The Doctrine of Christ

.. the way I have interpreted it [ie exactly as Jesus himself said it .. if my interpretation is incorrect please advise]

.. has been described by the Christian community here as being:

- unworkable [Divegeester]
- a burdensome doctrine [Sonship]
- irrelevant and not applicable [Checkbaiter]
- there is no requirement to follow Christ [Josephw]
[just to name a few .. there are more]

Im paraphrasing, so if you did not say that in those words [or if the meaning is incorrect] then my apologies, and please state the necessary correct wording. In any event the end result of these descriptions above is the same - the teachings of Christ are sidelined, voided and not applicable to the Christian of today or ar best is just optional and not a necessary part of Christian living. Or worse is that who support the doctrine of Christ or try to live the commandments of Christ can be subject to name-calling and riducule - 'someone trying to earn their salvation ha ha', 'look a works Christian ha ha'.

In order the advance their beliefs these Christians engage in the following :
- cherry pick Bible passages that suit their belief and ignore the very next few verses that would guide someone to proper interpretation.
- resort to personal questions about whether one sins or otherwise, with the hope that they can convince those in favour of the teachings of Jesus, that nobody can live as Christ commanded.
- advance many 'proofs' that Christ's words are outdated, the latest of which is by sonship's thread about the words of Christ AFTER resurrection implying that these contain no instructions about following commandments.

In the end the commandments of Jesus Christ is twisted to suit the lifestyle of the Christian, not the other way around like it should be

Comments welcome.

Originally posted by Rajk999
.. the way I have interpreted it [ie exactly as Jesus himself said it .. if my interpretation is incorrect please advise]

.. has been described by the Christian community here as being:

- unworkable [Divegeester]
- a burdensome doctrine [Sonship]
- irrelevant and not applicable [Checkbaiter]
- there is no requirement to follow Christ [Josephw ...[text shortened]... lifestyle of the Christian, not the other way around like it should be

Comments welcome.[/b]

I have not said "the doctrine of Christ" is unworkable. I have said that your interpretation of scripture is unworkable.

This is the second time I've called you out for misrepresenting me on this topic and another poster has also done so. You are now being deliberately dishonest which doesn't sit well for you considering you are counting on your works to save you.

Originally posted by divegeester
I have not said "the doctrine of Christ" is unworkable. I have said that your interpretation of scripture is unworkable.

This is the second time I've called you out for misrepresenting me on this topic and another poster has also done so. You are now being deliberately dishonest which doesn't sit well for you considering you are counting on your works to save you.

How of if Im saved is not your concern so forget that.

How is my interpretation of scripture unworkable?

Originally posted by Rajk999
How of if Im saved is not your concern so forget that.

How is my interpretation of scripture unworkable?

You seem quiet adept of telling others how they are saved, if you cannot handle someone
doing to you what you are doing to them maybe forums are not the best use of your time.

Originally posted by Rajk999
How of if Im saved is not your concern so forget that.

How is my interpretation of scripture unworkable?

You tend to put one scripture above another instead of seeing how they all work together.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You tend to put one scripture above another instead of seeing how they all work together.

Do you mind explaining?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You seem quiet adept of telling others how they are saved, if you cannot handle someone
doing to you what you are doing to them maybe forums are not the best use of your time.

I really do not understand your sentences. Maybe you need to carefully construct your words so that they make sense.

Originally posted by Rajk999
How of if Im saved is not your concern so forget that.

How is my interpretation of scripture unworkable?

I didn't mention how or if you are saved, I called you out for your dishonesty in misrepresenting me twice, and of which you still haven't had the integrity nor grace to apologise for.

So much for works!

Originally posted by divegeester
I didn't mention how or if you are saved, I called you out for your dishonesty in misrepresenting me twice, and of which you still haven't had the integrity nor grace to apologise for.

So much for works!

OK .. are you waiting for an apology?

Originally posted by divegeester
I have not said "the doctrine of Christ" is unworkable. I have said that your interpretation of scripture is unworkable.

This is the second time I've called you out for misrepresenting me on this topic and another poster has also done so. You are now being deliberately dishonest which doesn't sit well for you considering you are counting on your works to save you.

Let's piece together what rajk999 actually wrote:

The Doctrine of Christ.. the way I have interpreted it
.. has been described by the Christian community here as being:
- unworkable [Divegeester]

Seems to me that he DID speak of his interpretation of the Doctrine of Christ as being described as unworkable by you.

Not only that, he practically fell all over himself qualifying everything he wrote with things such as " if my interpretation is incorrect please advise", and "I'm paraphrasing, so if you did not say that in those words [or if the meaning is incorrect] then my apologies, and please state the necessary correct wording".

You pitched a hissy fit at this?

