22 Jun '18 06:38>
So Rajk says the death of Jesus saved everyone but not everyone that is saved will enter the Kimgdom of Heaven. Those that don’t enter the Kingdom of Heaven are damned. Which means some that are saved will be damned? 🙄
Originally posted by @dj2beckerImagine a town where everyone (as a result of loose living) had acquired massive debt on their credit cards, debt that they were unable to repay on their own. Then one day a mysterious chap arrives in town and inexplicably transfers the debt of every resident on to his own credit card. All their debts had become his own and every person in the town was suddenly free of debt.
So Rajk says the death of Jesus saved everyone but not everyone that is saved will enter the Kimgdom of Heaven. Those that don’t enter the Kingdom of Heaven are damned. Which means some that are saved will be damned? 🙄
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeImagine He was willing to pay for all debt and told everyone He was, but they had to come
Imagine a town where everyone (as a result of loose living) had acquired massive debt on their credit cards, debt that they were unable to repay on their own. Then one day a mysterious chap arrives in town and inexplicably transfers the debt of every resident on to his own credit card. All their debts had become his own and every person in the town ...[text shortened]... o their old ways and acquire new debt that this time would result in their ultimate destruction.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerGive the man some slack, he is trying to start his own religion.
So Rajk says the death of Jesus saved everyone but not everyone that is saved will enter the Kimgdom of Heaven. Those that don’t enter the Kingdom of Heaven are damned. Which means some that are saved will be damned? 🙄
Originally posted by @kellyjayGosh.
Imagine He was willing to pay for all debt and told everyone He was, but they had to come
ask him to take the debt acknowledging it was their debt. Those that held on to their debt
kept it, and only those that went to man received the forgiveness of their debt.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeImagine a town where nobody has acquired any debt. Then one day a
[b]Imagine a town...[b]
Originally posted by @fmfNow imagine find that your perfectly plausible earthly analogy to Christianity, has troublesome implications.
Gosh.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerPaul explained that. You refuse to read what Paul said and now instead of trying to understand the truth as it is written in the Bible you are focusing on me. It is not about me. The Bible is saying certain things and you people are ignoring the Bible and believing instead the church doctrine
So Rajk says the death of Jesus saved everyone but not everyone that is saved will enter the Kimgdom of Heaven. Those that don’t enter the Kingdom of Heaven are damned. Which means some that are saved will be damned? 🙄
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeActually an excellent analogy.
Imagine a town where everyone (as a result of loose living) had acquired massive debt on their credit cards, debt that they were unable to repay on their own. Then one day a mysterious chap arrives in town and inexplicably transfers the debt of every resident on to his own credit card. All their debts had become his own and every person in the town ...[text shortened]... o their old ways and acquire new debt that this time would result in their ultimate destruction.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeThat is an excellent analogy for Rajk's gospel. But the bible tells us that even though we are saved, we are still sinners and will go on sinning. Not carelessly, like before. But we will stumble, and with regenerated hearts and renewed minds we recognize it and repent for it, as the bible tells us to do. Absolutely no one on Earth--using your analogy--avoids incurring more debt.
Imagine a town where everyone (as a result of loose living) had acquired massive debt on their credit cards, debt that they were unable to repay on their own. Then one day a mysterious chap arrives in town and inexplicably transfers the debt of every resident on to his own credit card. All their debts had become his own and every person in the town ...[text shortened]... o their old ways and acquire new debt that this time would result in their ultimate destruction.
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyHere is a quote for Rajks gospel. Unfortunately its not in the Bible.
That is an excellent analogy for Rajk's gospel. But the bible tells us that even though we are saved, we are still sinners and will go on sinning. Not carelessly, like before. But we will stumble, and with regenerated hearts and renewed minds we recognize it and repent for it, as the bible tells us to do. Absolutely no one on Earth--using your analogy--avoids incurring more debt.
Originally posted by @rajk999True, using my definition of Christians. Using your definition of Christians, many were never saved to begin with.
But I know your doctrine .. All Christians do good works and no Christians can fall away
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyWhat you are doing is called the no true Scotsman fallacy.. It is a deceptive way to change definitions mid-argument so that your conclusions conform to the new definition.
True, using my definition of Christians. Using your definition of Christians, many were never saved to begin with.
And again, for the record, both your and my definition of Christian are legitimate. And I think that contributes to a communication / lost in translation thing we are experiencing.
Originally posted by @rajk999So I amicably concede that your perspective is correct, using your definition of a word that has multiple definitions... and you turn it around and accuse me of dishonesty.
What you are doing is called the no true Scotsman fallacy.. It is a deceptive way to change definitions mid-argument so that your conclusions conform to the new definition.
Google says [i]No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition ...[text shortened]... ans anyhow you like and that is your prerogative but that excludes you from national discussion.