# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Personal relationships with Christ. Does it exist?

## TER

Discuss

----------


## Danke

Because it is rooted in pagan traditions?

----------


## euphemia

Is the hotel he manages decorated for Christmas?

----------


## Sola_Fide

I never said that Christianity is not personal or relational or experiential.   I said that modern false religion intentionally ignores the concepts of law, imputation, accounting, atonement, etc. because it is not a Christian faith.

----------


## euphemia

We cannot have one without having the other.  We don't ignore those things.  

Is your hotel decorated for Christmas?

----------


## VIDEODROME

Is Sola Fide against traditional American Christmas celebrating?  That's one thing I'd agree on because I'm kind of sick of it.  2 Month holiday is to much.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is the hotel he manages decorated for Christmas?


Yes.  But why would I have any say about that?  There are all kinds of statements of paganism around me and all Christians that the discerning believer must wade through in life.  It's difficult...but I imagine it's no where close to what the early Christians in Greece or Rome had to deal with.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> We cannot have one without having the other.  We don't ignore those things.  
> 
> Is your hotel decorated for Christmas?


Are you speaking for TER?   Because he does deny those things.

Also, I asked you if the atonement of Jesus was universal and I never got an answer.

----------


## RJB

> Is Sola Fide against traditional American Christmas celebrating?  That's one thing I'd agree on because I'm kind of sick of it.  2 Month holiday is to much.


I'd be fore that if I actually got a 2 month holiday where I didn't have to work.

----------


## euphemia

> Yes.  But why would I have any say about that?  There are all kinds of statements of paganism around me and all Christians that the discerning believer must wade through in life.  It's difficult...but I imagine it's no where close to what the early Christians in Greece or Rome had to deal with.


I would suggest as hotel manager it is inconsistent to accept a salary from a place that permits and celebrates the things you consider horrible, then come on a somewhat anonymous message board and be as rude as possible and criticize the faith of others.  It's kind of like Saul holding the coats of the religious leaders who stoned Stephen, don't you think?  Cut it out.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Is the hotel he manages decorated for Christmas?


He get's to hand out orders to the Gideons.  If there isn't a Bible in someone's room, a Gideon gets their ass chewed out by Sola Fide.

----------


## Danke

Does Sola rent out single bed rooms to more than one same sex people?

----------


## RJB

Does Sola rent the room by the hour?  


Or the minute?

----------


## TER

> Are you speaking for TER?   Because he does deny those things.
> 
> Also, I asked you if the atonement of Jesus was universal and I never got an answer.


Please don't put words in my mouth.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Does Sola rent out single bed rooms to more than one same sex people?


Sure, but would Paul make a tent for someone who wasn't a Christian?   Yes.  

Christians live and work in a world in which they are pilgrims and outsiders, and we are to love all people regardless of their sin.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Does Sola rent the room by the hour?  
> 
> 
> Or the minute?


Neither.   It's against the brand standards.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> He get's to hand out orders to the Gideons.  If there isn't a Bible in someone's room, a Gideon gets their ass chewed out by Sola Fide.


Whenever the Gideon representatives come to the hotel, I'm always getting on them for only putting King James Versions in the rooms.  I think there should be more modern translations.

----------


## RJB

> Neither.   It's against the brand standards.


Half day?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I would suggest as hotel manager it is inconsistent to accept a salary from a place that permits and celebrates the things you consider horrible, then come on a somewhat anonymous message board and be as rude as possible and criticize the faith of others.  It's kind of like Saul holding the coats of the religious leaders who stoned Stephen, don't you think?  Cut it out.


No, it's not the same as that.  There are certain lines that a Christian must draw in his own life and work, especially in this evil modern age, but to me a requirement for Christmas decorations have not crossed that line.  Think about it, most people who call themselves Christians today think fighting for Christmas decorations must be defended!  Haha...talk about confusion.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Half day?


No.  Full days only.   Actually, if we are talking about lines being drawn,  working at a dive that sold rooms by the hour is a line that I think a Christian absolutely should draw.  Don't you?

----------


## TER

> Whenever the Gideon representatives come to the hotel, I'm always getting on them for only putting King James Versions in the rooms.  I think there should be more modern translations.


Unfortunately, one can read have a hundred new translations, and missed the spirit of the letter.

----------


## RJB

> No.  Full days only.   Actually, if we are talking about lines being drawn,  working at a dive that sold rooms by the hour is a line that I think a Christian absolutely should draw.  Don't you?


What if that someone was Nikola Tesla who only slept 2 hours a day?  I don't know where your mind is going?

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Nikola-Tesla-rarely-sleep

----------


## VIDEODROME

Honestly, I think bringing Sola's occupation into these discussions is a little weird and personal

----------


## RJB

> Honestly, I think bringing Sola's occupation into these discussions is a little weird and personal


Actually, you're right. 

I withdraw my smart aleck  comments-- if that's possible.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Honestly, I think bringing Sola's occupation into these discussions is a little weird and personal


I do too.  But people get personal when they can't debate the real issues anymore.   It's normal.  But hey, go ahead and get in to it.  I'll play along.

----------


## jmdrake



----------


## jmdrake

> I never said that Christianity is not personal or relational or experiential.   I said that modern false religion intentionally ignores the concepts of law, imputation, accounting, atonement, etc. because it is not a Christian faith.


LOL.  No you didn't.  You deny having said things you actually said and you add in things that you didn't say.  What you actually said was "Where does it say in the Bible have a relationship with Jesus."  The Bible *absolutely* says that.  Now, you can believe that the Bible teaches that having a relationship with Jesus doesn't save you.  You can believe that the Bible teaches that this relationship is 100% on Jesus.  But what you *originally said* is simply not true.  It's like the Bible says to repent.  You can believe that repentance doesn't save you.  You can believe that repentance is 100% caused by the Holy Spirit and that it's impossible for some people to repent and its impossible for some people not to repent.  But to say "The Bible doesn't say to repent" is simply not true.  

So to recap, you made a provably false statement that you obviously don't believe and isn't even required for your belief system and instead of saying "Oops....I made a mistake...I should have said it this way..." you have doubled down on stupid.

/thread (I wish)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> LOL.  No you didn't.  You deny having said things you actually said and you add in things that you didn't say.  What you actually said was "Where does it say in the Bible have a relationship with Jesus."  The Bible *absolutely* says that.  Now, you can believe that the Bible teaches that having a relationship with Jesus doesn't save you.  You can believe that the Bible teaches that this relationship is 100% on Jesus.  But what you *originally said* is simply not true.  It's like the Bible says to repent.  You can believe that repentance doesn't save you.  You can believe that repentance is 100% caused by the Holy Spirit and that it's impossible for some people to repent and its impossible for some people not to repent.  But to say "The Bible doesn't say to repent" is simply not true.  
> 
> So to recap, you made a provably false statement that you obviously don't believe and isn't even required for your belief system and instead of saying "Oops....I made a mistake...I should have said it this way..." you have doubled down on stupid.
> 
> /thread (I wish)


What verse says "have a relationship with Jesus"?  You keep saying there is one.  Where is it?

Chapter and verse please.

----------


## Sola_Fide

The language and concepts of the Bible vs. the language and concepts of modern religion:

----------


## jmdrake

> What verse says "have a relationship with Jesus"?  You keep saying there is one.  Where is it?
> 
> Chapter and verse please.


Already gave it to you in the other thread.  Besides, you keep flip/flopping between "I never said the Bible doesn't say have a relationship with Jesus" to "Where does the Bible say have a relationship Jesus".

Quit flip flopping please.

----------


## jmdrake

> The language and concepts of the Bible vs. the language and concepts of modern religion:


Yeah....yeah....supposedly you're not a Calvinist anyway.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yeah....yeah....supposedly you're not a Calvinist anyway.


Do you agree or disagree that the Bible uses these concepts and language?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Already gave it to you in the other thread.  Besides, you keep flip/flopping between "I never said the Bible doesn't say have a relationship with Jesus" to "Where does the Bible say have a relationship Jesus".
> 
> Quit flip flopping please.


Can you be so kind as to give it to me again?

----------


## jmdrake

> Do you agree or disagree that the Bible uses these concepts and language?


Do you agree or disagree with Calvinism?

----------


## Miss Annie

> What verse says "have a relationship with Jesus"?  You keep saying there is one.  Where is it?
> 
> Chapter and verse please.


We are children of God.  He is our Father.  That is personal.  His spirit resides in our hearts.  That is personal and means relationship.  
Romans 8
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:


Galatians 4
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Do you agree or disagree with Calvinism?


