Originally posted by jaywillEternal life is a gift, we can not work to get it. We don't deserve it.
Didn't follow the whole discussion yet. But those eternally redeemed can also be rewarded for how they were conformed to the image of Christ after being saved.
Such rewards relate to the 1,000 years prior to the eternal age of the new heavena and new earth. That is why the intervening period was established - to reward or discipline those according to how ...[text shortened]... eternal life. That is GIFT and is settled by mere belief in the Son of God.
Am I right ?
With our faith in Jesus the Christ we are cleansed by His blood of
all unrighteousness so that we can receive the gift. We will then
be declared righteous at the judgement and given rewards for
the good works we have done throughout our lives. The 1000
years has nothing to do with us today. That is in the future when
Christ returns to reign as King on earth.
6 edits
Originally posted by jaywill[/b]The "question" that matters is what Jesus taught when He walked the Earth. Since you cannot deal with this directly, you resort to making arguments that are rooted in logical fallacy, misrepresenting my position, making false accusations, asking irrelevant questions, etc.
[b]=====================================
When Jesus walked the Earth, He taught that for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" one must become righteous, i.e., one must become one with God, one must follow the will of God, one cannot continue to commit sin, etc.
If by "justification by faith", you mean something something less than this, it does d in how I would deal with ThinkOfOne will have to hunt down those old exchanges.
For example, you make accusations like "You posture like you're arguing from the New Testament".
This is not true and you know it. As I've repeatedly pointed out to you, I am arguing from what Jesus taught when He walked the Earth. There has never been any pretense that I'm "arguing from the New Testament" as a whole.
That you resort to dishonest tactics such as this shows a lack of character on your part and your desperation to try to prop up your house built on sand.
Thus far that is how you've "deal[t] with ThinkOfOne".
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneLOL.
The "question" that matters is what Jesus taught when He walked the Earth. Since you cannot deal with this directly, you resort to making arguments that are rooted in logical fallacy, misrepresenting my position, making false accusations, etc.
For example, you make accusations like "You posture like you're arguing from the New Testament".
This i character on your part and your desperation to try to prop up your house built on sand.[/b]
Tempting. But we've been through this before.
And oh yes, I forgot. You ALWAYS lace your debate with character attacks.
And one skeptical poster a few months ago very eloquently documented that.
Ie. "Your ego is the problem." etc. etc. etc.
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillC'mon Jaywill. Can you not see your hypocrisy?
LOL.
Tempting. But we've been through this before.
And oh yes, I forgot. You ALWAYS lace your debate with character attacks.
And one skeptical poster a few months ago very elequently documented that.
"Your ego is the problem." etc. etc. etc.
This post as well as your previous post are ultimately "character attacks". Since you cannot make a valid argument, you engage in underhanded tactics such as this and as I pointed out in my prior post. None of your posts thus far have, in any way, dealt with the points of my OP to you. You're avoiding having to deal with them. Why do you think that is?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYour OP to me? I know of no OP of yours to me.
C'mon Jaywill. Can you not see your hypocrisy?
This post as well as your previous post are ultimately "character attacks". Since you cannot make a valid argument, you engage in underhanded tactics such as this and as I pointed out in my prior post. None of your posts thus far have, in any way, dealt with the points of my OP to you. You're avoiding having to deal with them. Why do you think that is?
This thread was not started by you.
Originally posted by jaywillC'mon Jaywill. "OP" stands for "Original Post". So I was taking about my "original post to you", i.e., the first post I made in response to you.
Your OP to me? I know of no OP of yours to me.
This thread was not started by you.
And the avoidance continues.
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneEvery post I ever wrote in response to you shot down your errors.
C'mon Jaywill. Can you not see your hypocrisy?
This post as well as your previous post are ultimately "character attacks". Since you cannot make a valid argument, you engage in underhanded tactics such as this and as I pointed out in my prior post. None of your posts thus far have, in any way, dealt with the points of my OP to you. You're avoiding having to deal with them. Why do you think that is?
And arbitrarily limiting the words of Jesus to those before His resurrection and ascension is just you demanding that your counterpart embrace your own unbelief.
Why should I be arguing on behalf YOUR unbelief ?
And, I bet you would not include all of the words of Jesus spoken in the Gospel of John. Then your case would go down fast.
