Originally posted by @rajk999You’re contradicting yourself in this very post.
Can you point out where I said that a Christian cannot sin? I said that a Christian after accepting Christ must strive toward a life of good works and righteousness. As a Christian matures the tendency to sin in gradually reduced.
As ToO pointed out Christ is clear on that doctrine ... that a follower who continues with sin cannot abide in his fathers h ...[text shortened]... hat a Christian can continue to sin and still get eternal life. The Bible condemns that doctrine
On the one hand you say this:
“I said that a Christian after accepting Christ must strive toward a life of good works and righteousness. As a Christian matures the tendency to sin in gradually reduced.”
And then you say this:
“...a follower who continues with sin cannot abide in his fathers house. Its plain and it is clear. It cannot be refuted. Paul and all the Apostles repeated this warning to Christian Saints.
Your doctrine is that a Christian can continue to sin and still get eternal life. The Bible condemns that doctrine[/b]“
Do you see a contradiction between those two excerpted passages from your post? Or am I not understanding you?
Originally posted by @romans1009No contradiction. Take your time and read it over.
You’re contradicting yourself in this very post.
On the one hand you say this:
“I said that a Christian after accepting Christ must strive toward a life of good works and righteousness. As a Christian matures the tendency to sin in gradually reduced.”
And then you say this:
“...a follower who continues with sin cannot abide in his fathers hou ...[text shortened]... ontradiction between those two excerpted passages from your post? Or am I not understanding you?
Originally posted by @romans1009The claims weren't false.
When in Rome...
Did the repeated false claims that I’m Becker constitute substance?
The only way you could be any 'more becker' would be to have it tattooed on your forehead.
It never ceases to amaze me how many subjects started here eventually gravitate back to a debate about the basics.
It has happened among Christians and Bible students hundreds of times. Whatever the subject matter - eventually it morphs into an argument -
Who is saved and who is not?
Who is saved and who is not?
It is baffling how many themes of spiritual discussion quickly gravitate to one more argument about the assurance of eternal salvation.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeMore bearing of false witness.
The claims weren't false.
The only way you could be any 'more becker' would be to have it tattooed on your forehead.
At least you don’t claim to be a Christian.
Originally posted by @sonshipWhats baffling is your statement:
It never ceases to amaze me how many subjects started here eventually gravitate back to a debate about the basics.
It has happened among Christians and Bible students hundreds of times. Whatever the subject matter - eventually it morphs into an argument -
Who is saved and who is not?
Who is saved and who is not?
It is baffling how many themes of ...[text shortened]... tual discussion quickly gravitate to one more argument about the assurance of eternal salvation.
' Without Christ in resurrection, i don't care what you say, you have NO teaching from Jesus, period.'
Basically, you're saying the teachings of Jesus (while he walked the Earth) are meaningless and don't deliver any significant lesson to the non-believer.
Originally posted by @romans1009But you do, which makes you're prolonged deception spiritually damaging, whether you realize it or not.
More bearing of false witness.
At least you don’t claim to be a Christian.
I recommend you take this opportunity to be honest and humble.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeTroll on, my friend!
But you do, which makes you're prolonged deception spiritually damaging, whether you realize it or not.
I recommend you take this opportunity to be honest and humble.
1 edit
Topic: Abiding in the Lord - outcome "But you're not saved unless ...".
Topic: Grace - outcome - "But you're not saved unless ..."
Topic: the Law - outcome - "But you're not saved unless ...".
Topic: the trinity - outcome - "But you're not saved unless ..."
Topic: Christian's politics for crying out loud - outcome - "Yea but you're not saved unless ..."
Topic: God - outcome - "Argue with me about who is and who is not saved."
Topic: the Kingdom - outcome - "Yea, but who is saved and who is not?"
Topic: Churches - outcome - "Who is saved and who is not saved?"
Topic: Christian Knitting - outcome - "Who is saved and who is not ?"
Topic: Unitarianism - outcome - " Who has the assurance that they are saved?"
Topic: Church History - outcome - "Yea, but who is saved and who is not saved?"
Topic: Speaking in tongues - outcome - 'Saved yet or not saved yet??"
topic: God's purposes - outcome - "But who has the assurance of salvation ? Who's saved and who's not?"
