Go on the record ToOne!

Originally posted by knightmeister
And you willfully and intentionally remain a bigot and hypocrite....
----------ToONE----------------------------------

Which may or may not be true , however.....

...........you wilfully come on a thread called "go on the record ToOne" and intentionally do NOT go on the record about your own sin or own beliefs and still see fit to talk about the sins of others.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

And you willfully and intentionally remain a bigot and hypocrite

hey i thought that was me?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
And you willfully and intentionally remain a bigot and hypocrite

hey i thought that was me?

It was.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
And you willfully and intentionally remain a bigot and hypocrite

hey i thought that was me?

Well if you both would simply read my posts again, you will see that this is clearly me. Now the both of you, stop stealing my thunder!! 😠

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You seem to be confused about what Jesus taught. From what I can tell, there is no requirement that one has never sinned, just one that one cannot continue to sin and have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".

As to how to stop sinning, I think I've already posted this twice on this thread, but this is what Jesus taught:
John 8:32-36
So Jesus was ...[text shortened]... if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."

The truth will make you free.

You seem to be confused about what Jesus taught. From what I can tell, there is no requirement that one has never sinned, just one that one cannot continue to sin and have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".
--------------------ToOne------------------------------

So what happens to one who repents and then fails and sins? Is he worse off than the man who didn't repent in the first place? Is he condemned ahead of a man who hasn't even tried?

If he is then one had better think twice before repenting , especially at a young age because you would be in fear of hell for the rest of your life.

Originally posted by knightmeister
...........you wilfully come on a thread called "go on the record ToOne" and intentionally do NOT go on the record about your own sin or own beliefs and still see fit to talk about the sins of others.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

I don't quite see how your quote fits with the criticism. How does "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" apply to someone criticizing another for sinning whilst refusing to discuss his own beliefs or possible sin? Are you saying the quote implies that nobody can criticize? If so what are you doing in this thread?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Before we proceed , may I ask whether I am permitted to use examples of how Jesus acted and what he did as well as what he said?

The fact is that no human being is perfect and all are flawed and subject to lapses and sinful behaviour. The real Jesus is much more patient with us than this and has immense compassion for our failings.

If this was so important to the teachings of Jesus, you should have no problem producing passages from when He walked the Earth and taught something akin to, "I have spoken at length as to what is and what is not righteous. However, this is impossible to achieve. You are all flawed and subject to lapses and sinful behavior. With this in mind and because of my patience and immense compassion for your failings, everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; even those who do not do the will of my Father who is in heaven."

This is your chance to show how your understanding of Jesus is fully supported by His teachings. After you've posted them all, I can repost the passages of His teachings that support my position. Maybe we can then work on reconciling them together.

Listen, this really isn't that difficult. If this is as important to the teachings of Jesus as you believe, you should be able to produce passages from when He walked the Earth where He makes explicit statements that support your position. If all you can come up with is conjecture based on what you read into His actions, then just say so.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[quote][b]The fact is that no human being is perfect and all are flawed and subject to lapses and sinful behaviour. The real Jesus is much more patient with us than this and has immense compassion for our failings.

If this was so important to the teachings of Jesus, you should have no problem producing passages from when He walked the Earth and ta ...[text shortened]... can come up with is conjecture based on what you read into His actions, then just say so.[/b]

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is proof that God has been satisfied with His death on behalf of sinners. If Jesus had stayed dead it would have indicated that His death was good for Himself alone. As it stands the resurrection of Jesus is proof that His death was accepted by God on behalf of everyone else.

" ... who believe on Him who has raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, Who was delivered for our offenses and was raised for our justification" (Rom. 4:25)

The reason why you avoid discussing the resurrection of Christ is probably because you don't want to acknowledge that God is satisfied with His death on behalf of sinners for their acceptance.

To prove your false doctrine that God is still not satisfied with Christ's work of redemption you have to deny the resurrection.

Of course you never want to be seen as denying the resurrection so instead you always hedge that it is irrelevant to anything you are talking about.

Anyway the resurrection of Christ is the seal that God has accepted His death on behalf of sinners that in believing in Christ they may be completely justified.

It is all related and splicing and dicing up the truth as you do is a tactic that will not convince many Christians that you have any valid argument against God's plan of redemption.

Originally posted by jaywill
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is [b]proof that God has been satisfied with His death on behalf of sinners. If Jesus had stayed dead it would have indicated that His death was good for Himself alone. As it stands the resurrection of Jesus is proof that His death was accepted by God on behalf of everyone else.