You seem to have become unhinged in your zeal to attack someone for daring to post things contrary to your dogma. Do you think you are being at all rational?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let's piece together what rajk999 actually wrote:

[b]The Doctrine of Christ.. the way I have interpreted it
.. has been described by the Christian community here as being:
- unworkable [Divegeester]

This is from STF

Seems to me that he DID speak of his interpretation of the Doctrine of Christ as being described as unworkable ...[text shortened]... ne for daring to post things contrary to your dogma. Do you think you are being at all rational?[/b]

What Christians here disagree with as far as Rajk is his arrogance in stating that OSAS means that it is ok to sin or a license to sin.
No one has said any such thing. God hates sin. We hate sin.
What I have said is that a Christians salvation is secure. It is a new nature, it is "seed", a new birth. In Romans Paul declares that the gifts and calling of Jesus Christ are irrevocable. In Ephesians God declares salvation is guaranteed.
God knew that with a sin nature we would be inclined to sin. That is why one way to "rub Satan's nose" in the victory is to assure his people that nothing could ever separate us from the love of God as declared in Romans.
Jesus said no one can snatch us out of his hand or grip. God bends over backwards through out the NT to assure Christians to be bold, because we are freed from Satan's grip.
Now I know what Jesus said about setting us free from sin. But it is not that we will never sin, it is that he has freed us from eternal damnation because of the power of sin.
We hate sin, period. Why? Because if we willingly sin, we are then coming under the slave master again. We will die, he (Satan) will destroy everything we love, but he cannot touch our spirit. That is why we will be saved no matter what.
That is why any sensible Christian will avoid sin and hate sinful things.
What Rajk does for his defense is makes it sound that we love to sin and still get saved.
He does not understand God's love nor Grace.
Works, following the commandments of Christ is a byproduct of being a new creation in Christ. That is why have newness of life.
Anyway, Rajk goes on his rant, but never explains the verses I mention pointing to salvation being guaranteed.
I have explained his favorite verse in Hebrews 4:6 but he just gives some childish excuse and goes back to his rant.
Here is the commentary on Hewbrews which I posted once before....

“and then have fallen away it is impossible to renew them again to repentance.” This verse reflects the permanence of salvation that is spoken of in so many other places in the Epistles [see Appendix 1: “The Permanence of Christian Salvation”]. This verse is not about losing salvation and not being able to regain it, although that is what many people think. If this verse were about losing one’s salvation, then we need to be clear about what it is saying, because it would be saying that if a saved person sins and loses his salvation, he cannot be forgiven and be saved again because that is “impossible.”
Could this one verse in Hebrews contradict all of the other verses in the Epistles that indicate the New Birth is permanent? A principle of interpretation is that the many clear verses on a subject outweigh what a contradictory verse seems to be saying. Also, can it really be true that the Bible says if a saved person sins and falls away from the faith it is “impossible” for him to get forgiveness and be saved again? Even in the Old Testament God implored the people of Israel to forsake evil and return to Him. Could it be that in the Old Testament a person could turn away from God but be accepted back with open arms if he would just ask God for forgiveness, but in the Christian Church if a person sins and falls away it is “impossible” for him to come back? That makes no sense.

Originally posted by Rajk999
I really do not understand your sentences. Maybe you need to carefully construct your words so that they make sense.

I doubt any thing that does not fit the world as you see it will ever make sense to you.