Disagree.  Did you watch start at 24:00 where the distinction is made between modern religion and the language in the Bible?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> We are children of God.  He is our Father.  That is personal.  His spirit resides in our hearts.  That is personal and means relationship.  
> Romans 8
> 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
> 
> 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
> 
> 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
> 
> 
> ...



Where in any of those verses is the exhortation to "have a relationship with Jesus"?  

Why didn't you go to the obvious parts of the Bible (like the book of Romans) that describe the gospel to see if this language is used?

----------


## Miss Annie

> Where in any of those verses is the exhortation to "have a relationship with Jesus"?  
> 
> Why didn't you go to the obvious parts of the Bible (like the book of Romans) that describe the gospel to see if this language is used?


I did quote Romans.   I choose not to "play dumb" with God.  If God cals us His own children, that in itself is exhortation to relationship with Him. 

We are called to pray without ceasing.  What is prayer?  Prayer is fellowship.  You fellowship with people you relate to, whom you have a relationship with.  Relationship grows from fellowship.  

1 John 1:3
what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

John 14:23
Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. 

John 17
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.


2 Corinthians 6:16
Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.


1 John 3:24
The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

----------


## jmdrake

> Disagree.  Did you watch start at 24:00 where the distinction is made between modern religion and the language in the Bible?


Nope.  Not planning on watching it either.  If it was posted by someone honest I might.  But from you?  I'm not wasting my time.  In the other thread you specifically admitted to relationship language in the Bible then you insist on pretending it's not there.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I did quote Romans.   I choose not to "play dumb" with God.  If God cals us His own children, that in itself is exhortation to relationship with Him. 
> 
> We are called to pray without ceasing.  What is prayer?  Prayer is fellowship.  You fellowship with people you relate to, whom you have a relationship with.  Relationship grows from fellowship.  
> 
> 1 John 1:3
> what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
> 
> John 14:23
> Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. 
> ...


That's pretty much what I was pointing to when I made *this post*.

----------


## Miss Annie

> That's pretty much what I was pointing to when I made *this post*.


And you were absolutely right!!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Do you agree or disagree with Calvinism?


*sigh* this is a goofy line of questioning.  I understand what you are trying to do with it, but goofy it remains.

Sola is convinced (whether right or wrong is irrelevant) that Calvin denied limited atonemnet.  Sola also doesn't want to associate himself with the label named after a man.  Yet Sola certainly believes at least in the five points we now call "Calvinism."  Trying to nitpick this is silly.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I did quote Romans.   I choose not to "play dumb" with God.  If God cals us His own children, that in itself is exhortation to relationship with Him.


No it is not.  And the gospel is not "have a relationship with Jesus".  Any relational component of the Christian life comes after a Christian's adoption.  The gospel has to do with sin, and debt, and accounting, and imputation.





> We are called to pray without ceasing.  What is prayer?  Prayer is fellowship.  You fellowship with people you relate to, whom you have a relationship with.  Relationship grows from fellowship.  
> 
> 1 John 1:3
> what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
> 
> John 14:23
> Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. 
> 
> John 17
> ...



Those are all relational aspects of Christianity AFTER becoming a Christian by regeneration. 

Where did the apostles ever preach "have a relationship with Jesus" to the world of the lost?  The answer is they did not.  They said "repent and be baptized" and "believe on the Lord Jesus for salvation" and "be reconciled to God (by atonement)".  That is the gospel.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's pretty much what I was pointing to when I made *this post*.





> And you were absolutely right!!


Again, that is a relational component of Christianity after adoption and justification.   Sinners are not "children of God" before they are regenerated, they are children of Satan.

----------


## TER

> And you were absolutely right!!


+ 1

----------


## TER

The entire gospel is that the Almighty is our Father, and we are His children when we love Him as our Father.  That we can have a personal relationship with God is the very essence of what Christ, the Word of God, came to reveal- for man to walk with God just as Adam did in the Garden.  Not only with our hearts and our minds, but with our complete being, now that Christ has come to heal, restore, and give eternal divine life to human beings.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Again, that is a relational component of Christianity after adoption and justification.   Sinners are not "children of God" before they are regenerated, they are children of Satan.


Ever read the *Parable of the Prodigal Son*?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The entire gospel is that the Almighty is our Father, and we are His children when we love Him as our Father.  That we can have a personal relationship with God is the very essence of what Christ, the Word of God, came to reveal- to wal with God just as Adam did in the Garden.  Not only with our hearts and our minds, but with our complete being, now that Christ has come to heal and give life to human nature.


Where did any of the apostles describe or preach the gospel in the way you just did?  Is that in the book of Acts somewhere?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Ever read the *Parable of the Prodigal Son*?


Do you know who the prodigal son represents?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Do you know who the prodigal son represents?


Do you?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Do you?


Yes I do.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Yes I do.


Then you know you would fit the description of the older brother.

----------


## TER

> Where did any of the apostles describe or preach the gospel in the way you just did?  Is that in the book of Acts somewhere?


The message is quite apparent to those whom the Holy Spirit has revealed it.  I copied it from such people.  Namely, the Christian Saints.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> No it is not.  And the gospel is not "have a relationship with Jesus".  Any relational component of the Christian life comes after a Christian's adoption.  The gospel has to do with sin, and debt, and accounting, and imputation.


I don't think anyone said "*the gospel is* 'have a relationship with Jesus'" --- I'm pretty sure (without reviewing the whole Religion forum) jmdrake and others are simply saying to have a relationship.

If you love someone (including God), and they love you back... If you open your heart and let them in....... if you humble yourself and share your pain, fears, joys and sorrows and let that someone comfort you (that's hard for a lot of folks), is that a relationship?

Spiritual relationships happen in your heart, not your head.

----------


## Theocrat

> Where in any of those verses is the exhortation to "have a relationship with Jesus"?  
> 
> Why didn't you go to the obvious parts of the Bible (like the book of Romans) that describe the gospel to see if this language is used?





> I did quote Romans.   I choose not to "play dumb" with God.  If God cals us His own children, that in itself is exhortation to relationship with Him. 
> 
> We are called to pray without ceasing.  What is prayer?  Prayer is fellowship.  You fellowship with people you relate to, whom you have a relationship with.  Relationship grows from fellowship.  
> 
> 1 John 1:3
> what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
> 
> John 14:23
> Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. 
> ...


Sola, *Christ's incarnation* was all about the creation having a relationship to God through His Son. There you have the epitome of God coming down from eternity and immortality and stepping into history and dying for His people, after having walked, talked, eaten, cried, laughed, prayed, and worshiped with them.

The Christians Faith is not solely about latching on to propositional truths, in some sort of "primacy of the intellect" method of knowing God. It also entails following God in love (which involves emotions/feelings), interacting with God's people (the Church) in deep devotion and fellowship, and a host of other activities which go far beyond mere "assenting to propositions of the Faith," which even demons do (cf. Luke 4:41; James 2:19).

So, I see your challenge of "finding a verse that says have a relationship with Christ" as missing the point altogether. As Christians, we live by faith and works, and we worship in Spirit and truth, and it's not because we are trying to merit anything from God based on our goodness. Of course not! We live by grace, and it is the Spirit Who causes us to do the things which please the Father because we have a relationship with His Son, unlike atheists, Muslims, or any other people in the world.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The message is quite apparent to those whom the Holy Spirit has revealed it.  I copied it from such people.  Namely, the Christian Saints.


Right, it's not from the apostles.   So it's a different gospel.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Then you know you would fit the description of the older brother.


No. The older brother represents the Pharisees.

----------


## Miss Annie

> No it is not.  And the gospel is not "have a relationship with Jesus".  Any relational component of the Christian life comes after a Christian's adoption.  The gospel has to do with sin, and debt, and accounting, and imputation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are all relational aspects of Christianity AFTER becoming a Christian by regeneration. 
> 
> Where did the apostles ever preach "have a relationship with Jesus" to the world of the lost?  The answer is they did not.  They said "repent and be baptized" and "believe on the Lord Jesus for salvation" and "be reconciled to God (by atonement)".  That is the gospel.


Ok Sola,........ You are right.   I did not realize that the debate was to define the gospel.  Having a relationship with Jesus is the icing on the cake.  I agree, it does not come until after the cake.  The cake being the gospel, as you stated above.

----------


## Dr.3D

> No. The older brother represents the Pharisees.


I rest my case.

