I don't believe in Jesus Christ

[lilymc]

Nice one, VIDEO.

The expression on the white-haired dude's face is pretty funny. he's like, "wuuuut??" lol

I will have to watch more of Bishop Sprong.

Long ago the bible predicted people like him would come around.

"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions," -2 Timothy 4:3

"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, and will bring swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their unrestrained ways, and the way of truth will be blasphemed because of them." - 2 Peter 2:1-2

"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God." - 1 John 4:1-3

And the one you posted earlier:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." -Matthew 7:15

​

Just about everything he said was blatantly unbiblical. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. But to say those things and still claim to be a Christian.... that to me is one of the worst things someone can do, because it misrepresents Jesus and the scriptures, and it totally misleads people. But like I said, the bible predicted people like that. And it's going to get a lot worse.

 

[bubbleboy]

doesn't matter where the law comes from, whether it's theistic or not, subjective or objective, true or not true - there will always be law-breakers.


whoa.... the nature of morality itself? that's a big 'un.

Why must 'objective' mean it is transcendent? Can a group of humans not create a code of behavior that says "its wrong to steal" that becomes the objective, impartial, fair and equitable law of the land?

hmmmm.... on second thought. Can it be transcendent without it being theistic? If yes, then we're on the same page. Otherwise, I think you're leaving a lot of folks uninvited to the party.


I'm not saying beliefs don't matter. I'm saying we will know your beliefs by your actions, as we will know the tree by its fruits.

YOUR Ten Commandments, especially the seventh day which isn't mentioned, is missing more than a jot and tittle.

 

[lilymc]

James, I'm going to have to reply to your last post tomorrow. (later today, I mean). It's suuuper late here. In the meantime, maybe someone else will reply, but I'll try to come back. Right now I gotta get some sleep.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

This man could almost, almost, convince me to reconsider, as in reexamine, my non-Christian stance, almost.

 

[erowe1]

Uh, no, the verse clearly says all men.

No. The word "men" is not in the Greek. Translators provide it because they are convinced that "all" should not be taken in an unlimited sense.

The more literal English translations indicate this by putting "men" in italics. Unfortunately the NIV and some others don't do that. But it definitely says "all," or more literally "everything" or "all things." I don't have a problem with supplying "people" as something that's understood, but I'm not the one who wants to treat the language of the Bible as some unique Holy Ghost language that has different rules than any other human speech, like "all means all and that's all it means."

 

[erowe1]

The verse means what it says, all men. God's commandments are written in the hearts of all men everywhere, even if they've never specifically heard the name "Jesus." There have been examples of people in remote parts of the world who have come to believe in Jesus, even though they didn't know his name and had a different name for him.

Which is it? Is it absolutely all men without exception? Or is it just some examples?

Or are you saying that drawing all men to Jesus is talking about general revelation that all people have always had? If that's the case, then how does that result from his being lifted up on the cross?

I agree that the verse means what it says. I just don't insist on strange rules about the meaning of "all" that none of us would apply to the usage of that same word in ordinary conversations with one another or in any other context other than the Bible.

ETA: This is a side point, but Acts 4:12 says, "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

 

[erowe1]

You're never going to convert a single person by insulting them, condemning them, and having the kind of attitude that he has. He just comes here to agitate people, and it's starting to work. Maybe I should just ignore him from now on.

Fixed.

 

[RJB]

We laity are not in a position to claim authority as the clergy do (being successors of the apostles via many years of study and laying of hands).

I would argue that in many ways the clergy is in the same position as the laity because they can't come up with new interpretations that contradict sacred tradition. They only pass it down through the centuries. Local protestant pastors have much more control over the doctrines of their followers than any bishop in the Orthodox Church. That's why there are 30,000 - 40,000 denominations from Mormons to Calvinists.

 

[Jamesiv1]

"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions," -2 Timothy 4:3

If I were a betting man, I would bet a large sum that this verse is not referring to people like Bishop Sprong. Consider the times, the context and his audience.

wait... it's a letter from Saul (i just looked it up) =====>>>> Paulinism

Just about everything he said was blatantly unbiblical.

Show me. Again, I would bet a large sum you refer not to what Jesus said, but what someone else said that he said. Or someone else's interpretation of what Jesus said.

But to say those things and still claim to be a Christian.... that to me is one of the worst things someone can do, because it misrepresents Jesus and the scriptures, and it totally misleads people.

I believe a Christian is more accurately described as a follower of what Jesus taught, not Saul of Tarsus. Those folks more accurately are practicing Paulinism.

 

[Brett85]

What a weak and worthless idol this god of Arminianism is! This is a faith that gives you hope??? Worshipping a being who can't even change the minds of the creatures he created???