" ... who believe on Him who has ra convince many Christians that you have any valid argument against God's plan of redemption.

[/b]Jaywill, you seem to continue to ignore what Jesus taught. The absolute minimum requirement for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" as taught by Jesus: 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.

When Jesus walked the Earth He taught the above. While I can understand your desire to come by "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" with as little effort as possible on your part, the reality is that it flies in the face of what Jesus taught on the subject.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[quote][b]The fact is that no human being is perfect and all are flawed and subject to lapses and sinful behaviour. The real Jesus is much more patient with us than this and has immense compassion for our failings.

If this was so important to the teachings of Jesus, you should have no problem producing passages from when He walked the Earth and ta ...[text shortened]... can come up with is conjecture based on what you read into His actions, then just say so.[/b]

So just to be clear then , you believe that a man's words are more important than his words? I'm confused.

The implications of that would be a disaster for your position. Righteous words but not actions? I would have thought you of all people would support the idea that actions speak louder than words.

Surely what Jesus did was just as important if not more than what he said. Afterall , talk is cheap.

You point about "conjecture" is just a mere truism because all interpretations of Jesus' actions and words are just that , conjecture. Nowhere did Jesus clearly spell anything out either way. For example , he says "if the Son sets you free ..." what does that actually mean? It's not explicit and could mean a number of things and yet you choose to say that it can only mean one thing.

That's disingenuous and you know it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So just to be clear then , you believe that a man's words are more important than his words? I'm confused.

The implications of that would be a disaster for your position. Righteous words but not actions? I would have thought you of all people would support the idea that actions speak louder than words.

Surely what Jesus did was just as importan choose to say that it can only mean one thing.

That's disingenuous and you know it.

You've danced around this long enough. I'll surmise that you only have conjecture to offer.

Jesus spoke explicitly on a number of subjects including what is and is not righteous, what is required for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation", etc.

Once again:

Listen, this really isn't that difficult. If this is as important to the teachings of Jesus as you believe, you should be able to produce passages from when He walked the Earth where He makes explicit statements that support your position.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Hopefully the third times the charm:

Once again:

[quote][b]The fact is that no human being is perfect and all are flawed and subject to lapses and sinful behaviour. The real Jesus is much more patient with us than this and has immense compassion for our failings.

If this was so important to the teachings of Jesus, you should have no p ou made the assertions in BOLD above. So show the passages as I stipulated above.

[/b]

But Jesus did imply that sanctification is a process. For instance, in John 15, Jesus teaches that, "every branch (believer) that does bear fruit he (the Father) prunes so that it will be even more fruitful" (v. 2). The pruning of God here implies a second work of grace to bring the born again believer closer to perfection. Another example is John 17:17, where Christ prays (speaking of his disciples), “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth." And yet further, in the sermon on the mount, Jesus teaches that, following the new birth, one gains a spiritual appetite for righteousness; and that they who “hunger and thirst after righteousness: …shall be filled" (Matthew 5:6).

As far as I can tell, what you are arguing is that Christ demands perfection, and to fall short of that perfection in any way is tantamount to disobeying Christ. Yet this reading does not take into consideration Christ's teachings on sanctification. What is implied in Christ's teaching is that the imperfection of sin which remains in the born again believer is something that is dealt with, by God, progressively. That means that sin must be present, otherwise the Christian ought to be exempt from any further correction. Obedience to Christ cannot, therefore, involve sinlessness.

In your particular theology, ThinkOfOne guy, how do you account for the progressive process of sanctification which Christ taught?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jaywill, you seem to continue to ignore what Jesus taught. The absolute minimum requirement for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" as taught by Jesus: 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.

When Jesus walked the Earth He taught the above. While I c part, the reality is that it flies in the face of what Jesus taught on the subject.[/b]

======================================
Jaywill, you seem to continue to ignore what Jesus taught. The absolute minimum requirement for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" as taught by Jesus:
===========================================

You have been sloppily linking these three matters together for long enough - "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation"

Now I want you to prove to me that they are absolutely synonomous concepts. I will not longer accept your linking "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" together in this manner.

The implication is that anywhere in the NT where one phrase appears we may substitute the other and arrive at the same meaning. We cannot. And if you really wanted to be careful in your study you would take the time to discern where the concepts may overlap and where they clearly do not.

=====================================
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.
======================================

The is in the Bible two aspects of God's complete salvation. There is a judicial redemption and there is an "organic" salvation.