----------


## TER

> Sola, *Christ's incarnation* was all about the creation having a relationship to God through His Son. There you have the epitome of God coming down from eternity and immortality and stepping into history and dying for His people, after having walked, talked, eaten, cried, laughed, prayed, and worshiped with them.
> 
> The Christians Faith is not solely about latching on to propositional truths, in some sort of "primacy of the intellect" method of knowing God. It also entails following God in love (which involves emotions/feelings), interacting with God's people (the Church) in deep devotion and fellowship, and a host of other activities which go far beyond mere "assenting to propositions of the Faith," which even demons do (cf. Luke 4:41; James 2:19).
> 
> So, I see your challenge of "finding a verse that says have a relationship with Christ" as missing the point altogether. As Christians, we live by faith and works, and we worship in Spirit and truth, and it's not because we are trying to merit anything from God based on our goodness. Of course not! We live by grace, and it is the Spirit Who causes us to do the things which please the Father because we have a relationship with His Son, unlike atheists, Muslims, or any other people in the world.


Great post!  I would only clarify that atheists, Muslims, and the others who are not Christian also have a relationship with Christ, but it is a relationship which rejects Christ.

----------


## TER

> Right, it's not from the apostles.   So it's a different gospel.


These men and women were apostles, and have brought more people to Christ then you or I will.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Discuss


Hi, TER. How are you? TER, you lost me here, man. What is this skullduggery? I haven't read the thread but am just curious as to the nature of the thread given its title. What did you guys do? Get into an argument or something about the one true Gospel?

I haven't been around in a while so please do excuse me for asking. I may have missed something.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Great post!  I would only clarify that atheists, Muslims, and the others who are not Christian also have a relationship with Christ, but it is a relationship which rejects Christ.


I would only clarify that anyone can have a loving, deeply spiritual relationship with God, and it doesn't have to include Jesus.

----------


## TER

> Hi, TER. How are you? TER, you lost me here, man. What is this skullduggery? I haven't read the thread but am just curious as to the nature of the thread given its title. What did you guys do? Get into an argument or something about the one true Gospel?


No.  Sola decided to hijack the thread about the origins of Christmas, and after asking him politely to stop, he refused, so I started this thread for him to argue over here.

----------


## TER

> I would only clarify that anyone can have a loving, deeply spiritual relationship with God, and it doesn't have to include Jesus.


That is what you believe, and you are free to believe it.  But it is not what Christians believe, since Jesus Christ is God of God, and the Savior of creation.

----------


## fisharmor

> Hi, TER. How are you? TER, you lost me here, man. What is this skullduggery? I haven't read the thread but am just curious as to the nature of the thread given its title. What did you guys do? Get into an argument or something about the one true Gospel?


I asserted in another thread that there is no official Orthodox Christian catechism, and the reason for this is because (to paraphrase) the Christian faith is an entire life lived in relationship with Christ, and cannot be summarized in a 6 page tract.  And Orthodoxy takes the view that it's pretty much an all or nothing deal, so we aren't real interested in distilling anything.

Whereupon SF latched on to the idea of having a relationship with Christ and has alternately and at various times now questioned it, agreed with it, and called it a false gospel.

So.... discuss.

----------


## TER

I changed the thread title.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> These men and women were apostles, and have brought more people to Christ then you or I will.


No.  There are no apostles after the twelve (Ephesians 2:19).

----------


## Natural Citizen

> No.  Sola decided to hijack the thread about the origins of Christmas, and after asking him politely to stop, he refused, so I started this thread for him to argue over here.


Oh. Okay. Thanks. I'll go check out the Christmas thread. Hey, if I don't talk to you before Christmas, Merry Christmas, TER.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I would only clarify that anyone can have a loving, deeply spiritual relationship with God, and it doesn't have to include Jesus.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> That is what you believe, and you are free to believe it.  _But it is not what Christians believe_, since Jesus Christ is God of God, and the Savior of creation.


You're right. And that's why a whole lot of people don't care much for Christianity - including people who have a loving, deeply spiritual relationship with God.

----------


## Miss Annie

> Sola, *Christ's incarnation* was all about the creation having a relationship to God through His Son. There you have the epitome of God coming down from eternity and immortality and stepping into history and dying for His people, after having walked, talked, eaten, cried, laughed, prayed, and worshiped with them.
> 
> The Christians Faith is not solely about latching on to propositional truths, in some sort of "primacy of the intellect" method of knowing God. It also entails following God in love (which involves emotions/feelings), interacting with God's people (the Church) in deep devotion and fellowship, and a host of other activities which go far beyond mere "assenting to propositions of the Faith," which even demons do (cf. Luke 4:41; James 2:19).
> 
> So, I see your challenge of "finding a verse that says have a relationship with Christ" as missing the point altogether. As Christians, we live by faith and works, and we worship in Spirit and truth, and it's not because we are trying to merit anything from God based on our goodness. Of course not! We live by grace, and it is the Spirit Who causes us to do the things which please the Father because we have a relationship with His Son, unlike atheists, Muslims, or any other people in the world.





> No it is not.  And the gospel is not "have a relationship with Jesus".  Any relational component of the Christian life comes after a Christian's adoption.  The gospel has to do with sin, and debt, and accounting, and imputation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are all relational aspects of Christianity AFTER becoming a Christian by regeneration. 
> 
> Where did the apostles ever preach "have a relationship with Jesus" to the world of the lost?  The answer is they did not.  They said "repent and be baptized" and "believe on the Lord Jesus for salvation" and "be reconciled to God (by atonement)".  That is the gospel.


I am thinking out loud here,...... but it seems to me that Christ at least pursues a relationship with us (all of us), prior to us accepting Christ's sacrifice.  I am basing this on experience AND scripture: 
*Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.*

So, even before our response to Christ, he is seeking relationship with us.

----------


## fisharmor

> No.  There are no apostles after the twelve (Ephesians 2:19).


Eph 2 talks about a house we are all a part of where Christ is the cornerstone.  I'm concerned that you are now quoting Scriptures which undermine your own points.  Are you well?

----------


## Theocrat

> No it is not.  And the gospel is not "have a relationship with Jesus".  Any relational component of the Christian life comes after a Christian's adoption.  The gospel has to do with sin, and debt, and accounting, and imputation.
> 
> Those are all relational aspects of Christianity AFTER becoming a Christian by regeneration. 
> 
> Where did the apostles ever preach "have a relationship with Jesus" to the world of the lost?  The answer is they did not.  They said "repent and be baptized" and "believe on the Lord Jesus for salvation" and "be reconciled to God (by atonement)".  That is the gospel.


You act as if one cannot invite someone to have a relationship with Christ without also calling them to repentance, faith, baptism, etc. The two calls do not have to be mutually exclusive. I understand that the presentation of the Gospel will be different, depending on the circumstances, but I see nothing wrong with a Christian calling someone to follow Christ (which is what Jesus, Himself, beckoned His disciples to do many times in His ministry) as an introduction to explaining why he or she ought to be found in a saving relationship to Christ.

----------


## TER

> I changed the thread title.


Can a mod take Sola's name out of the thread title please?  It wont allow me.  Thanks!

----------


## TER

> No.  There are no apostles after the twelve (Ephesians 2:19).


According to you, there were no other Saints after the twelve.  (Except for the unknown, underground, secret ones which you cannot name a one).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I am thinking out loud here,...... but it seems to me that Christ at least pursues a relationship with us (all of us), prior to us accepting Christ's sacrifice.  I am basing this on experience AND scripture: 
> *Revelation 3:20
> Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.*
> 
> So, even before our response to Christ, he is seeking relationship with us.


All of us?  Who was the book of Revelation written to?  Who is chapter 3 to?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> According to you, there were no other Saints after the twelve.  (Except for the unknown, underground, secret ones which you cannot name a one).


No, all Christians are saints.  That is how the Bible describes a Christian.   You don't agree with this either.

----------


## TER

> You're right. And that's why a whole lot of people don't care much for Christianity - including people who have a loving, deeply spiritual relationship with God.


Whosoever denies Christ (as Who He says He is, the only begotten Son of God) denies the Father in Heaven.  These are not my teachings, these are Jesus Christ's teachings.  It is not simply people 'don't care much for Christianity', but rather, it is that people 'don't care much for Jesus Christ'.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Whosoever denies Christ (as Who He says He is, the only begotten Son of God) denies the Father in Heaven.  These are not my teachings, these are Jesus Christ's teachings.  It is not simply people 'don't care much for Christianity', but rather, it is that people 'don't care much for Jesus Christ'.


That's what you believe, and you are free to believe it 

And I will add that because we have different beliefs, I will look at your fruits - and I'm betting your fruits are pretty durn good.  I bet they are those of a loving, charitable person who tries to live the way God wants him to live, and does unto others as you would like to be done to.

Thumbs up to that

----------


## TER

> No, all Christians are saints.  That is how the Bible describes a Christian.   You don't agree with this either.