Milk, milk, milk - chocolate milk, powdered milk, nonfat milk, fat free milk, pasteurized milk, warm milk, cold milk. it is hard to get beyond the basics.
"Therefore leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us be brought on to maturity, not laying again the foundation ..." (Heb. 6a)
Maybe its me. Seems hard to move any Spiritual discussion further.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeIf you want to rid the world of Christian teaching produce the corpse of Jesus. It is all over. No resurrection, no Jesus Christ.
Whats baffling is your statement:
' Without Christ in resurrection, i don't care what you say, you have NO teaching from Jesus, period.'
Basically, you're saying the teachings of Jesus (while he walked the Earth) are meaningless and don't deliver any significant lesson to the non-believer.
Okay, your point is taken: Even if no resurrection we have some good do's and don'ts from this man Jesus.
Try it.
Yea, I'll "turn the other cheek" alright. And while I'm doing it I'll violently lift up the knee into your groin !
5 edits
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Whats baffling is your statement:
' Without Christ in resurrection, i don't care what you say, you have NO teaching from Jesus, period.'
Basically, you're saying the teachings of Jesus (while he walked the Earth) are meaningless and don't deliver any significant lesson to the non-believer.
Basically, you're saying the teachings of Jesus (while he walked the Earth)
Oh no. You too?
are meaningless and don't deliver any significant lesson to the non-believer.
Well, take a lesson from the leading disciple Peter.
He said all would fail Jesus. But not him boy!
Peter said others may betray Jesus. But not him!
He would be with Jesus, follow Jesus, stick with Jesus, and do what Jesus said to the end, even if he should have to DIE with Jesus.
Learn a lesson from the leading disciple of Jesus, Peter.
Jesus said in essence - "Peter it is as easy for you to deny Me as it is for the cock to crow in the morning."
"Cock-a-doodle-do"
"Damn it! I don't even KNOW the man !!"
And that is what happened. His zeal, his dedication, his devotion could not cut it. He caved in. Peter was an opinionated, zealous, strong willed man. And he caved in.
He caved in before a little girl.
A little maiden said "Hey guys. I recognize this guy. HE was with Jesus!" Peter cursed. Peter swore. Peter blurted out that he did not even know this man Jesus!
Then he went off and wept bitterly.
Don't think the lesson is there by accident.
We don't have it to follow the Son of God.
We need another life to be imparted to us.
We need another Spirit to be implanted into our being.
Ultimately, like Peter, we are all just for our own skin.
If the Christ is not available to live in us, we're no better than the disciple Peter. Most of us wouldn't even make it as far as he did.
"I am crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me ..."
1 edit
Originally posted by @sonshipOh dear.
If you want to rid the world of Christian teaching produce the corpse of Jesus. It is all over. No resurrection, no Jesus Christ.
Okay, your point is taken: Even if no resurrection we have some good do's and don'ts from this man Jesus.
Try it.
Yea, I'll [b] "turn the other cheek" alright. And while I'm doing it I'll violently lift up the knee into your groin ![/b]
“If any person desires to think, he must possess memory, imagination and reasoning power; but the Christian has presently lost these powers, hence is unable to think.”
Watchman Nee, The Spiritual Man
1 edit
Originally posted by @sonshipYou are the one that continually preach milk..Those like me preach the meat.
Topic: [b]Abiding in the Lord - outcome "But you're not saved unless ...".
Topic: Grace - outcome - "But you're not saved unless ..."
Topic: the Law - outcome - "But you're not saved unless ...".
Topic: the trinity - outcome - "But you're not saved unless ..."
Topic: Christian's politics for crying out loud - ...[text shortened]... ." (Heb. 6a) [/b] [/quote]
Maybe its me. Seems hard to move any Spiritual discussion further.[/b]
Milk is basics but Meat is the more difficult matter of good works and righteousness, a topic that you avoid. Paul makes that clear here :
For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5:13-14 KJV)
Meat is for those of full age and who can discern good and evil.
Milk would include the childish superficial stuff about
- prayreading
- calling Jesus name all day
- proclamation of your love for Christ
Thats MILK, and Paul says that those who continue to use milk {you for example] is unskilful in the word of righteousness as you demonstrate all the time with your posts.
MEAT is the hard stuff about righteousness and discerning good and evil