The Doctrine of Election

Originally posted by vivify
"As soon as you fail to adhere" to those teachings, you're "no longer a Christian"? You do realize that's contrary to what the bible says, right? So if a Christian man lusts after another man's wife, and is killed in a car accident soon after, he'll go to hell because he was "no longer a christian" during that moment of weakness?

The bible is full of ...[text shortened]... ey fail at being Christians (the Prodigal Son is a famous example), so obviously, you're wrong.

No you are confusing whether deliberately or not I cannot say voluntarily acting against the teachings and principles of Jesus by a deliberate and willful act and by involuntarily sinning due to imperfection and being prone to aberration, they are not one and the same thing and No I am not wrong, in fact its you because you assume too much who are making erroneous assertions. That a person may be established to a restorative position is only possible on the basis of adhering to the principles that they abandoned so rather than negating my argument it actually verifies it and i thank you for it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No you are confusing whether deliberately or not I cannot say voluntarily acting against the teachings and principles of Jesus by a deliberate and willful act and by involuntarily sinning due to imperfection and being prone to aberration, they are not one and the same thing and No I am not wrong, in fact its you because you assume too much who are ma ...[text shortened]... ey abandoned so rather than negating my argument it actually verifies it and i thank you for it.

So David was no longer a believer in God when he killed a man after sleeping with that man's wife? Was Peter no longer a believer after he denied known Jesus three times? Was Paul no longer a believer in God when he persecuted and murdered Christians?

These are all willful acts that didn't keep these men from being regarded as great biblical figures. They also prove you wrong.

Originally posted by vivify
So David was no longer a believer in Good when he killed a man after sleeping with his wife? Was Peter no longer a believer after he denied known Jesus three times? Was Paul no longer a believer in God when he persecuted and murdered Christians?

These are all willful acts that didn't keep these men from being regarded as great biblical figures. They also prove you wrong.

You seem to be making being a believer and a Christian synonymous, they are not one and the same thing, this is the second time i have said so. Paul was not a Christian when he persecuted Christians, he was a pharisee not a Christian and only became a Christian when he stooped persecuting others, Peter denied Christ because of fear of man and the situation that he found himself in, this was not a deliberate self willed act but bowing to external pressure, later he would become a stalwart and David should have died but because of his repentance he was spared death but not the consequences of his actions. During the time of his adultery and his attempts to cover it up he was no longer living in harmony with Biblical principles, but he was never a Christian and was only restored after he had stopped behaving in a manner contrary to scripture so once again your failure to distinguish between what we are talking about, in this case 'true' Christians and the broad term believers is leading you to make assumptions, so just to get it straight we are talking of true or non true Christians, believers being a generic term for just about anything plausible.

No one is denying they are Biblical figures but then again so are many other negative figures in the Bible so i am not entirely sure why you have used it as some kind of straw man argument, but if its the best you can do then its the best you can do.

I repeat for the third time, i don't know if your reading comprehension is such or the language is verbose, we are talking of Christians, not believers, Muslims are believers and your insistence on using the term believers is nonsensical when discussing true Christians.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You seem to be making being a believer and a Christian synonymous, they are not one and the same thing, this is the second time i have said so. Paul was not a Christian when he persecuted Christians, he was a pharisee not a Christian, Peter denied Christ because of fear of man and the situation that he found himself in, this was not a deliberate sel ...[text shortened]... f true or non true Christians, believers being a generic term for just about anything plausible.

But the tenants of Christianity still existed ( love you neighbor as yourself, do not commit murder, etc.). You're only splitting hairs right now, to ignore the larger point of people failing to meet the requirements of the god of the bible, yet were still considered to be "true" followers of the biblical god. Saying these men ( David, Solomon, etc.), were not "true followers" of the biblical god, is as fallacious as Suzianne's "no true Christian" argument that started this side discussion.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
. That a person may be established to a restorative position is only possible on the basis of adhering to the principles that they abandoned so rather than negating my argument it actually verifies it and i thank you for it.

Also wrong. The bible makes it clear that it's not by works or "keeping the law" (adhering to principles) that a person attains God's forgiveness. It's a matter of the heart, not rules. Proof of this is in the parable of the Prodigal Son: a man who's riotous living was the exact opposite of what the bible calls "righteousness", yet gained forgiveness when he returned with a humble and repentant heart.

Your number of fallacies keeps rising.

Originally posted by vivify
Also wrong. The bible makes it clear that it's not by works or "keeping the law" (adhering to principles) that a person attains God's forgiveness. It's a matter of the heart, not rules. Proof of this is in the parable of the Prodigal Son: a man who's riotous living was the exact opposite of what the bible calls "righteousness", yet gained forgiveness when he returned with a humble and repentant heart.

Your number of fallacies keeps rising.

also based upon an erroneous assuption and a failure to distinguish between Christianity and the mosaic law which is no longer binding in practice upon Christians. The Law was never a matter of the heart and was given with the purpose of making sins manifest, in fact the Bible states that the heart is treacherous and cannot be trusted.

No one is claiming that the prodigal son did not attain forgiveness, but in order to do so he had to change his mode and manner of living and bring his life into harmony with what was acceptable for he could no longer live a riotous life with harlots.

I have not produced a single fallacy and count it as a battle against ignorance, yours mostly.

Originally posted by vivify
But the tenants of Christianity still existed ( love you neighbor as yourself, do not commit murder, etc.). You're only splitting hairs right now, to ignore the larger point of people failing to meet the requirements of the god of the bible, yet were still considered to be "true" followers of the biblical god. Saying these men ( David, Solomon, etc.), we ...[text shortened]... , is as fallacious as Suzianne's "no true Christian" argument that started this side discussion.

as i have stated you FAIL to make a distinction between willful sinning and those committed due to aberration and as a consequence you will continue to fail until you do. You cannot be a Christian and flaunt the very tenets which you profess continuously. In fact you have no more Christian identity in doing so than a non believer.

I have not said they are not true followers what I have actually said, that it what was meant by the words I actually typed was they were never Christians and seeing that we are discussing 'true', Christians it makes your inclusion of them highly suspect, after all, if you are discussing true Hindus would you refer to Muslims?