If that is how you want to define Saints, then please name me some who existed after the first century.

----------


## TER

> That's what you believe, and you are free to believe it


It is what I believe because it is what Christ said we were to believe to find eternal life.

----------


## Theocrat

> I am thinking out loud here,...... but it seems to me that Christ at least pursues a relationship with us (all of us), prior to us accepting Christ's sacrifice.  I am basing this on experience AND scripture: 
> *Revelation 3:20
> Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.*
> 
> So, even before our response to Christ, he is seeking relationship with us.


I agree with that, but I would start back in Genesis, where God first said, "...Let Us make man in Our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth (Genesis 1:26)." God created us to have fellowship (a relationship) with humankind. Relationships are just part of the creation order, for we even see that Adam was given Eve so that he would have a mate suitable for taking care of the creation. Christ and His Church are the epitome of that relationship.

----------


## TER

> Oh. Okay. Thanks. I'll go check out the Christmas thread. Hey, if I don't talk to you before Christmas, Merry Christmas, TER.


Merry Christmas J.Michael!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If that is how you want to define Saints, then please name me some who existed after the first century.


How _I_ want to define it?  Who is "saint" referring to here?




> *Romans 1:7
> 
> To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
> *

----------


## Crashland

Is it a relationship specifically with the person of Jesus though? In my understanding it was more like, the "relationship" was between me and God the Father (or God in general), which was made possible because of Jesus. Do most Christians address their prayers specifically to Jesus?

----------


## Miss Annie

> Sola, *Christ's incarnation* was all about the creation having a relationship to God through His Son. There you have the epitome of God coming down from eternity and immortality and stepping into history and dying for His people, after having walked, talked, eaten, cried, laughed, prayed, and worshiped with them.
> 
> The Christians Faith is not solely about latching on to propositional truths, in some sort of "primacy of the intellect" method of knowing God. It also entails following God in love (which involves emotions/feelings), interacting with God's people (the Church) in deep devotion and fellowship, and a host of other activities which go far beyond mere "assenting to propositions of the Faith," which even demons do (cf. Luke 4:41; James 2:19).
> 
> So, I see your challenge of "finding a verse that says have a relationship with Christ" as missing the point altogether. As Christians, we live by faith and works, and we worship in Spirit and truth, and it's not because we are trying to merit anything from God based on our goodness. Of course not! We live by grace, and it is the Spirit Who causes us to do the things which please the Father because we have a relationship with His Son, unlike atheists, Muslims, or any other people in the world.





> No it is not.  And the gospel is not "have a relationship with Jesus".  Any relational component of the Christian life comes after a Christian's adoption.  The gospel has to do with sin, and debt, and accounting, and imputation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are all relational aspects of Christianity AFTER becoming a Christian by regeneration. 
> 
> Where did the apostles ever preach "have a relationship with Jesus" to the world of the lost?  The answer is they did not.  They said "repent and be baptized" and "believe on the Lord Jesus for salvation" and "be reconciled to God (by atonement)".  That is the gospel.





> You act as if one cannot invite someone to have a relationship with Christ without also calling them to repentance, faith, baptism, etc. The two calls do not have to be mutually exclusive. I understand that the presentation of the Gospel will be different, depending on the circumstances, but I see nothing wrong with a Christian calling someone to follow Christ (which is what Jesus, Himself, beckoned His disciples to do many times in His ministry) as an introduction to explaining why he or she ought to be found in a saving relationship to Christ.


Thank you! Thank you!  Thank you!  You put into words what I was thinking in my heart, but could not verbalize! 
I was sold on the relationship!   I would have taken the walk with the Lord even if there were no salvation at the end!  

This scripture. always comes to mind when I think of my walk with God: 
*61 The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified.*

Some of us, I believe are actually more drawn to the relationship with Jesus than to the idea of eternal life, in the beginning.  As I grew in my walk with the Lord, I became more and more tickled that I was going to spend eternity with Him.  Eternity then began to thrill my soul.

----------


## Miss Annie

> I agree with that, but I would start back in Genesis, where God first said, "...Let Us make man in Our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth (Genesis 1:26)." God created us to have fellowship (a relationship) with humankind. Relationships are just part of the creation order, for we even see that Adam was given Eve so that he would have a mate suitable for taking care of the creation. Christ and His Church are the epitome of that relationship.


And Amen!

----------


## Jamesiv1

> It is what I believe because _it is what Christ said we were to believe_ to find eternal life.


That's what you believe, and you are free to believe it 

I like that line 

Like I've been saying for like, 1466 posts... Everybody's got beliefs.  Judging each other's beliefs is pointless and leads to conflict.

That's why one should judge by what others do, not what they say.

----------


## TER

> How _I_ want to define it?  Who is "saint" referring to here?


Can you name one after the first century?

----------


## TER

> That's what you believe, and you are free to believe it 
> 
> I like that line 
> 
> LLike I've been saying for like, 1466 posts... you've got your beliefs and I've got mine. That's why you should watch my feet, not my mouth.


Better yet!  We should watch whose feet are leading us!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How _I_ want to define it?  Who is "saint" referring to here?


Then you should be able to name some (per TER's request), yes?

----------


## TER

> Is it a relationship specifically with the person of Jesus though? In my understanding it was more like, the "relationship" was between me and God the Father (or God in general), which was made possible because of Jesus. Do most Christians address their prayers specifically to Jesus?


Any prayer a Christian says to the Son, is a prayer to the Father.  Just as any prayer to the Holy Spirit is a prayer to the Father.  Likewise, when we pray to the Father, we are praying also to the Son and the Holy Spirit.  Whom we address specifically at that moment can be specified through relational modes (that is, praying for the Son to have mercy on us, praying for the Holy Spirit to heals us, praying to the Father to forgive us, etc.), but ultimately, the worship is of the Holy Trinity, undivided, for what is offered to the One is offered also to the Three.

----------


## Miss Annie

> Any prayer a Christian says to the Son, is a prayer to the Father.  Just as any prayer to the Holy Spirit is a prayer to the Father.  Likewise, when we pray to the Father, we are praying also to the Son and the Holy Spirit.  Whom we address specifically at that moment can be specified through relational modes (that is, praying for the Son to have mercy on us, praying for the Holy Spirit to heals us, praying to the Father to forgive us, etc.), but ultimately, the worship is of the Holy Trinity, undivided, for what is offered to the One is offered also to the Three.


So perfectly stated!

----------


## Theocrat

> Any prayer a Christian says to the Son, is a prayer to the Father.  Just as any prayer to the Holy Spirit is a prayer to the Father.  Likewise, when we pray to the Father, we are praying also to the Son and the Holy Spirit.  Whom we address specifically at that moment can be specified through relational modes (that is, praying for the Son to have mercy on us, praying for the Holy Spirit to heals us, praying to the Father to forgive us, etc.), but ultimately, the worship is of the Holy Trinity, undivided, for what is offered to the One is offered also to the Three.


That right there is why the Christian Faith is inherently relational; the Trinity is perfectly relational, and we are called to enter into that holy, Trinitarian relationship through the Door, Who is Christ, unto the Father, and in the power of the Holy Ghost.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Then you should be able to name some (per TER's request), yes?


No.  Every Christian is a saint.  That's what the Bible says.  And I don't have to name any Christian because what a Christian believes is not authoritative,  the Scriptures are.

This how TER tries to bring the discussion away from the Word of God to his false church which is a false authority.

----------


## Crashland

> Any prayer a Christian says to the Son, is a prayer to the Father.  Just as any prayer to the Holy Spirit is a prayer to the Father.  Likewise, when we pray to the Father, we are praying also to the Son and the Holy Spirit.  Whom we address specifically at that moment can be specified through relational modes (that is, praying for the Son to have mercy on us, praying for the Holy Spirit to heals us, praying to the Father to forgive us, etc.), but ultimately, the worship is of the Holy Trinity, undivided, for what is offered to the One is offered also to the Three.


Also interesting to think about, the difference between the relationship between God and a non-Christian, or between God and a spiritual seeker, and how the nature of those relationships change. The Bible is all about God's relationship with all people. I think it would still be quite Biblical that non-Christian can have relationships or communication with God as well, although not a relationship in which God considers them to be made righteous.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That right there is why the Christian Faith is inherently relational; the Trinity is perfectly relational, and we are called to enter into that holy, Trinitarian relationship through the Door, Who is Christ, unto the Father, and in the power of the Holy Ghost.


No one ever said that the Trinity or Christianity is not personal,  relational, experiential, emotional, etc.  No one said that.  Not me, not anyone.

