- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
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? 🙄
The mysterious chap had saved 'everyone' from the debt they had amassed but his actions didn't protect the town folk from acquiring future debt. The wise would recognize the great sacrifice made in their name and live a life free of debt, while the unwise would fall back to their old ways and acquire new debt that this time would result in their ultimate destruction.
22 Jun 18
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.
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 @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]
mysterious chap arrives in town and inexplicably tells them they are all
in debt. Thanks to a loan from his dad, he says he will take on their debt
plus interest providing they and their children thank him for eternity.
THE END
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? 🙄
In almost every one of Pauls writings to the churches he explains two basic things:
1. The death of Christ and how it saved them from their sins and brought them into a new life in Christ.
2. The road to the Kingdom of God is a process of moving from this life of sin to a life of righteousness with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The professed believer makes this transition and if successful it will culminate in entry into the Kingdom of God.
There are several outcomes and these outcomes are all identified clearly in the Bible
- some have no problem and move flawlessly toward righteousness
- some struggle but still make it
- some do not make it and are drawn back into a life of sin
Jesus will judge.
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.
22 Jun 18
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.
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
I am saying that if Christians are given everything:
- Holy Spirit
- made partakers of the world to come
And they fall away {not just sin as you say] BUT FALL AWAY.
Then there is no coming back. They are fit to be destroyed like worthless bush.
But I know your doctrine .. All Christians do good works and no Christians can fall away
22 Jun 18
And another from Rajk's gospel
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Its not in the Bible. Sinning wilfully means that you are trampling underfoot Gods grace. God destroyed people for lesser offences.
Take note.
22 Jun 18
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
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 @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.
Google says 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 in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.
You can define Christians anyhow you like and that is your prerogative but that excludes you from national discussion.
22 Jun 18
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.
Are you capable of being a decent human being?