There you go throwing around labels again. I don't know if anyone here has ever called themselves an "Arminian." It really isn't a good idea to ever give yourself a label that's based off of the name of a human being. The only thing I call myself is a Christian, because I believe in Christ and what he did for me on the cross.

 

[moostraks]

Take a step back and look at this idol that you've created for yourself. A God....a God who created the entire universe by speaking a sentence. A God who created man out of the dust of the ground. The most powerful being and most powerful force in heaven and earth....This God can only "try to change our hearts, but ultimately we still have the free will to reject him".

What a weak and worthless idol this god of Arminianism is! This is a faith that gives you hope??? Worshipping a being who can't even change the minds of the creatures he created???

The attitude of those who claim hyper-Calvinism as their belief system always remind me of the abusive people I have met in my life because they seem to thrive on the authoritarianism and negativity.

S_F what you fail to grasp is that the "Arminian" Creator is all the greater because He can change the minds of His children but He allows us the free will of two paths. A real man is not one who finds a helpmate and threatens her into submission or forces her to stay. Why would you believe in a god who must resort to this level of control? Is the creature greater than the Creator in this respect?

 

[moostraks]

I believe a Christian is more accurately described as a follower of what Jesus taught, not Saul of Tarsus. Those folks more accurately are practicing Paulinism.

I have discovered this as well. Some folks take what Paul says and have created an entirely different belief system and claim it as Christianity. They do this all with no real regard for what Jesus said and each response begins with a but Paul said in verse...

 

[Brett85]

If you have doubts that you are saved, it's probably a good indication that you are not.

If someone has doubts that they are saved, it might be because of people like you who come along and constantly tell them that they aren't saved. Some people probably let that go to their head after a while. You've done more to push people away from Christ than you probably realize.

 

[Sola_Fide]

There you go throwing around labels again. I don't know if anyone here has ever called themselves an "Arminian." It really isn't a good idea to ever give yourself a label that's based off of the name of a human being. The only thing I call myself is a Christian, because I believe in Christ and what he did for me on the cross.

No you don't believe in what Jesus did for you on the cross. Because you believe He did the EXACT same thing for the person who will be in Hell!

Universal atonement means Jesus' sacrifice does NOT save. You do NOT believe in the Jesus of the Bible.

 

[Brett85]

No you don't believe in what Jesus did for you on the cross. Because you believe He did the EXACT same thing for the person who will be in Hell!

Universal atonement means Jesus' sacrifice does NOT save. You do NOT believe in the Jesus of the Bible.

I don't have a problem with the idea of limited atonement. I just have a problem with the idea of unconditional election. I think that Jesus died for everyone who believes.

 

[Sola_Fide]

S_F what you fail to grasp is that the "Arminian" Creator is all the greater because He can change the minds of His children but He allows us the free will of two paths. A real man is not one who finds a helpmate and threatens her into submission or forces her to stay. Why would you believe in a god who must resort to this level of control? Is the creature greater than the Creator in this respect?

As usual with you, I have to explain the bare essentials of Christianity to you, because you are not a Christian and don't know what Christianity is.

Christians believe that man is dead in sin and cannot turn to God. This is why a man must be "made alive" or "forced" to turn to God. Man cannot of his own will turn to God:

The Arminian view of man:

The Biblical view of man:

Ephesians 2:4-6 NASB

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

 

[Brett85]

As usual with you, I have to explain the bare essentials of Christianity to you, because you are not a Christian and don't know what Christianity is.

James 4:6

"God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble."

God opposes you, Sola Fide.

 

[erowe1]

I believe a Christian is more accurately described as a follower of what Jesus taught, not Saul of Tarsus. Those folks more accurately are practicing Paulinism.

Christians must follow what Jesus taught. But he taught what Paul taught. He also taught through Paul. And the most important thing he did, and the main reason he came to earth was not to teach, but to die for our sins and rise again, as both Jesus and Paul taught.

Paulism = Christianity. If someone's Gospel is not Paul's Gospel, then it isn't Jesus's Gospel.

 

[erowe1]

I don't have a problem with the idea of limited atonement. I just have a problem with the idea of unconditional election. I think that Jesus died for everyone who believes.

People who believe in unconditional election believe that Jesus died for everyone who believes.

 

[erowe1]

I have discovered this as well. Some folks take what Paul says and have created an entirely different belief system and claim it as Christianity. They do this all with no real regard for what Jesus said and each response begins with a but Paul said in verse...

Is someone does that, then it's bad.

If someone does the opposite, and has no real regard for what Paul said and each response begins with "but Jesus said in verse..." that's just as bad.