What no one can do is show an apostle preaching the gospel to the world in the terms of "have a relationship with Jesus".  No one can do it because it's not in Scripture.  

"Have a relationship with Jesus" is the modern false gospel that denies law, accounting,  imputation and substitutionary atonement.  These are the concepts used by the apostles.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Also interesting to think about, the difference between the relationship between God and a non-Christian, or between God and a spiritual seeker, and how the nature of those relationships change. The Bible is all about God's relationship with all people. I think it would still be quite Biblical that non-Christian can have relationships or communication with God as well, although not a relationship in which God considers them to be made righteous.


Christians are never made righteous.  They are _accounted_ as righteous by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. 

This is why this discussion is so vitally important.   The false gospel of relationship is not a Biblical description of what takes place in salvation.

----------


## Miss Annie

> No one ever said that the Trinity or Christianity is not personal,  relational, experiential, emotional, etc.  No one said that.  Not me, not anyone.
> 
> What no one can do is show an apostle preaching the gospel to the world in the terms of "have a relationship with Jesus".  No one can do it because it's not in Scripture.  
> 
> "Have a relationship with Jesus" is the modern false gospel that denies law, accounting,  imputation and substitutionary atonement.  These are the concepts used by the apostles.


The Gospel is love.  The sacrifice on the cross is love.  The imputation, that too, is love.   It is all love.  The relationship is love.  I just don't see how they can be separate.

----------


## Crashland

> No one ever said that the Trinity or Christianity is not personal,  relational, experiential, emotional, etc.  No one said that.  Not me, not anyone.
> 
> What no one can do is show an apostle preaching the gospel to the world in the terms of "have a relationship with Jesus".  No one can do it because it's not in Scripture.  
> 
> "Have a relationship with Jesus" is the modern false gospel that denies law, accounting,  imputation and substitutionary atonement.  These are the concepts used by the apostles.


What is it exactly here that you object to? Do you not think that Christians commune with God? I don't see how any of that contradicts those other things you mentioned.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Gospel is love.  The sacrifice on the cross is love.  The imputation, that too, is love.   It is all love.  The relationship is love.  I just don't see how they can be separate.


The gospel is love....it is God's love for His people only.  The false gospel of relationship says that God loves every single person and is politely wanting them to love Him.  That is disgusting.   The gospel is power and finality.   The gospel is what Jesus did to secure and completely obtain redemption for the elect. 

Again, you can see how the language of relationship is evil.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What is it exactly here that you object to? Do you not think that Christians commune with God? I don't see how any of that contradicts those other things you mentioned.


The Bible objects to any gospel that does not use the terms by which it expresses itself.

----------


## TER

> That right there is why the Christian Faith is inherently relational; the Trinity is perfectly relational, and we are called to enter into that holy, Trinitarian relationship through the Door, Who is Christ, unto the Father, and in the power of the Holy Ghost.


Exactly!  The Holy Trinity is of One Essence, which is uncreated, and indescribable and unknowable to man. How we perceive the Holy Trinity as Three Persons is based on the relational experience of man to God as revealed by God, and not by any difference in God's Essence, which is single and simple.  Thus, the perceived differences which man might categorize regarding the Persons of the Holy Trinity has everything to do with how we humans can conceptualize the interrelationships amongst the Trinity, in according to what God has revealed.  Namely, One God, as the Eternally Unbegotten Father, the Eternally Begotten Son, and the Eternally Proceeding Holy Spirit.  Three in personal relation, but One in essence and will.  The closest image that we can conceive regarding the Essence of God is that it ontologically is a relationship of Three Persons, in a unity of divine love.  Even in this, we fall short from the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

But the good news is that we do not have to know the Essence of God in order to find a relationship with Him and ontological transformation (theosis) in God.  Rather, we simply need to share in the same unity of love, shared amongst three, namely us, with God and our neighbors, - as beings in communion, in the image of the Holy Trinity, in order to find fullness and "partake of the divine nature".

----------


## Crashland

> The Bible objects to any gospel that does not use the terms by which it expresses itself.


Could you please be specific? You already said you don't object to the concept of Christians and the Trinity having a relational quality. What exactly do you object to?

----------


## Miss Annie

> The gospel is love....it is God's love for His people only.  The false gospel of relationship says that God loves every single person and is politely wanting them to love Him.  That is disgusting.   The gospel is power and finality.   The gospel is what Jesus did to secure and completely obtain redemption for the elect. 
> 
> Again, you can see how the language of relationship is evil.



1 John 4King James Version (KJV)

4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

*9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.*

11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

16* And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.*

17* Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

19 We love him, because he first loved us.*

20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Exactly!  The Holy Trinity is of One Essence, which is uncreated, and indescribable and unknowable to man. How we perceive the Holy Trinity as Three Persons is based on the relational experience of man to God as revealed by Christ, and not by any difference in God's Essence, which is single and simple.  Thus, the perceived differences which man might categorize regarding the Persons of the Holy Trinity has everything to do with how we humans can conceptualize the interrelationships amongst the Trinity, in according to what God has revealed.  Namely, One God, as the Eternally Unbegotten Father, the Eternally Begotten Son, and the Eternally Proceeding Holy Spirit.  Three is personal relation, but One in essence and will.  The closest image that we can conceive regarding the Essence of God is that it ontologically is a relationship of Three Persons, in a unity of divine love.  Even in this, we fall short from the mystery of the Holy Trinity.
> 
> But the good news is that we do not have to know the Essence of God in order to find a relationship with Him and the ontological transformation and theosis in God.  Rather, we simply need to share in the same unity of love, shared amongst three, namely us, with God and our neighbors, - as beings in communion, in the image of the Holy Trinity, in order to find fullness and "partake of the divine nature".


Man never ever ever partakes in the divine nature metaphysically.  Man partakes in the divine nature _ethically_, when a man is accounted as righteous by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. 

TER, you've got so many absolutely confused theological notions that it's hard to pick all of them out in a post of yours.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 1 John 4King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
> 
> 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
> 
> 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
> 
> 4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
> ...






> * 9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
> 
> 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
> *


Who is "us" there, Annie?

----------


## Miss Annie

> Who is "us" there, Annie?


Believers.  Ah......... I can see where you are going with this Sola.   

 1 John 2King James Version (KJV)

2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

*2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Believers.  Ah......... I can see where you are going with this Sola.   
> 
>  1 John 2King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
> 
> *2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.*


Who is "ours" and who is "whole world"?

How can Christ propitiate sin and a person still go to Hell?

----------


## Miss Annie

> Who is "ours" and who is "whole world"?
> 
> How can Christ propitiate sin and a person still go to Hell?


Love ya Sola,...... But not going to go into total inability and limited atonement.  We've done this dance before and we all have the same steps and the same answers.  My answers haven't changed and I don't think yours have either.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Love ya Sola,...... But not going to go into total inability and limited atonement.  We've done this dance before and we all have the same steps and the same answers.  My answers haven't changed and I don't think yours have either.


What are you afraid of?  Maybe that the Bible may teach something you can't bring yourself to agree with?  The Bible clearly, without a doubt, teaches total depravity and limited atonement.   It's not even a question.

----------


## jmdrake

> *sigh* this is a goofy line of questioning.  I understand what you are trying to do with it, but goofy it remains.
> 
> Sola is convinced (whether right or wrong is irrelevant) that Calvin denied limited atonemnet.  Sola also doesn't want to associate himself with the label named after a man.  Yet Sola certainly believes at least in the five points we now call "Calvinism."  Trying to nitpick this is silly.


I'm not "trying to nitpick."  I'm avoiding wasting time and energy in what is a fruitless thread because to topic of the thread, Sola_Fide, isn't serious about having a real discussion.  If someone says "Where in the Bible does it say have a relationship with Jesus?" and in response to someone else pointing out versus that say that, that person says "Okay, but where does it say that is the gospel?" and when someone else points out that the original point being made wasn't that the gospel says "have a relationship with Jesus" but the Bible clearly says that, and then this person goes back to "Where in the Bible does it say have a relationship with Jesus" *that person is not trying to have a serious discussion*.  So....I'm not trying to have a serious discussion with him either.  Get it?  Got it?  Good!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not "trying to nitpick."  I'm avoiding wasting time and energy in what is a fruitless thread because to topic of the thread, Sola_Fide, isn't serious about having a real discussion.  If someone says "Where in the Bible does it say have a relationship with Jesus?" and in response to someone else pointing out versus that say that, that person says "Okay, but where does it say that is the gospel?" and when someone else points out that the original point being made wasn't that the gospel says "have a relationship with Jesus" but the Bible clearly says that, and then this person goes back to "Where in the Bible does it say have a relationship with Jesus" *that person is not trying to have a serious discussion*.  So....I'm not trying to have a serious discussion with him either.  Get it?  Got it?  Good!


