Divegeester in particular likes to heap a sense of guilt upon me for not running up and down frantically yelling "Fire! Fire!" .

Of course there is a side of the Gospel of annoucing the good news of salvation from judgment of God. We see it in Matthw, Mark, and Luke.

The New Testament ever balanced shows another side of Gospel preaching in John. It is of branches abiding in the true Vine of Christ and patiently bearing fruit.

That is not a frantic work. That is a work of endurance and patience over a long time. Fruit borne on a grape vine tree doesn't pop up suddenly because of frantic activity. It is produced with patience.

The Gospel of John in chapter 15 presents THIS side of living for Christ. Some of us appreciate BOTH aspects of Gospel work.

"Abide in Me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.

I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing." (John 15:4,5)

Of course I expect the next post will be someone saying "You, sonship, as a lousy branch who has borne no fruit. Who got saved anyway ?? "

God will judge that. But you can see that frantic shouting "Danger! Fire! Fire!" with a bullhorn up and down the neighborhood is not the only Gospel work the New Testament speaks of.

@sonship said
Divegeester in particular likes to heap a sense of guilt upon me for not running up and down frantically yelling "Fire! Fire!" .

@fmf said
It's not so much a case of heaping "guilt" upon you, it's more of a case of pointing out that the choice you make strongly suggests that, deep down, you don't actually believe your torturer God ideology, but do quite like regurgitating it while pointing out you have already declared yourself to have been irrevocably "saved" from such a fate.

@divegeester

When on any thread of this Forum have you the theist been countered by FMF the atheist (agnostic atheist)?

And you do live on in the past chronically.

Years ago, several times I wrote one does not have to be conversant on all matters concerning the triune nature of God to receive His saving. That's the answer you were given and still get. And I often followed this with the apostolic teaching of Roman 10 about confessing with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believing in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead as Paul's instruction on a minimum to be saved.


I never saw someone so much putting his shoulder to the plow and looking BACKWARDS as you.

Divegeester has an interesting stradegy. What he does not agree with he labors hard to make it an issue of someone's sectarianism. What he doesn't want to hear is your non-essential sectarian viewpoint limiting the christian brotherhood.

Ie A Christian: "I think we should sing this song a little slower."

Divgeester: "Your sectarian making that an essential to being saved. You're damning other believers."

And, Oh, if you tell him things he doesn't want to believe, that of course proves you are a narcicist.

@sonship said
Years ago, several times I wrote one does not have to be conversant on all matters concerning the triune nature of God to receive His saving.

@FMF

I believe deep down Rev. 20:15.

"And if anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire."

And I believe "deep down" a lot of other things too.

WHEN have you EVER had a disagreement with Divegeester?
And I don't mean about something else - here about Spirituality.

@sonship said
@FMF

I believe deep down Rev. 20:15.

"And if anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire."

And I believe "deep down" a lot of other things too.

WHEN have you EVER had a disagreement with Divegeester?
And I don't mean about something else - here about Spirituality.

@fmf said
It's not so much a case of heaping "guilt" upon you, it's more of a case of pointing out that the choice you make strongly suggests that, deep down, you don't actually believe your torturer God ideology, but do quite like regurgitating it while pointing out you have already declared yourself to have been irrevocably "saved" from such a fate.

@sonship said
@divegeester

When on any thread of this Forum have you the theist been countered by FMF the atheist (agnostic atheist)?

And you do live on in the past chronically.

Years ago, several times I wrote one does not have to be conversant on all matters concerning the triune nature of God to receive His saving. That's the answer you were given and still get. ...[text shortened]...

I never saw someone so much putting his shoulder to the plow and looking BACKWARDS as you.

@sonship said
I believe deep down Rev. 20:15.

"And if anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire."

@josephw said
The "torturer God ideology" is your opinion. It's not even an ideology based in reality, nor can it be supported by any known truth or facts.

It's just yours and others attempt to malign the God of the Bible and mischaracterize the beliefs of Christians. Reprehensible.

@josephw said
The "torturer God ideology" is your opinion. It's not even an ideology based in reality, nor can it be supported by any known truth or facts.

@josephw said
It's just yours and others attempt to malign the God of the Bible and mischaracterize the beliefs of Christians. Reprehensible.

@FMF

I hear you. And I anticipate your objection. And to that I say -

IF not believing in the "doctrine of the Trinity" is exactly NOT believing that Jesus is Lord and NOT believing then that God has raised Him from the dead, then not believing in the "docrine of the Trinity" may mean you are not saved.

The keyword in that sentence is the word IF.

Since I do not always know what someone means by "Hey, I do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity" I put it the way it should be put.

If " I don't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity" means to someone " I saw that three headed idol and that is not who I believe in" that is just his understanding of "the doctrine of the Trinity".

So the supposed "GOTCHA!" question has been addressed years ago.
You've had your answer the way I intend to give it.

One does not have to be cpnversant on all aspects of the doctrine of the triune nature of God in order to be saved by God.

People who ignore the clarity of Romans 10 are not REALLY interested in what is required for salvation. Like you. You don't realy care. You just want to see a Christian squirm.

Sorry I don't at this inquisition of Divegeester's