Personal Relationship with Jesus Christ

Originally posted by knightmeister
How many works does one need in order to not be turned away by Christ? Is there a figure on this? If there is I would like to know so that I might stand before the Holy fire of God with my (x number of) good works as my shield.

None of us will be able to say to God that we have lived a perfect life and done absolutely everything we could to help ot ...[text shortened]... erefore you have fallen short of what you could have done. Will Christ let you off or judge you?

Did Christ say to do good works and you will get eternal life? YES.
Did he give a figure ? NO

Why are you asking me such foolish questions?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the difference of course being, we have abandoned any teaching that we have found to be incongruous with Biblical
understanding whereas you are still venerating a doctrine introduced by uninspired church fathers, ratified at a synod
presided over by a pagan emperor and endorsed by bishops who just happened to be given positions and power by
sai hat is good toward one another [b]and to all others.

Is that not the Christian standard?[/b]

the difference of course being, we have abandoned any teaching that we have found to be incongruous with Biblical understanding whereas you are still venerating a doctrine introduced by uninspired church fathers,

What do you mean by venerating a doctrine ? That sounds to me like worshipping a doctrine.

Do you think because a political official presided over a Christian conference therefore it follows that absolutely no truth could come out of that conference ?

Is it the case that there is no God because a political person arranged for a Christian conference ?

I don't know a lot about the history of the Council of Nicea except that Arius a proto Jehovah's Witness, with his attacks against the incarnation, was rejected by these Christian scholars. Seems some people have never gotten over that.

As for Calvin being a murderer ? I have heard this a few times. And I have heard that it is not true. That "Calvin the murderer" accusation I will have to put on my list of things to study.

Anyway, simply because Constantine presided over a church council does not mean that no truth could come out of those deliberations. Otherwise someone would say you venerate doctrines from the same council for believing in one God.

Originally posted by jaywill

the difference of course being, we have abandoned any teaching that we have found to be incongruous with Biblical understanding whereas you are still venerating a doctrine introduced by uninspired church fathers,

What do you mean by venerating a doctrine ? That sounds to me like worshipping a doctrine.

Do you think because a politic ...[text shortened]... ise someone would say you venerate doctrines from the same council for believing in one God.

all these things are as Epi pointed out not really the matter at hand. If one is living
in union with Christ, as is claimed, if one is living in union with the Holy spirit, as is
claimed, if one has stripped off the old personality and put on the new, created
through accurate knowledge of the one who created it then it stands to reason that
one cannot help but display acts of love without hypocrisy. Paul himself
differentiates between knowledge and love, in fact, he states that knowledge for its
own sake has a tendency to bloat the ego and if it is accompanied without love then
its naught but a crashing symbol, empty and hollow, abrasive to the ears.

I became incensed because it was somehow being construed that Gods love was not
so extensive, so far reaching, that it could reach even me, a mere sinner. How can
one put limits on Gods love? If he has not held back even his only begotten son
from persons who demonstrate no appreciation for the merits of that sacrifice, who
are we to state who is able to be a recipient of that love and who is not. Indeed i
am reminded of the words of Christ,

(Matthew 25:24) . . .‘Master, I knew you to be an exacting man, reaping where you
did not sow and gathering where you did not winnow.

what do these word's purport to mean other than, we should never assume that
Christ's love is so meagre, so exacting, that it cannot reach anyone.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
all these things are as Epi pointed out not really the matter at hand. If one is living
in union with Christ, as is claimed, if one is living in union with the Holy spirit, as is
claimed, if one has stripped off the old personality and put on the new, created
through accurate knowledge of the one who created it then it stands to reason that
ould never assume that
Christ's love is so meagre, so exacting, that it cannot reach anyone.

Your first paragraph I do not have the time to discuss right now.

Your second paragraph, I agree with. Of course the love of God reaches to the lowest hell and goes beyond the highest star. When I talk to you, usually, (maybe not always) I refraim from assuming too much.

There are Christian brothers who are caught in a cult. Now they might not consider themselves "caught". And this might infuriate you to hear this. Nonetheless, I never can assume that I know that a person has not received Christ already.

I only go on, or mostly, go on your words here. You puzzle over Jesus being as Thomas said "My Lord and my God".

You fight tooth and nail against realizing that the Holy Spirit is God.

Of course the love of God reaches to you. If it can reach to me it can reach to anyone else. But your words are in principle antichrist in some regards. That is unless over time since we first talked, you have had some change in your experience.

So, I agree that I have no right to say that the love of God has not reached you. But what is your response ? If you still recoil in revulsion at the thought of Jesus being "My Lord and my God", if you still are infuriated to hear that "The Word [Who was God] became flesh " then I am left with a questionmark.

"Why is this person denying that God was in Christ ?"

Your reply will probably be some complaints about a council and how wrong it was for it to have been under some political arrangements.

Anyway, my quoting Scripture to you is not to hit you over the head but more to FEED your spirit, FEED your faith, NOURISH your innerman to awaken to light. And "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself ..." ( 2 Cor. 5:19a)

But the word of God is said to be also a SWORD as well as BREAD. It has more than one function. I wish you would be fed by the BREAD of the word of life.