Fair enough.  I actually saw what Sola did on that thread and I noticed the subtle word change.  As long as you just mean this specifically for Sola and not as some kind of a "Calvinists follow Calvin" type of thing I'm good with it.

----------


## Miss Annie

> What are you afraid of?  Maybe that the Bible may teach something you can't bring yourself to agree with?  The Bible clearly, without a doubt, teaches total depravity and limited atonement.   It's not even a question.


No, I am not afraid.  Honestly, it would be a waste of time and energy.  I have watched these circle jerks go on for years now, and been involved in quite a few.  You believe that the Bible teaches it without question, I do not.  I believe that the first verses we teach little children about the gospel fully dispute it.  

I have studied and studied this subject.  I actually went into it with a totally open mind, not even trying to dispute it - only trying to determine what I believe, because I have family that are believe in TULIP.  I studied, I don't believe TULIP is biblical, that is just that.  

I am not a Calvinist, I am not an Armenian, ...... I fall somewhere in between.  I am perfectly good with that!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm not "trying to nitpick."  I'm avoiding wasting time and energy in what is a fruitless thread because to topic of the thread, Sola_Fide, isn't serious about having a real discussion.  If someone says "Where in the Bible does it say have a relationship with Jesus?" and in response to someone else pointing out versus that say that, that person says "Okay, but where does it say that is the gospel?" and when someone else points out that the original point being made wasn't that the gospel says "have a relationship with Jesus" but the Bible clearly says that, and then this person goes back to "Where in the Bible does it say have a relationship with Jesus" *that person is not trying to have a serious discussion*.  So....I'm not trying to have a serious discussion with him either.  Get it?  Got it?  Good!


Neither you or anyone else posted a verse that says "have a relationship with Jesus".  You can't do it, because it's not there.

None of the verses you posted said that.   That's not how the apostles presented the gospel to the world.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, I am not afraid.  Honestly, it would be a waste of time and energy.  I have watched these circle jerks go on for years now, and been involved in quite a few.  You believe that the Bible teaches it without question, I do not.  I believe that the first verses we teach little children about the gospel fully dispute it.  
> 
> I have studied and studied this subject.  I actually went into it with a totally open mind, not even trying to dispute it - only trying to determine what I believe, because I have family that are believe in TULIP.  I studied, I don't believe TULIP is biblical, that is just that.  
> 
> I am not a Calvinist, I am not an Armenian, ...... I fall somewhere in between.  I am perfectly good with that!


Armenians are people from Armenia. Stop being bigoted against good Calvinists like Rushdoony by confusing them with theological filth

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Neither you or anyone else posted a verse that says "have a relationship with Jesus".  You can't do it, because it's not there.
> 
> None of the verses you posted said that.   That's not how the apostles presented the gospel to the world.


The Arminian version of the "relational gospel" is not Biblical.  But it remains the case that elect people do have a relationship with Jesus Christ on the basis of the death of Jesus on their behalf.  And while it is always best to just use Biblical terminology straight out, it is possible to correctly get at a Biblcial concept with different language.

----------


## Miss Annie

> Armenians are people from Armenia. Stop being bigoted against good Calvinists like Rushdoony by confusing them with theological filth


LOL!  I don't even know what a Rushdoony is.  Sounds like a tasty donut!

----------


## jmdrake

> The gospel is love....it is God's love for His people only.  The false gospel of relationship says that God loves every single person and is politely wanting them to love Him.  That is disgusting.   The gospel is power and finality.   The gospel is what Jesus did to secure and completely obtain redemption for the elect. 
> 
> Again, you can see how the language of relationship is evil.


You just called the Bible evil.  You have already admitted that there is language of relationship in the Bible and now you are saying the language of relationship is evil.  Note that *the original point being made and your original question in response to it said nothing about the gospel*.  But you are just too stuck on stupid to see this point.  You could simply say "The Bible does say have a relationship with God but doesn't make that a condition for salvation just like the Bible says repent but doesn't make that a condition for salvation" and move on and we could argue about that.  But instead you are insisting on being an idiot.  And everybody sees this but you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, I am not afraid.  Honestly, it would be a waste of time and energy.  I have watched these circle jerks go on for years now, and been involved in quite a few.  You believe that the Bible teaches it without question, I do not.  I believe that the first verses we teach little children about the gospel fully dispute it.  
> 
> I have studied and studied this subject.  I actually went into it with a totally open mind, not even trying to dispute it - only trying to determine what I believe, because I have family that are believe in TULIP.  I studied, I don't believe TULIP is biblical, that is just that.  
> 
> I am not a Calvinist, I am not an Armenian, ...... I fall somewhere in between.  I am perfectly good with that!


Ok, but this is just autobiographical about yourself.   I already know you don't believe the Bible, but the question is "what does the Bible teach"?

By the way, what gospel verses that children l earn fully dispute TULIP?

----------


## jmdrake

> Neither you or anyone else posted a verse that says "have a relationship with Jesus".  You can't do it, because it's not there.
> 
> None of the verses you posted said that.   That's not how the apostles presented the gospel to the world.


That's a lie and you know it.  It's a lie because you already admitted to there being relationship language in the Bible.  But you have compounded your lie with blasphemy by calling relationship language evil even after admitting that it is in the Bible.  You're just digging yourself in deeper with each post.

----------


## jmdrake

> By the way, what gospel verses that children l earn fully dispute TULIP?


Huh?  That's not even grammatically correct.  What are you even trying to say?  You're losing it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> LOL!  I don't even know what a Rushdoony is.  Sounds like a tasty donut!


Haha!  Rushdoony was (he died in 2001) a Calvinistic Theonomic theologian that was from Armenia (the country).  The fact that I like a lot of what he says (though as with everyone, not everything) makes it a little pet peeve of mine when people confuse "Arminian" (the doctrinal system derived by Jacob Arminius and "Armenian" (a country that doesn't have anything per say to do with a theological system.

Don't worry too much about it, I mostly just decided to use it as a joke

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Huh?  That's not even grammatically correct.  What are you even trying to say?  You're losing it.


I think he's saying the higher the brick wall he builds around himself, the more children he earns.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You just called the Bible evil.  You have already admitted that there is language of relationship in the Bible and now you are saying the language of relationship is evil.  Note that *the original point being made and your original question in response to it said nothing about the gospel*.  But you are just too stuck on stupid to see this point.  You could simply say "The Bible does say have a relationship with God but doesn't make that a condition for salvation just like the Bible says repent but doesn't make that a condition for salvation" and move on and we could argue about that.  But instead you are insisting on being an idiot.  And everybody sees this but you.


"Have a relationship with Jesus" is not an exhortation that any apostle ever used when presenting Christianity to the world.

You've had plenty of time to try to prove it, but you can't.   

Instead of getting all angry about your inability to find a verse that says that, go to the book of Acts and go to the book of Romans to find out what Christian soteriology is, and the language used to present it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Torn between being annoyed more at the Arminians or the silly Outside the Campian.  Ugh... is THIS really the difficult choice you guys have to saddle me with?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Huh?  That's not even grammatically correct.  What are you even trying to say?  You're losing it.


By the way, what gospel verses that children learn fully dispute TULIP?

----------


## Christian Liberty

I think this conversation isn't even worthy of being called a joke.  Sola was correct when he was trying to say that the way synergists use the language of relationship is unbiblical.  But instead of just admitting that he needed more precision and that that was what he meant, he digs down because he's too prideful to admit his language was not precise enough.  Seriously?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Torn between being annoyed more at the Arminians or the silly Outside the Campian.  Ugh... is THIS really the difficult choice you guys have to saddle me with?


Are you talking about me?   Even after the discussion we had about baptism and the covenant?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> By the way, what gospel verses that children learn fully dispute TULIP?


There aren't any.  Next question?

----------


## jmdrake

> "Have a relationship with Jesus" is not an exhortation that any apostle ever used when presenting Christianity to the world.


Again *QUIT CHANGING THE QUESTION TO FIT YOUR STUPIDITY!*  Jesus Himself said to those He sent to hell "I never KNEW you!"  Every definition, every use of that word in the original language and in its translation to English is about a relationship.  Period.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are you talking about me?   Even after the discussion we had about baptism and the covenant?


Yeah, the fact that you picked credobaptism of all issues to possibly damn them over like a goofball doesn't change the fact that you essentially borrowed their theological system, although you've never been consistent about whether or not you damn tolerant calvinists too.  At least they've always been pretty consistent on that point.

