The Cross of Christ Alone Can Save

[DAII]

I'm going on record that Jesus saves ... for the 4502033214th time.

I know there's room in Apprehended's dingy for us PCIers ... his works speak for it ... so we can discuss this ad nauseum ... but I'll ride in the cruise ship with the Master with the rest of my brothers and sisters in the Body.

I love the all inclusive buffet ....

The faith + obedience crowd ... have difficulty with cause and effect ... so I don't blame them proof texting to their heart's content even when the same passage contradicts their extrabiblical positions.

They want to be a mini-Jesus and re-enact the Gospel ... by all means.

Anyhoo ... Apprehended is a light doctrine guy anyway.

[Apprehended]

I'm going on record that Jesus saves ... for the 4502033214th time.

I know there's room in Apprehended's dingy for us PCIers ... his works speak for it ... so we can discuss this ad nauseum ... but I'll ride in the cruise ship with the Master with the rest of my brothers and sisters in the Body.

I love the all inclusive buffet ....

The faith + obedience crowd ... have difficulty with cause and effect ... so I don't blame them proof texting to their heart's content even when the same passage contradicts their extrabiblical positions.

They want to be a mini-Jesus and re-enact the Gospel ... by all means.

Anyhoo ... Apprehended is a light doctrine guy anyway.

:lol

Dan...

One reason that I luff ya is because...well...because...

you are just Dan and no one can take that away from you.

I also admire you for your intelligence, writing abilities and for the fact you are a master rhetorical tactician. Most philosophers and even politicians are such. You and I would have a great one on one session in private. I seriously doubt that a protracted headbanging session would change you, but at least I would walk away with the same love and admiration for you as I have now.

But, a little substance with the rhetoric would help fill out the empty suit of philosophy. You can begin by using the Word of God with each fiery proclamation disguised as truth.

[DAII]

:lol

Dan...

One reason that I luff ya is because...well...because...

you are just Dan and no one can take that away from you.

I also admire you for your intelligence, writing abilities and for the fact you are a master rhetorical tactician. Most philosophers and even politicians are such. You and I would have a great one on one session in private. I seriously doubt that a protracted headbanging session would change you, but at least I would walk away with the same love and admiration for you as I have now.

But, a little substance with the rhetoric would help fill out the empty suit of philosophy. You can begin by using the Word of God with each fiery proclamation disguised as truth.

Well, it's great that you're back posting and for that reason alone... I don't want to lick you just yet ...

watching from the cheap seats as you bring it on NOW.

Much rather have you ease in ... for the moment, bubba.

I'd much prefer to see you and Blume and Benincasa have another preterist vs. apocalyptic futurist brawl ... just for old time's sake.

[mfblume]

I'd much prefer to see you and Blume and Benincasa have another preterist vs. apocalyptic futurist brawl ... just for old time's sake.

Whew! What a post to read the first day of the new year. <<<shudder>>>

[Apprehended]

Whew! What a post to read the first day of the new year. <<<shudder>>>

:lol

shudder, shudder, indeed.

ain't happening.

:D

[mfblume]

:lol

shudder, shudder, indeed.

ain't happening.

:D

No. Takes too much time for that stuff. lol Phew! :lol

[Jeffrey]

Dear ol' Pelagius was a dear old soul. At least his mama thought so. But he was wrong about the doctrine of original sin although he was right about the freedom of the will of man. God has left every man in freedom as to his will. Otherwise, he would be the most heinous of all entities, worse than the devil himself.

Give Pelagius a D-

:D

Do don't believe in original sin --- or in total depravity? Explain.

[notofworks]

Well, it's great that you're back posting and for that reason alone... I don't want to lick you just yet ...

watching from the cheap seats as you bring it on NOW.

Much rather have you ease in ... for the moment, bubba.

I'd much prefer to see you and Blume and Benincasa have another preterist vs. apocalyptic futurist brawl ... just for old time's sake.


Yep, I'm watching from the cheap seats. I've read everything and so far, there's nothing new that's been added. I don't think anyone verbalizes this any better than you, Jeffrey, and Pelathais, who is MIA, currently. We could add Dan Segraves to that list but of course, he vocalizes it in "code."

Apprehended attempted to turn this into a discussion of us turning a bible verse into a physical piece of wood, which is almost disrespectful to me, acting as if he didn't understand what we mean when we say, "The cross." He knows darn well what we mean and his attempt to invalidate a version that contradicts his doctrine, as "Liberal" pointed out, is faulty. One thing I know is this....Apprehend has several things he wants us to do in order to be justified and be declared "Under grace."

