Do Call on Jesus

Originally posted by Suzianne
You STILL do not 'grok' my argument, do you? Somehow I'm not surprised. You're not the first Neandertal whose first overt reaction to me is a swinging fist. Calm yourself, Bubba.

So, what is the definition of "hypocrisy" you are using?

Originally posted by FMF
So, what is the definition of "hypocrisy" you are using?

Stop dodging.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Stop dodging.

But it's you who has not answered the question. I'm not the only poster to have asked you about your peculiar use of the word "hypocrisy". You seem to use it in a rather general catch-all way to refer to stuff you don't like. But it has a specific meaning.

Originally posted by FMF
What you are 'saying' is a whole series of discussion-avoiding ad hominems. It's not difficult to "get" what you are all about, Suzianne. And it's certainly not at all difficult to "get" how you don't want to address the doctrinal issue that's being discussed. I haven't heard Rajk999 made a single claim about his own behaviour or his deeds. So how can he be guilty of "hypocrisy"? Are you using some non-conventional definition?

You are a fool. You cannot even discuss the actual issue, but depend on your 'canned' responses. And now you make this ad hominem attack based on your narrative that I am using some "non-standard" definitions. Sorry, if you were defending him in court I'd laugh at your Hollywood "defense". Shut up and sit down.

Originally posted by FMF
But it's you who has not answered the question. I'm not the only poster to have asked you about your peculiar use of the word "hypocrisy". You seem to use it in a rather general catch-all way to refer to stuff you don't like. But it has a specific meaning.

Yes, in fact you are. And I'm using the entirely standard definition, as you well know, despite your grandstanding.

Originally posted by FMF
Your words above are in reply to ThinkOfOne saying this about some Christians:

[b]...many insist that Jesus / God / the Holy Spirit abides in them, that they have a "relationship" with Him even though they do not "keep [His] words", i.e., they continue to sin.

Do you disagree with it?

Presumably, no, you don't. It seems a pretty straightforward obse ...[text shortened]... kOfOne, how is he being a "hypocrite"?

What definition of the word "hypocrite" are you using?[/b]

Are you stupid? No, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're not. This leaves one answer, that you are dodging and deflecting. Good luck with that.

Originally posted by FMF
Are you sure?

Are you?

Originally posted by Suzianne
I have no argument with Rajk concerning 'doctrine'.

So you agree with Rajk999 when he argues that the notion that 'only faith is needed for "salvation"' is a false doctrine?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Are you stupid? No, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're not. This leaves one answer, that you are dodging and deflecting. Good luck with that.

So, do you agree with what ThinkOfOne said about some Christians or not? How can what ThinkOfOne said be described as "hypocrisy"?

Originally posted by FMF
So, do you agree with what ThinkOfOne said about some Christians or not? How can what ThinkOfOne said be described as "hypocrisy"?

She is a very Christian woman. Hostile, calling people fools and stupid for not agreeing with her doctrine. Typical of Christians.

Originally posted by Rajk999
She is a very Christian woman. Hostile, calling people fools and stupid for not agreeing with her doctrine. Typical of Christians.

She does do an awful lot of substance-free haranguing for someone supposedly so implacably opposed to haranguing. I wonder what it is she thinks the word "hypocrisy" means.

Originally posted by FMF
She does do an awful lot of substance-free haranguing for someone supposedly so implacably opposed to haranguing. I wonder what it is she thinks the word "hypocrisy" means.

She seems confused. I think her problem is poor educational background.

Originally posted by sonship
When I noticed that you were more careful to not give any wrong impression about certain things, I did not accuse you of being "sneaky".

Don't think that I didn't notice that you sought not to totally disregard some points before not stressed that much by you.

And why on earth do you seek such support from a fellow who is trying his best to convince ...[text shortened]... Sure, I mention something more about obedience in this thread - [b]"the obedience of faith".[/b]

So clearly you are changing your tune as I said. Good.

When have I changed anything? I have been accused of and even rididuled for singing the same tune for the last umteen years. I have changed nothing. What exactly have I changed. Please tell me.