Plus you're clearly wrong on credo... and thus based on your ridiuclous standards probably not saved.

There's a point where judging gets ridiculous.  I'm probably the last person to say that ever.  But i'm going to say it here.  Not because you judge Arminians as lost (there are plenty of intelligent people that do that, like Brian Schwertley) but because you simply don't make very much sense in terms of where you draw lines.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I think this conversation isn't even worthy of being called a joke.  Sola was correct when he was trying to say that the way synergists use the language of relationship is unbiblical.  But instead of just admitting that he needed more precision and that that was what he meant, he digs down because he's too prideful to admit his language was not precise enough.  Seriously?


Well, you're just doing what jmdrake always does, which is to shift the debate from the actual issues, to focusing on the motivations of the people involved.  Don't fall in to that.

The language that the Bible uses to explain salvation is vitally important.   That is the entire issue.  The language conveys concepts that are incompatible with modern false religion.

----------


## Christian Liberty

*sigh* and Jmdrake puts me in the painful position of actually agreeing with him over the "Calvinist".  Sigh.  Seriously guys?  I DON'T WANT to agree with the Arminian.  But. he's.  Technically.  Right.  Ugh

----------


## jmdrake

> I think this conversation isn't even worthy of being called a joke.  Sola was correct when he was trying to say that the way synergists use the language of relationship is unbiblical.  But instead of just admitting that he needed more precision and that that was what he meant, he digs down because he's too prideful to admit his language was not precise enough.  Seriously?


LOL. While I disagree with your ultimate conclusion, I agree with your overall assessment and I've been saying this throughout the thread.  If SF didn't take such prideful arrogance in his obvious mistake he could get on to an actual debate.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, you're just doing what jmdrake always does, which is to shift the debate from the actual issues, to focusing on the motivations of the people involved.  Don't fall in to that.
> 
> The language that the Bible uses to explain salvation is vitally important.   That is the entire issue.  The language conveys concepts that are incompatible with modern false religion.


Then say that.  But say it in a manner that's actually Biblical.  Stop telling a lie.  Because Jmdrake, for all the other things he's wrong about, is technically right here.  And as much as it annoys me I'm not going to deny that just because you're frankly more Biblical on most issues.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Again *QUIT CHANGING THE QUESTION TO FIT YOUR STUPIDITY!*  Jesus Himself said to those He sent to hell "I never KNEW you!"  Every definition, every use of that word in the original language and in its translation to English is about a relationship.  Period.


"I never knew you" is a phrase that explains God not loving and predestinating the ones who are judged.  "Knowing" is another term for choosing a person from the beginning,  which is why Jesus says He "never" knew them. 

Still, this is not a description of the gospel, and it's not an exhortation to "have a relationship with Jesus".   You can't find a verse that d I es this because the Bible doesn't use that language.   False prophets like Ellen G. White said things like this.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> LOL. While I disagree with your ultimate conclusion, I agree with your overall assessment and I've been saying this throughout the thread.  If SF didn't take such prideful arrogance in his obvious mistake he could get on to an actual debate.


This is why I'm annoyed and not agreeing with SF.  I mostly agree with what I think he's trying to say.  But its simply not true that the language of relationship is never used in the Bible.  Is it true that its an error (and a common one) to reduce the gospel to "Jesus wants to have a relationship with you?"  Yes.  Oh HECK yes.  I would even go so far as to say that a gospel that ONLY says God wants to have a relationship with you without talking about the necessity of Christ's atoning blood shed for sinners, the guilt that man is born with for sin, Christ's imputed righteousness that brings us into right relation to God, etc. IS a false gospel.  I still think that's what SOla wants to say, and if that's the case, he's right.  I'd disagree with him regarding just how precise your understanding of the atonement has to be before it is evidence of true saving faith, but at least that's a debate we could have if Sola would be consistent about that being the issue.  But the way he's saying it still isn't Biblical.  Its clearly not.  And then he kind of moved the goalposts without admitting to anyone that he worded his argument poorly and needed to change it.   WHich is just annoying ,and is really deracting from the main point.  Is it accurate to say God wants to have a relationship with you?  Well, it depends on who "you" is.  Sola and I would agree against you on that point but at least that's a debate we could have.  I don't think its appropriate to tell that to just any sinner who may or may not have been predestined unto damnation.  But, is it accurate to say that Jesus wants a relationship with believers?  Of course it is.  It clearly is.  And to say otherwise is absurd.  Is that the summation of the gospel?  Not really.  Or at least not without other critical aspects that are being ignored with that formulation alone.  But its still a true doctrine.  

But then again, Sola does the same thing in theonomy debates when he confuses "theonomic laws should be implemented for the good of society and because that's what God commands" with "theonomy says that personal adherence to the law on the part of the sinner is necessary for justification ie. Rome."  I know you don't like theonomy but I think youre honest enough to see the fundmanetal dishonesty in that as well.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> "I never knew you" is a phrase that explains God not loving and predestinating the ones who are judged.  "Knowing" is another term for choosing a person from the beginning,  which is why Jesus says He "never" knew them. 
> 
> Still, this is not a description of the gospel, and it's not an exhortation to "have a relationship with Jesus".   You can't find a verse that d I es this because the Bible doesn't use that language.   False prophets like Ellen G. White said things like this.


Those who don't know Christ are damned.  Christ doesn't have a relationship with them.  Thus Christ DOES have a relationship with those he does know.  This is basic logical deduction.  You're really against something else, probably the evangelical abuses of this concept, which I'd probably agree with you on, but that doesn't mean the use of the terminology is inherently incorrect.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Then say that.  But say it in a manner that's actually Biblical.  Stop telling a lie.  Because Jmdrake, for all the other things he's wrong about, is technically right here.  And as much as it annoys me I'm not going to deny that just because you're frankly more Biblical on most issues.


I've said from the beginning that the Bible describes salvation in terms that modern religion ignores.  It ignores the language and concepts because if it used those concepts, it would be inconsistent with universal atonement, which is their entire faith.   The language of relationship fits with universal atonement.  Law, imputation,  substitutionary atonement,  accounting, etc. does not.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Haha!  Rushdoony was (he died in 2001) a Calvinistic Theonomic theologian that was from Armenia (the country).  The fact that I like a lot of what he says (though as with everyone, not everything) makes it a little pet peeve of mine when people confuse "Arminian" (the doctrinal system derived by Jacob Arminius and "Armenian" (a country that doesn't have anything per say to do with a theological system.
> 
> Don't worry too much about it, I mostly just decided to use it as a joke


We're goin' to Donut Heaven

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I've said from the beginning that the Bible describes salvation in terms that modern religion ignores.  It ignores the language and concepts because if it used those concepts, it would be inconsistent with universal atonement, which is their entire faith.   The language of relationship fits with universal atonement.  Law, imputation,  substitutionary atonement,  accounting, etc. does not.


This is true.  But that doesn't change the fact that its the abuse of the statment of GOd wanting a relationship with us (at least assuming "us" means "his elect") that is the problem, not the statement itself.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Those who don't know Christ are damned.  Christ doesn't have a relationship with them.  Thus Christ DOES have a relationship with those he does know.  This is basic logical deduction.  You're really against something else, probably the evangelical abuses of this concept, which I'd probably agree with you on, but that doesn't mean the use of the terminology is inherently incorrect.


This is the 5th or 6th time I've said this:  Christianity is personal, relational, experiential, emotional, etc.

Those are realities that come AFTER regeneration and adoption.  Before you can talk about those things, you have to talk about how God saves a person.  This is described in the book of Romans. 

Law, sin, debt, imputation, substitution, exchange, accounting....these are things that are absent from modern religion.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is true.  But that doesn't change the fact that its the abuse of the statment of GOd wanting a relationship with us (at least assuming "us" means "his elect") that is the problem, not the statement itself.


"God wants to have a relationship with you" is Arminianism and not anywhere in the Bible.

----------


## Theocrat

> No one ever said that the Trinity or Christianity is not personal,  relational, experiential, emotional, etc.  No one said that.  Not me, not anyone.
> 
> What no one can do is show an apostle preaching the gospel to the world in the terms of "have a relationship with Jesus".  No one can do it because it's not in Scripture.  
> 
> "Have a relationship with Jesus" is the modern false gospel that denies law, accounting,  imputation and substitutionary atonement.  These are the concepts used by the apostles.


Sola, once again, you are bifurcating the call to "have a relationship with Jesus" and the systematic uses of the Law, imputation, propitiation, etc. in presenting the Gospel, as if there can be no relation between them. Such a dichotomy, though, *is false*.

