

> There is no such thing . . . 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh.  You made points?  What were they?


Exactly.  I'm just returning the favor.

BTW  Was I right in predicting this statement was for drama and drama only?




> I am rejecting this forum, for humanistic "religion" is being passed off as "biblical Christianity," which is horribly wrong and false, and something I cannot condone nor endure any longer.
> 
> May God have mercy upon all of you who do not yet see the difference . . .
> 
> Nang

----------


## Nang

> Exactly.  I'm just returning the favor.
> 
> BTW  Was I right in predicting this statement was for drama and drama only?


No, I do reject this forum and in great frustration left.

I am so sorry I disappointed you by not making my departure permanent.

Have you ever thought of leaving this place?

----------


## RJB

> No, I do reject this forum and in great frustration left.
> 
> I am so sorry I disappointed you by not making my departure permanent.
> 
> Have you ever thought of leaving this place?


  Of course, but if I left the forum, I would do it without a bunch of drama especially if I planned on hanging around 465 posts AFTER I submitted my swan song.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> [/B]
> 
> Such is the error of the heretic, Pelagius.
> 
> He excused Adam from all blame for sin.


I think I can quote Sola_Fide saying God is the author of sin (I could be wrong about this, but I don't think so.)  One of the few things I disagree with him strongly on.  I do understand the frustration with people using the "author of sin" line to discredit God's sovereignty though, it definitely makes it tempting to be like "so what?" as Vincent Cheung does.

I really dislike that terminology choice, but I do believe God is sovereign over everything.  I don't see how this makes him "author sin."




> Yeah, I find it strange that people who are such hardcore libertarians politically believe in a theology that's extremely anti liberty and anti freedom.  I believe in freedom politically and theologically.


You don't believe in as much freedom politically as I do

I don't see the relation, TBH.  One is a metaphysical discussion, the other is not.  Not directly related.



> There is no such thing . . .


I think you've changed your mind multiple times on this topic.  Are you perhaps struggling with it as much as I have?  And I mean this sincerely, it is a topic I'm struggling with.






> No, I do reject this forum and in great frustration left.
> 
> I am so sorry I disappointed you by not making my departure permanent.
> 
> Have you ever thought of leaving this place?


You haven't disappointed me.  Please do stick around

----------


## Terry1

> This is not my belief at all.  It is your sick version of my witness.


That's exactly what you believe.  You don't like seeing it as it truly is do you?  I guess there's still hope then.




> No created being, can create like God.  
> 
> Satan is not a creator, like God.


I never said that satan could "create like God".  What I said was that satan created evil, sin and death because he abandoned Gods pure light.  Pure light can not create evil, sin or darkness.  Absence of pure light is what causes darkness, evil and death.  What did Lucifer do along with a third of heavenly angels?  They abandoned Gods pure light didn't they.  So what was the result of them abandoning Gods light?  The answer is they created for themselves darkness, evil, sin and death, which is opposite the nature of God Himself.  satan brought about/created the evil---God did not do that.  





> Eve was deceived.  Adam was not.  That is why God blames Adam for sin and death entering the world.  (Romans 5:12)


Yes, Eve was deceived by satan, then what did Adam do?  Adam listened to his brain dead wife who convinced him that the fruit was good to eat.  Adam knew what God had told them both that it was forbidden fruit.  God cursed them both for allowing themselves to be deceived--hence that curse fell upon mankind as well.  Adam did not create evil, sin and death--nor did Eve because satan (who is pure evil-created it) was already in the Garden of Eden before God created mankind.





> Who exactly COMMITTED sin that led to evil and death?


Lucifer who became satan as a result of creating evil and who's damned for all eternity because of it.  God didn't create the evil and certainly wouldn't damn anyone throughout all of eternity for something He created and caused them to do---Do you see how sick that is to believe something like that?




> Amen.  And from what?


God came to redeem mankind from the same sin that satan created which was the cause of Adam and Eve's disobedience of God by allowing themselves to be deceived by that same sin.  The curse upon mankind was because of Adam and Eve's disobedience to God.  If evil, sin and death didn't already exist in the world through the deceiver himself (satan), Eve nor Adam would have fallen to it and never questioned Gods authority. 




> Finally . . . you said it!!!


Said what?  I hope you're not attempting to now say that you believe Adam and Eve are damned, because they're not.  Adam and Eve were redeemed as well. 

The Lord God forgave Adam and Eve their sin. He promised them that the Saviour would come (Genesis 3:15). He provided a covering from animal skins for them (Genesis 3:21). Eve mentioned the name of the Lord at the birth of her oldest son (Genesis 4:1). Adam and Eve taught their sons to make sacrifices to the Lord (implied in Genesis 4:3,4). So all indications are that Adam and Eve had a relationship with God, were his children, and therefore received forgiveness of their sins and are now in heaven with the Lord.

----------