A study of the Scripture shows us that people who sinned were welcomed back into the Christian community. For example, in 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 the Apostle Paul asked the Church to welcome back a person who had sinned. In Galatians 6:1 people who sin are to be “restored.” The Church Epistles are filled with exhortations for Christians to stop sinning and obey God. The invitation of God always is for people to stop sinning and come back to Him. That fact in itself tells us there is a different way to understand Hebrews 6:6 than believing it is saying a saved person cannot repent after sinning.
We also see God’s forgiveness and restoration daily in our churches. Our churches have many people who were strong in the faith at one time, then leave the faith for a while, then repent of their sin and return to church and the Christian lifestyle. Is there anyone who will say that all those people, who are now valuable members of the church, are actually not saved because it was “impossible” to renew them to the faith once they left the faith? We hope not.
If this verse does not mean that it is “impossible” for someone who left the faith to be forgiven and return to God, then what does it mean? It means that it is “impossible” to renew a sinner to repentance because once a Christian repents and gets saved that salvation is permanent. It is “impossible” for the Christian to lose his salvation, so it is “impossible” for him to repent and get saved again. Every Christian can and does sin, but the sin, even egregious sin, does not cause a person to lose his salvation. Since the person’s salvation was never lost, the person cannot “renew” himself to “repentance.” Everyone can only repent and be saved one time. After that, when we sin, we can repent of our sin and be forgiven, but we do not get saved again because we never lost our salvation. Salvation is by the New Birth, and it is permanent.
What happens when a Christian sins and asks for forgiveness is clear from 1 John 1:8, 9: “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” These verses in 1 John assume that Christians will sin. In fact, 1 John 1:8 says that if we think we do not sin, we are deceiving ourselves. However, neither 1 John nor any other book of the New Testament has a warning such as, “Be careful! We all sin, but if you sin so horribly you fall away, you will not be able to be saved again.” No! Instead are the comforting words that if we confess our sin, God will cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Scholars who have studied this section of Scripture do not know why God addressed the permanence of our salvation by telling us it was impossible to be renewed to repentance. However, there are a couple possibilities we should consider. One is that there are many other places God plainly indicates that it is impossible to lose salvation. He calls it “birth,” and birth is permanent. He says our salvation is “guaranteed” (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:14). Furthermore, He says we are already in heaven (Eph. 2:6). Saying it is impossible to renew our repentance would be just one more way that God would tell us that our salvation is permanent.
It is also possible that given the prevailing Jewish mindset of salvation by works, the idea of a permanent salvation was very upsetting to those determined to cling to their Jewish heritage. Thus Hebrews, rather than saying anything about someone losing his salvation, states the message in the opposite terms of it being impossible to repent again. If it were possible to renew oneself to repentance, then that would be saying that the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ was not sufficient to cover a person’s sins once and for all, which is not the case. The one time sacrifice of Christ, and his substitution for the sinner, made that sinner righteous for all time, not just until he sinned the next time.
There is another good reason to believe that Hebrews 6:6 is about the permanence of salvation and not about a person falling away and then it being “impossible” for him to get saved again. There is no instruction in the New Testament about exactly what a Christian would have to do to fall away so completely that it would then be impossible for him to be saved again. Everyone sins, and the Word of the Lord is that to be forgiven we just confess our sin to God. If there was a sin that was so horrible that it made regaining salvation “impossible,” it surely seems that our loving Father would let us know what that was. Our earthly fathers sternly warn us about dangers, and so it certainly seems that if there was a sin from which we could not repent, our Heavenly Father would certainly warn us of it. But there is no such warning. Nowhere is the Church Epistles is a warning saying, “Do not do such and such, because if you do it will be impossible for you to regain your salvation.” That fact alone is very good evidence that this verse is not about a person losing his salvation and not being able to regain it. There is the verse about not being forgiven for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but this verse in Hebrews does not seem to be about that specific sin. Furthermore, Hebrews is written to people in the Grace Administration, when salvation is permanent, whereas Jesus was talking to people who lived before the Grace Administration started (see commentary on Ephesians 3:2).
Having given good evidence that this verse is about the permanence of salvation, there is one more thing that we have to consider as to why God has worded this verse the way He did, which seems very harsh, and that has to do with the overall context of this section. The whole section is written in a harsh way, with serious warnings for people to be faithful. For example, verses seven and eight speak of land that is blessed if it bears good fruit, but cursed if it does not. Orthodox Christian doctrine about heaven and hell has done a great disservice to Christians in that it has not given clear reasons to excel as a Christian. Many preachers teach about heaven as if “just getting in” is what matters. While it is true that there is no greater blessing anyone can have than having everlasting life, there is a lot more to consider. For one thing, we will not spend eternity in “heaven,” but on earth, and we will be subjects in the Kingdom of Christ on earth [see Appendix 3: “Christ’s Future Kingdom on Earth”]. Our “jobs” in the Kingdom will be assigned in relation to how we have lived our life on earth. If we have not been faithful, we will be there, but as Corinthians says, with nothing, just as someone who has survived a fire (cp. 1 Cor. 3:15; see commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:10). It is quite possible that a person living in the Kingdom with nothing, as if he had barely escaped a fire, is much worse than Christians generally imagine.

from STF

Originally posted by checkbaiter
What Christians here disagree with as far as Rajk is his arrogance in stating that OSAS means that it is ok to sin or a license to sin.
No one has said any such thing. God hates sin. We hate sin.
What I have said is that a Christians salvation is secure. It is a new nature, it is "seed", a new birth. In Romans Paul declares that the gifts and calling o ...[text shortened]... person sins and falls away it is “impossible” for him to come back? That makes no sense.[/quote]

Not that I won't respond to what you've written here, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the point of my post.

So before I respond to your post, can you address the content of my post? Do you think that DG is being at all reasonable with his multi-post tirade against rajk999's OP? Do you think that, if anything, DG owes rajk999 an apology.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Not that I won't respond to what you've written here, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the point of my post.

So before I respond to your post, can you address the content of my post? Do you think that DG is being at all reasonable with his multi-post tirade against rajk999's OP? Do you think that, if anything, DG owes rajk999 an apology.

My opine on that is irrelevant. It would not help one way or the other. But I don't see how DG is wrong saying Rajk's interpretation is unworkable because it contradicts all of the scripture I just mentioned.