Not only that, the apostles presented the Gospel in many different ways, depending on whether they were addressing Jews or Gentiles (and all of the impending circumstances relating to their times). Of course, one cannot find an apostle saying exactly, "Have a relationship with Jesus," but you also won't find apostles using computers to argue against a Gospel that only preaches "Have a relationship with Jesus." Does the latter mean that we shouldn't use computers to proclaim the Gospel simply because the apostles had none? Of course not! And to my knowledge, no one here has suggested that the Gospel *must only* be about "having a relationship with Jesus," to the exclusion of other things like sin, the Law, and Christ's atoning work. You can have both ideas embedded in a Gospel proclamation, after all.

To those who do preach that one must "have a personal relationship with Jesus" and nothing else, all you have to do is encourage them to remember passages (such as ones in Romans, for example) where Paul discusses other things like sin, the penalties of lawlessness, our separation from God, and the real need of Christ to reconcile us back to God. Hopefully, appeals to those Biblical texts will open their eyes to employ a fuller Gospel message to the world. But there is nothing wrong with a Christian inviting nonbelievers to follow Christ ("have a relationship with Him"), while at the same time preaching law, accounting, imputation, and substitutionary atonement (among other things).

----------


## jmdrake

> Sola, once again, you are bifurcating the call to "have a relationship with Jesus" and the systematic uses of the Law, imputation, propitiation, etc. in presenting the Gospel, as if there can be no relation between them. Such a dichotomy, though, *is false*.
> 
> Not only that, the apostles presented the Gospel in many different ways, depending on whether they were addressing Jews or Gentiles (and all of the impending circumstances relating to their times). Of course, one cannot find an apostle saying exactly, "Have a relationship with Jesus," but you also won't find apostles using computers to argue against a Gospel that only preaches "Have a relationship with Jesus." Does the latter mean that we shouldn't use computers to proclaim the Gospel simply because the apostles had none? Of course not! And to my knowledge, no one here has suggested that the Gospel *must only* be about "having a relationship with Jesus," to the exclusion of other things like sin, the Law, and Christ's atoning work. You can have both ideas embedded in a Gospel proclamation, after all.
> 
> To those who do preach that one must "have a personal relationship with Jesus" and nothing else, all you have to do is encourage them to remember passages (such as ones in Romans, for example) where Paul discusses other things like sin, the penalties of lawlessness, our separation from God, and the real need of Christ to reconcile us back to God. Hopefully, appeals to those Biblical texts will open their eyes to employ a fuller Gospel message to the world. But there is nothing wrong with a Christian inviting nonbelievers to follow Christ ("have a relationship with Him"), while at the same time preaching law, accounting, imputation, and substitutionary atonement (among other things).


Wait a second.  I agree with everything you just said here Theocrat.  I believe in the nature of sin, how it separates us from God, that there are penalties for lawlessness, that reconciliation comes through Christ etc.  Is there a belief that Arminian Christians don't believe that?  Because if so, I don't think that's true.

----------


## jmdrake

> I've said from the beginning that the Bible describes salvation in terms that modern religion ignores.  It ignores the language and concepts because if it used those concepts, it would be inconsistent with universal atonement, which is their entire faith.   The language of relationship fits with universal atonement.  Law, imputation,  substitutionary atonement,  accounting, etc. does not.


No.  You said from the beginning "Where in the Bible does it say have a relationship with Jesus?"  And the idea that law, imputation, substitutionary atonement etc doesn't fit with universal atonement is just laughable.  After all you are the one that is always accusing me (falsely) of being a legalist.  One cannot be a legalist with a law.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No.  You said from the beginning "Where in the Bible does it say have a relationship with Jesus?"  And the idea that law, imputation, substitutionary atonement etc doesn't fit with universal atonement is just laughable.  After all you are the one that is always accusing me (falsely) of being a legalist.  One cannot be a legalist with a law.


You've never posted a verse that says "have a relationship with Jesus".  Where is it?

----------


## fisharmor

> You've never posted a verse that says "have a relationship with Jesus".  Where is it?


Just as a courtesy I feel like I should let you know that this isn't having your intended effect. I think you're pretty aware that verses have been posted about 5 or 6 times now in two different threads. So you're not really making a point to anybody here. All you're doing is showing people who are reading this who might be on the fence that you are wrong and you are being pigheaded about it.

----------


## Crashland

> Also interesting to think about, the difference between the relationship between God and a non-Christian, or between God and a spiritual seeker, and how the nature of those relationships change. The Bible is all about God's relationship with all people. I think it would still be quite Biblical that non-Christian can have relationships or communication with God as well, although not a relationship in which God considers them to be made righteous.





> Christians are never made righteous.  They are _accounted_ as righteous by the imputation of Christ's righteousness.


That's why I said God *considers* them to be made righteous...

----------


## Dr.3D

I'm sorry Sola, I shouldn't have said anything at all.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> The gospel is love....it is God's love for His people only.  The false gospel of relationship says that God loves every single person and is politely wanting them to love Him.  That is disgusting.   The gospel is power and finality.


God does not love everyone?  What happened to "Love the sinner, hate the sin"?

What happened to "Love your neighbor as yourself"?

Are we not to show love to all?  Instead judge and condemn them?

----------


## dusman

> Whenever the Gideon representatives come to the hotel, I'm always getting on them for only putting King James Versions in the rooms.  I think there should be more modern translations.


I'm actually surprised by that. I'd figure you to be a strict KJV person. The NIV, RSV, NKJ, NWT and others have so many modifications and omissions that in many areas they don't even retain the same meaning in the verses.

I'm expecting robe washing churches to come into existence any time now. Compare Revelations 22:14 to KJV.

----------


## Theocrat

> Wait a second.  I agree with everything you just said here Theocrat.  I believe in the nature of sin, how it separates us from God, that there are penalties for lawlessness, that reconciliation comes through Christ etc.  Is there a belief that Arminian Christians don't believe that?  Because if so, I don't think that's true.


I'm sure that there are some Arminian Christians who preach about sin, the Law, propitiation, etc. in their Gospel presentations. That wasn't my point. Sola is just criticizing how many mainstream churches and ministries fail to include those topics in their Gospel messages, which have been dumbed down to "Have a personal relationship with Jesus," unfortunately.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm actually surprised by that. I'd figure you to be a strict KJV person. *The NIV, RSV, NKJ, NWT and others have so many modifications and omissions that in many areas they don't even retain the same meaning in the verses.
> *
> I'm expecting robe washing churches to come into existence any time now. Compare Revelations 22:14 to KJV.



That's not the case.  That's just KJV onlyist propaganda.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Wait a second.  I agree with everything you just said here Theocrat.  I believe in the nature of sin, how it separates us from God, that there are penalties for lawlessness, that reconciliation comes through Christ etc.  Is there a belief that Arminian Christians don't believe that?  Because if so, I don't think that's true.


You believe in substitutionary atonement and imputation?  When did you start believing those things?

----------


## pcosmar

> You believe in substitutionary atonement and imputation?  When did you start believing those things?


You Know,,
one can believe that Christ died for them,,repent and be born again without understanding (or misunderstanding) the mechanics (wisdom and complexity) of how God brought it about.

----------


## Miss Annie

> Ok, but this is just autobiographical about yourself.   I already know you don't believe the Bible, but the question is "what does the Bible teach"?
> 
> By the way, what gospel verses that children l earn fully dispute TULIP?


John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

----------


## jmdrake

> Just as a courtesy I feel like I should let you know that this isn't having your intended effect. I think you're pretty aware that verses have been posted about 5 or 6 times now in two different threads. So you're not really making a point to anybody here. All you're doing is showing people who are reading this who might be on the fence that you are wrong and you are being pigheaded about it.


+rep

----------


## jmdrake

> You believe in substitutionary atonement and imputation?  When did you start believing those things?


That Christ's atonement paid the price for our sins?  I've always believed that.  But I also believe Jesus when he described the kingdom of heaven as a king that forgave a debt only to reinstate it when the person he forgave was unforgiving.  Really, I don't know anyone personally who confesses Christ who doesn't believe there are penalties for lawlessness or that reconciliation comes through Christ.  Joseph Arminus certainly believed all of those things.  That said, note that you are, once again, putting in words that were not said.  I didn't use the terms "substitutionary atonement and imputation."  I have nothing against those terms.  But I have a sneaking suspicion that you use them differently than how I would use them.

----------


## dusman

> That's not the case.  That's just KJV onlyist propaganda.


Which Bible do you use? I'd be happy to illustrate my point. I can understand where there may be issues with all of them on translation, but I am more concerned about omissions and some of the clear alterations of meaning.

----------