No change in my teaching here. I have always included much writing on "the obedience of faith" of being a Christian. I have not often used that expression.

Written 2014 on a discussion of Revelation 12.

The fact of the matter is that even if you do not see it in the symbolism, the plain non-symbolic teaching of New Testament establishes the same as far as co-reigners with Christ.

To reign over our old selves is no small thing. We were saved to reign in life.

"For if by the offense of the one death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ." (Romans 5:17)

There is a reward for reigning in life through Christ. The reward is dispenses in the millennial kingdom.

Why should not the Bible portray in symbolic pictures the plain teaching that "If we endure we will also reign with Him ..." (2 Tim. 2:12) .
...
"And he said to him, Well done, good slave. Because you have become faithful in the least, have authority over ten cities." (Luke 19:17)

"And he said to this one as well, And you, be over five cities." (v.19)

It is not insignificant to "reign in life" in the church age. And it is not insignificant to overcome, standing upon the promise that in Christ we are "more than conquerors" (Rom. 8:37) [/b]

http://www.chessatwork.com/forum/spirituality/the-universal-bright-woman.160675/page-3

Also written by me in 2014 in a discussion on Matt. 7:21-23.

For every Christian -

"For we [Paul includes himself] must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body according to what he has practiced, whether good [edited] or bad."

This is for Christians before the 1,000 year millennial kingdom for reward or [edited] punishment during the 1,000 years.

http://www.chessatwork.com/forum/spirituality/matthew-721-23.160548

Also written by me in 2014 - The Judgment Seat of Christ

But the question is - Can one who is united with Christ forever be put to shame from the Lord?"

First John 2:28 strongly indicates that the answer is yes.
Such putting away from the Lord in shame, for the Christian, is not eternal.
But it can be dispensational, temporary, and lasting not more than a thousand [edited] years.

Many of you have never heard this. Now you are being introduced to the matter of the possibility of one eternally being saved being temporarily punished. This is a truth which has been neglected. Arminians assume that any passage speaking in this tone to Christians has to mean the loss of eternal life.

Same discussion back in 2014

What if there is something in us which is NOT a part of His Body ? Shall I take a member of His body and make it joined to a prostitute?, Paul asks.

Yes, I believe into the Lord Jesus and I am a member of His Body - a member of the body of Christ.

Now suppose I do not like to abide in Him in certain areas after even many years of being convicted by the Holy Spirit? Suppose I am a believer who continues to practice fornication. And in that area of sex outside of marriage, though I am a member of the Body of Christ, I disdain to abide in the Lord in that area.

When the Lord Jesus is manifested, do you you think that practice of fornication is part of His body ? I know that you do not. So we have the apostolic exhortation to abide in Him.

If I choose to refuse to learn to abide in Him in that area, the immorality will exclude me from participating in the reward of inheriting the millennial kingdom.

Same discussion back in 2014

Here the NT warns the Christians as members of Christ's body that certain lifestyles may result that they be temporarily put away from inheriting the kingdom of God.

"And the works of the flesh are manifest, which are such things as fornication, uncleaness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, divisions, sects, envyings, bouts of drunkeness, carousings, and things like these, of which I tell you beforehand, even as I have said before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering ... etc. etc" (See Galatians 6:19-22)

Grasp the tone here. It is the exhortation of warning to brothers and sisters as Christian believers -

" ... and things like these, of which I tell you beforehand, even as I have said before, that those who practices such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

1.) He tells us beforehand so that none will be surprised.

2.) It is not the first time he told us. He told us before.

3.) The list is not exhaustive. It includes "and things like these" . It is only a representative list of works of the flesh.

4.) Those who practice such things are not abiding in Him and are not walking in the Spirit. They are no[t] [edited] being led by the Spirit (v.18). But they are saved as to eternal life.

I have not change my message.
I am going out of my way for those who might be wrongfully impressed by your twisting of my message. But I think only the most gullible would be swayed by your critique of my posts.