Yes, the love of God reaches to me and to you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
all these things are as Epi pointed out not really the matter at hand. If one is living
in union with Christ, as is claimed, if one is living in union with the Holy spirit, as is
claimed, if one has stripped off the old personality and put on the new, created
through accurate knowledge of the one who created it then it stands to reason that
ould never assume that
Christ's love is so meagre, so exacting, that it cannot reach anyone.

what do these word's purport to mean other than, we should never assume that Christ's love is so meagre, so exacting, that it cannot reach anyone.

What did I write saying that Christ's love is meager ?

That God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself is testimony of the great love of the Triune God. And if that bothers you, it is great testimony that Jehovah loved to the uttermost.

That is that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (See 2 Cor. 5:19).

Originally posted by jaywill
Your first paragraph I do not have the time to discuss right now.

Your second paragraph, I agree with. Of course the love of God reaches to the lowest hell and goes beyond the highest star. When I talk to you, usually, (maybe not always) I refraim from assuming too much.

There are Christian brothers who are caught in a cult. Now they might not co y the BREAD of the word of life.

Yes, the love of God reaches to me and to you.

I am prepared to state as I have consistently done that religious bias exists. Its
easy to site scriptures which support our point of view and ignore those that present
difficulties but i have never questioned anyone sincerity of belief. I do not profess
the things that you do, but i have always stated that i really think you sincerely
believe them, have i not? irrespective of whether i myself think they are valid. From
your perspective i understand that it really means something special to you that
Christ is God, but it also means something special to us that we worship the Father
exclusively. To you they are the same entity, to us they are different. These are
fundamental doctrinal differences that are irreconcilable, so what are we to do?
shall I be termed anti-christ because i do not accept the tenets of your faith, shall
you be termed an idolater because you elevate Christ to the position of the father?
what does the apostle say?

(Romans 14:4) . . .Who are you to judge the house servant of another? To his own
master he stands or falls.. . .

It appears to me that the only solution therefore is to accept that others have
doctrinal differences and try to pursue what things in common there is, the love of
God, the example of the Christ, the teachings of the Christ, how we can imitate him
to be more loving and tolerant Christians. All else leads to contention and I am tired
of it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ah. The quiet voice of wisdom speaks. I agree entirely.


However , I do not feel for me at least that this is about vanity. The point you make is that it's about the emphasis we place on certain things. I feel it's quite clear in the NT that there is a lot of emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer and that what the NT describes is ...[text shortened]... on board what I and others are saying.

This makes meaningful debate virtually impossible.

I feel it's quite clear in the NT that there is a lot of emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer and that what the NT describes is this extra spiritual dimension that takes it away from OT legalism.

As an aside, I don't see much legalism in either the Old or New Testaments. Where you do find it, it is portrayed negatively (e.g., the scribes and Pharisees who opposed Christ's teaching), not as representative of Judaism (which, apart from the oral Torah, finds its basis in the majority of what Christians call the Old Testament).

I think it is also pertinent to note that Judaism has never adopted the notion of "right belief" - that is, it is not necessary to believe a precise formula of doctrinal stipulations in order to acquire salvation within Judaism. God has always dealt with His people based on how they live their lives, whether righteous or no, quite apart from a specific profession of faith. That said, neither is a Jew's salvation independent of faith or dependent on orthopraxy.

The Christian obsession with right belief emerged with Rome's adoption of Christianity as its official state religion when it was important for the ruling class to delineate precisely what would be deemed "un-Roman" and heretical (and therefore illegal) belief. The God of the Old Testament, in contrast, demonstrated a willingness to show favor to non-Jews based on their righteous deeds alone. Can you name an instance of forced conversion in the OT based on "right belief"?

The NT doesn't introduce a new way of gaining salvation. It has always been a matter of faith expressing itself through works. The Holy Spirit has always been close by. After all, God is the God of all people, Jew or Gentile. What is new is the full revelation of God the Father in and through Christ Jesus. This revelation was meant for the Jews first (as it was promised), but happily God saw it fit to use Christ as a means of bringing Gentiles into His kingdom as well.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am prepared to state as I have consistently done that religious bias exists. Its
easy to site scriptures which support our point of view and ignore those that present
difficulties but i have never questioned anyone sincerity of belief. I do not profess
the things that you do, but i have always stated that i really think you sincerely
beli ...[text shortened]...
to be more loving and tolerant Christians. All else leads to contention and I am tired
of it.

In light of your eloquent explanation on judging and tolerance do you feel that the Apostle John had it wrong to say this ?

"Eveyone who goes beyond and does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not say to him, Rejoice! For he who says to him, Rejoice, shares in his evil works." (2 John 9-11)

Do you think, in principle, the Apostle John could have learned a thing or two from you on tolerance to enlarge him, correct him, adjust him to embrace as co-workers those not abiding in the teaching of Christ ?