Put another way, there is a positional sanctification and a dispositional sanctification.

The Christian should be clear about both aspects. Anyway, we are getting off the subject of my post. You are again avoiding the central truth of Christ's resurrection.

He was raised for the Christian's justification. No wonder you don't hold to any Christians being justified. You don't believe in the resurrection. Therefore you do not acknowledge that through this resurrection God has set His seal of approval of His redemptive death for the believer's sins.



==================================
When Jesus walked the Earth He taught the above. While I can understand your desire to come by "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" with as little effort as possible on your part, the reality is that it flies in the face of what Jesus taught on the subject.
=================================

I started a thread dedicated to the judgment of Christians before Christ. I have provided many passages about the discipline of Christians from Christ.

You mispresent my position in what appears to me to be a dishonest way.

It is you who have an antichrist gospel of "another Jesus" who did not die a redemptive death and did not rise from the dead.


Anyway, this too is your diverting attention AWAY from your denial of the resurrection of Christ. Tell me how a person can claim to be some kind of knowledgeable teacher of the New Testament and be too cowardly to come out and say that he doesn't believe in the resurrection of Christ.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You've danced around this long enough. I'll surmise that you only have conjecture to offer.

Jesus spoke explicitly on a number of subjects including what is and is not righteous, what is required for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation", etc.

Once again:

Listen, this really isn't that difficult. If this is as important to the teachings o ...[text shortened]... walked the Earth where He makes explicit statements that support your position.

He was very explicit about what his death and his blood was supposed to achieve.

He said it was for remission of sin. Nowhere does he say that his death would ONLY be for remission of sins committed before repentance but not after (as you seem to claim). We can only assume that he meant sin in general or all sins.

Do you have evidence against this?

Combine this with the fact that he explicitly taught his followers and disciples to confess their sins regularly to God (logically implying they could not be 100% sin free) and it's not hard to make a case for the idea that God must have much more patience and compassion with sinners than you are able to comprehend.

I see what you are trying to do . You want to try and turn the tables on a thread where you are clearly on the defensive. You then try and accuse me of dancing around a subject , whilst you refuse to go on the record on anything? Curious.

Good attempt while it lasted.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]======================================
Jaywill, you seem to continue to ignore what Jesus taught. The absolute minimum requirement for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" as taught by Jesus:
===========================================

You have been sloppily linking these three matters together for long enough - "eternal life" / "he nd say that he doesn't believe in the resurrection of Christ.

[/b]Has it ever occurred to you that if concepts such as "positional sanctification and a dispositional sanctification" were important to the teachings of Jesus, He would have given clear and explicit explanations as well as made explicit distinctions between them? If He did, I am unaware of such passage(s). If you know of any, please produce them. So far as I can tell, they are the product of men who came after Jesus. If you choose to follow the teachings of those men rather than the teachings of Jesus, then at least admit that that is what you are doing.

Originally posted by knightmeister
He was very explicit about what his death and his blood was supposed to achieve.

He said it was for remission of sin. Nowhere does he say that his death would ONLY be for remission of sins committed before repentance but not after (as you seem to claim). We can only assume that he meant sin in general or all sins.

Do you have evidence against th , whilst you refuse to go on the record on anything? Curious.

Good attempt while it lasted.

The fact is that no human being is perfect and all are flawed and subject to lapses and sinful behaviour. The real Jesus is much more patient with us than this and has immense compassion for our failings.

If this was so important to the teachings of Jesus, you should have no problem producing passages from when He walked the Earth and taught something akin to, "I have spoken at length as to what is and what is not righteous. However, this is impossible to achieve. You are all flawed and subject to lapses and sinful behavior. With this in mind and because of my patience and immense compassion for your failings, everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; even those who do not do the will of my Father who is in heaven."

This is your chance to show how your understanding of Jesus is fully supported by His teachings. After you've posted them all, I can repost the passages of His teachings that support my position. Maybe we can then work on reconciling them together.

Is it your contention that you aren't dancing around producing passages that support your assertions above with explicit statements made by Jesus while He walked the earth? Seeing as you've made a half-dozen or so posts without citing any passages that do so, it's hard to believe otherwise. Your attempt to deny it can only be characterized as absurd.

How about if you only try to address the first assertion with a passage akin to, "I have spoken at length as to what is and what is not righteous. However, this is impossible to achieve. You are all flawed and subject to lapses and sinful behavior."? After you've done this, you can tackle the second assertion. Or you can simply admit that you know of no such passages.