And again, we've been through all of this before.
Eventually, nothing is left from you but attacks on the other's personality.
You haven't changed a bit.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne==================
C'mon Jaywill. Can you not see your hypocrisy?
This post as well as your previous post are ultimately "character attacks". Since you cannot make a valid argument, you engage in underhanded tactics such as this and as I pointed out in my prior post. None of your posts thus far have, in any way, dealt with the points of my OP to you. You're avoiding having to deal with them. Why do you think that is?
C'mon Jaywill.
=====================
Nope. Been there. Done that.
Argue it with somebody else.
Originally posted by jaywillIf he passed it on then he didn't [b]invent it. [/b]
[b]===================================
Fine so Paul passed it on and he converted the early Christians. No conflict here that I can see.
==========================
If he passed it on then he didn't invent it.
[/b]
What the source of Paul's inspiration might be is a separate matter, for now I am focussed on the sequence of events. For my purposes then what matters is that you agree any passing on was done through Paul and not, for example, through any of the disciples of Jesus amd indeed Acts describes a process by which Paul had to convert the Jerusalem based followers of Jesus.
You're too hung up on when things were written.
That is because you wrote as follows:
Point out to me what Paul "invented" which I cannot find in the four Gospels or preached by the forerunning apostles in the book of Acts.
You want,in a circular way, to use the product of Paul's teaching as evidence that he was right and that is illogical. You want to refer to the words of Jesus as evidence supporting Paul, but your source for these words is not an independent historical source, it is indeed the account written by Christians after Paul in order to set out their religious convictions, which takes us back in a circle. There is nothing "forrunning" about material written after Paul. It is afterruning. It runs after.
So stop setting me irrational and illogical tasks like that one quoted.
Bottom line here is you have to BLAME the Christian faith and the existence of the Christian church on [b]Jesus Christ, not Paul.[/b] [/b]
The choice of the word "blame" is your own. You are wrong for three reasons.
First Jesus did not set up a new Christian religion as your friend FreakyKBH agreed earlier and neither did his disciples when he died. He and they remained within the Jewish faith and worshipped in the temple in Jerusalem.
Secondly, the words placed in Jesus' mouth in the Gospels are evidence of what the authors intended to achieve, and it is their choice of words, their selection of incidents to report, their presentation of context that is seen there. If there were no Christian religion then these gospels would not have been written at all, because they are not disinterested academic histories, they are religious works written for the benefit of practising Christians.
Thirdly I clearly do not "have to" attribute the founding of this new religion to Jesus since in fact I attribute it to Paul.
1 edit
-Removed-works are tangible evidence that your faith is alive and working. As for the
assertion that we are justified in faith alone, i dont know if that is strictly true, in
fact i think its a convenient excuse which unscrupulous Christians use to justify lack
of works to be perfectly honest. After all, what do these verses purport to say?
“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens,
but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will
(James 1:22) . . .However, become doers of the word, and not hearers only,
deceiving yourselves with false reasoning. . .
(1 Corinthians 9:23) . . .But I do all things for the sake of the good news, that
I may become a sharer of it with [others].
(1 Timothy 4:16) . . .Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Stay
by these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who
listen to you.
(James 2:14-17) . . .Of what benefit is it, my brothers, if a certain one says he
has faith but he does not have works? That faith cannot save him, can it?
Clearly then, there is a link between works and salvation, for although everlasting
life is a gift and cannot be earned, neither can it be said, that i am being saved by
faith alone, as James, Paul and Jesus point out.
Originally posted by Proper KnobSorry, but that's the rule. Only one way to
There's Christianity summed up beautifully -
BELIEVE OR DIE!!!!!!!!
Thanks for all those options loving God.
salvation and all you have to do is believe.
Nothing hard about that, God has made
it very easy for us to choose either life or
death. So choose life and believe in the Lord
Jesus as your savior.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCould you explain what 'works' and 'outworking' mean in this sense? I do not understand what 'doing works' means exactly.
(James 2:26) Indeed, as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works
is dead.
This is a truly staggering assertion, for what does it purport to say, other than, if
your form of worship, whether you are a Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or whatever,
unless your faith can be demonstrated in a tangible way, by the outworking of some ...[text shortened]... erwise, just as the
body without spirit is dead, so is faith without works.whatPlease excuse I