Originally posted by Rajk999
Did Christ say to do good works and you will get eternal life? YES.
Did he give a figure ? NO

Why are you asking me such foolish questions?

I think it is good works that Jesus is talking about after you are saved. Good works are pointless if you are not born again.

Originally posted by RBHILL
I think it is good works that Jesus is talking about after you are saved. Good works are pointless if you are not born again.

You think?

Originally posted by Rajk999
You think?

He absolutely believes that. He used to be anoher RJH before the everybody eventually convinced him that trolling was not the way to witness to the masses.

Originally posted by jaywill
]In light of your eloquent explanation on judging and tolerance do you feel that the Apostle John had it wrong to say this ?
Eveyone who goes beyond and does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not rece him, adjust him to embrace as co-workers thosnot abiding in the teaching of Christ ?

It is always dangerous to take a text in isolation, never the less I readily admit that
its an exhortation against mixing in company with those who are spreading false
doctrine (going beyond) and seems to me to have a broader application for the
apostle mentions 'works', therefore it would seem it is also with reference to those
who through a sinful course may be bringing reproach upon the reputation of the
congregation and by extension the Christ and God.

what is the teaching of the Christ? The apostle states that its to love, does he not?
(v5) In what way did the Christ love? through self sacrifice and putting the
interests of others ahead of himself. The apostle mentions those that deny Christ
came in the flesh? is that you and I, I dont think so.

so what does it mean within the context of an internet discussion, that we should
refrain from discussing anything with those who do not share the same faith as us?
How can that be? Did not the apostle become all things to all men that he might
win some, without compromising his own faith? Did he not commend the Athenians
for their Godly devotion despite their idolatry?

(Acts 17:22) . . .“Men of Athens, I behold that in all things you seem to be more
given to the fear of the deities . . .

so what can we say? sure it is wise to avoid apostasy and certainly it will do our
faith no good if we are exposed to false doctrine and indeed the counsel is to quit
mixing with those who are greedy persons, idolaters, drunkards etc, however it
appears to me that in the context of an internet discussion, such need not be a
compromise of our own faith nor a call to share in wicked works, nor even a call for
fellowship, its simply that some things are irreconcilable yet there may be common
ground, despite the fact.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Did Christ say to do good works and you will get eternal life? YES.
Did he give a figure ? NO

Why are you asking me such foolish questions?

It's not a foolish question at all. If Jesus meant that we were to compile good works so that he could judge us on them then I think I should know what the criteria are and he should have said.

If my very salvation depends upon hitting a certain target of some sort then I think I'm pretty darn entitled to know what's expected of me in order to get eternal life don't you think? It would be nice to have some assurance on this otherwise I might do 20 years of good works and then think I was Ok , only to find out I was wrong!

The point I am making of course is that under your system there can be no assurance of salvation because we never know if we have done enough. How can one love God with all our hearts when we don't know if he will throw us into the pit or not? It's preposterous!

I simply can't love a God like that! The Bible says we are to have assurance of faith and assure our hearts before the Lord. I can love a God like that. I can't love your God.

...and of course , Jesus' greatest commandment was............?


So do you love your God with "all your heart and mind and soul" ? If so how? It sounds like there is still some doubt you might "get" eternal life?

And please don't say this is an irrelevant question - because it was Jesus' greatest commandment.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The Bible says we are to have assurance of faith and assure our hearts before the Lord. ..

Is this the verse you are quoting ..
1 John 3:19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.

You can love a God like that? Can you? OK ! Read the entire passage. Always read the whole passage before putting your foot in your mouth.

THE PASSAGE IS ABOUT GOOD WORKS. You are assured of eternal life IF, IF you do good works. And ALL other passages with similar statements about assurance are about being assured IF AND ONLY IF you do Good WORKS.

IF YOU DO GOOD WORKS, THEN CHRIST IS IN YOU AND YOU IN CHRIST.

Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. (1 John 3:16-24)

Let me explain it to you in simple English, like you were a 5 yr old ..

1. Christ died for us and we are to do the same to others. That does not mean we are to go get crucified but rather to give of our time and resources to them.

2. If we have worldly goods and we do not share with less fortunate, then we do not have compassion and we do not have the love of God in us.

3. We must love in deeds [WORKS] not with our mouth.

4. Any by loving others through our WORKS, THEN we know that we are of the TRUTH and we assure our hearts before God.

5. However if do not love others by your actions then your conscience with not be clear. God knows all things.

6. If we love others through our deeds then God will give us what we ask for because we keep Christ's commandments.

7. Christ dwells in only those who keep his commandments and whoever keeps Christ commandments dwells in Christ.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It is always dangerous to take a text in isolation, never the less I readily admit that
its an exhortation against mixing in company with those who are spreading false
doctrine (going beyond) and seems to me to have a broader application for the
apostle mentions 'works', therefore it would seem it is also with reference to those
who through a ...[text shortened]... simply that some things are irreconcilable yet there may be common
ground, despite the fact.

hello Jaywill, have you nothing to say?