Originally posted by FMF But he has told me and you and everyone what he believes and has done so explicitly. And it is very different from what you believe. Why are you not confronting him about it and instead using me as a proxy through which to disagree with him?
Oh please, stop trying to shift this to him. I'm taking umbrage with what you said. At this point what he said is a side issue.
I realize misdirection is your trademark, but I'm not having any of it today.
Why don't you "confront him with it", if it is such a big deal to you?
Originally posted by FMF Yes I saw it and have responded. The question remains unanswered though: is Grampy Bobby wrong in his interpretation of this matter?
Oh, so that's the new question, is it? What happened to the original question? Too boring, even for you, now?
Edit: Clearly, I'm not going to "confront" him, like a schoolyard bully, over something YOU perceive he said. I'm not quite as eager to "demand an answer" to something someone else thought he said as you are.
Originally posted by Suzianne Why don't you "confront him with it", if it is such a big deal to you?
I do all the time. Why are you trying to brush off such a massive doctrinal disagreement between you and him by trying to make it about me and pretending it is a "side issue"? It surely strikes to the very heart of what the OP poster himself has posted and his OP?
Originally posted by FMF I do all the time. Why are you trying to brush off such a massive doctrinal disagreement between you and him by trying to make it about me and pretending it is a "side issue"? It surely strikes to the very heart of what the OP poster himself has posted and his OP?
No, that's not happening. Take the wedge you're trying to shove between us and "shove it". A "massive doctrinal disagreement"? So you say. I'm not as clear on what he actually said as you seem to be. I'll wait for him to tell it himself, if you don't mind.
So, more misdirection. Good job. Do you really think no one's noticed?
Originally posted by Suzianne Clearly, I'm not going to "confront" him, like a schoolyard bully, over something YOU perceive he said. I'm not quite as eager to "demand an answer" to something someone else thought he said as you are.
It's not something I "perceived" he said. Grampy Bobby was talking to me and responding to me describing how I came to renounce my faith, and he said:
"Salvation is executed by God the Holy Spirit at the moment of faith in Christ. Some believers grow in grace out of infancy to maturity; others lose their way with confused daily priorities. None lose their salvation. Why? Because it didn't depend on them in the first place. They accepted a gift. Christ's work of propitiation on the cross and spiritual birth are permanent."
That's not my perception of what I said, that's what he said verbatim.
No, that's not happening. Take the wedge you're trying to shove between us and "shove it". A "massive doctrinal disagreement"? So you say.
Who gets "salvation" and who does not according tom Christian doctrine is surely a massive aspect, no? One says that I ~ someone who has renounced my former belief in Christ ~ is saved and that this "salvation" is permanent; the other says that I am not saved. A massive doctrinal disagreement, surely?
I'm not as clear on what he actually said as you seem to be. I'll wait for him to tell it himself, if you don't mind.
He has been explicit, here on this thread a page or two ago. What he claims is a flat contradiction of what you claim.
Originally posted by FMF It's not something I "perceived" he said. Grampy Bobby was talking to me and responding to me describing how I came to renounce my faith, and he said:
[b]"Salvation is executed by God the Holy Spirit at the moment of faith in Christ. Some believers grow in grace out of infancy to maturity; others lose their way with confused daily priorities. None lose their ...[text shortened]... th are permanent."
That's not my perception of what I said, that's what he said verbatim.[/b]
Surely that's not all he said. Nothing there says one cannot lose their salvation if they renounce Christ as their Savior. Man, you are really focused on driving this nail into him, aren't you?
I guess the entire conversation that drew me into this is now irrelevant to you, just because you sense some "blood in the water". Sorry, I'm not participating in your witch hunt.
If you're done with the conversation that brought me here, then so am I.
Originally posted by Suzianne Surely that's not all he said. Nothing there says one cannot lose their salvation if they renounce Christ as their Savior. Man, you are really focused on driving this nail into him, aren't you?
FMF: "What about if you lost your faith? I came to a realization that I don't think the Bible is credible and did not accept the claims made about Jesus by Christians and therefore stopped being one."
Grampy Bobby: "Salvation is executed by God the Holy Spirit at the moment of faith in Christ. Some believers grow in grace out of infancy to maturity; others lose their way with confused daily priorities. None lose their salvation. Why? Because it didn't depend on them in the first place. They accepted a gift. Christ's work of propitiation on the cross and spiritual birth are permanent."
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby Originally posted by divegeester "Why does everything have to be so black and white, life or death, in or out absolute?"
If you're a believer in Christ, why the hell not? God Himself thinks in absolute terms: yes or no; family or separated forever.
So you agree with Suzianne's statement:
This "lying to save one's life" business is unadulterated BS. If you deny Christ with your mouth, you are renouncing Jesus. Period.
Which was in reply to FMF's examination of the premise that there may be extreme "gun to the head" situations where someone would deny their religion to save a loved one, for example.
You think Suzianne is right to say that this is real denial and therefore should be dealt with accordingly?
Originally posted by Suzianne Sorry you don't like it.
It comes with faith.
I find it beyond "too bad" that what people say and the witness they give or do not give means "nothing" to people these days.
I don't believe you and I don't believe Grampy bobby.
Grampy bobby would not "rather die" than misinterpret a piece of scripture, and you would fake denial of Christ to save the life of your nearest and dearest.
I simply don't believe either of you; and in saying so I'm paying you a back-handed compliment, although you'll probably not see it that way.
Things You'd Rather Die Than Do
15 Oct '14 23:39
Back to Top