But I read something recently in a book called, "Grace", by Andy Stanley...."Anything in addition to grace, isn't grace." In one simple sentence, he summarized the entire discussion.

[Apprehended]

It's amazing to me how folks can be so zoned out in lalala land of the unreal that they somehow don't understand a thing at all concerning grace.

Since the cross, that is to say, since the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, aka, the cross, the WHOLE WORLD is under grace.

Hitler was under grace. Nero was under grace. Charles Manson is STILL under grace. The Boston Strangler was under grace. I'm under grace but no more than anyone else including the worst child molester and rapist. The free gift of God is available TO ALL...by grace.

Seems to be a great dearth of light concerning GRACE. The cross PROVIDED grace. Period!

The question is, what are you going to do with that grace? Are you going to avail yourself to the provisions under grace which includes among other things, the free gift of salvation. OR, will you pervert the message of grace and lead souls to hell by inducing the sleep of death in them to lead them to believe that they have no care or need of anything...just grace...nothing but grace.

My neighbors Guido, Luigi, Pasquale and Rosa is under grace too. But, they are not DOING anything about it...speaking of DOING. With the message of perverted grace, hell is enlarged to receive all who will believe it.

I could not care less what Dan Seagraves, Andy Stanley's book, Boss Hog or Roscoe P. Coltrane, Duke or anyone else has to say about grace if they depart from the ever living Word of God.

There is ONE message of salvation which was provided by grace. Believe it by obeying it and be saved, if you will. Refuse the "call" unlike Abraham who obeyed the call, none can inherit the land. You can simply remain in Ur of the Chaldeans refusing both the call and the walk if you want to. But God is faithful to continue calling, nonetheless.

[Apprehended]

Do don't believe in original sin --- or in total depravity? Explain.

Of course I believe in Original Sin. It is the sin that was done away with by Jesus in his work before his ascension into heaven. The whole world was under condemnation from that sin. Jesus paid it all. That sin was forever wiped away by the work of Christ, aka the cross.

When Jesus rose again from the dead, ascended to the Father, every human being on the face of the earth was declared innocent from that, the original sin. His work declared all men righteous, guiltless, forever free from the sin of Adam. Death which was pronounced upon all mankind from that sin was forever abolished by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Every man is now free from that sin...the original sin of Adam. All of creation should burst forth in high and holy praise and no longer groan in travail waiting to be delivered. In the legal sense, creation is already delivered from the bondage of the original sin by which death came upon all. They are already delivered. They just need to hear the good news.

You are FREE! I'm FREE. Hitler was FREE from it. Charles Manson is FREE. The Boston Stranger was FREE, if he had only knownit.

Too much of a bible study to quote a lot of scripture here, but I hope that you get my drift.

[Apprehended]

Incidentally,

Just in case some folks here don't believe in doing anything to answer the call from God to be saved, I want everyone to know that I'm repented and doing THE FIRST WORKS, lest Jesus comes to remove my candlestick, leaving me in darkness.

Let the rest sleep. There is neither fear, work or obedience in sleep.

[shazeep]

"Anything in addition to grace, isn't grace.".

[mfblume]

bump

"Notice what large letters I use as I write these closing words in my own handwriting. Those who are trying to force you to be circumcised are doing it for just one reason. They don't want to be persecuted for teaching that the cross of Christ alone can save."

Galatians 6:11-12 NLT


These things really hit me today as I read this today:
1) The cross of Christ alone can save.
2) If we add one thing at all to the saving power of the cross, we can add anything. When does it stop?
3) Among all the debates as to how many steps there are to salvation, we seem to miss the fact that the only step that matters is the step taken by Christ on the cross.
4) There clearly is a cost to pay if one teaches that the cross of Christ alone can save.

[houston]

huh?

[thephnxman]

[QUOTE=mfblume;1444353]

These things really hit me today as I read this today:
1) The cross of Christ alone can save.
2) If we add one thing at all to the saving power of the cross, we can add anything. When does it stop?
3) Among all the debates as to how many steps there are to salvation, we seem to miss the fact that the only step that matters is the step taken by Christ on the cross.
4) There clearly is a cost to pay if one teaches that the cross of Christ alone can save.

The "Cross of Christ" can only refer to the gospel that saves.

1) Jesus on the cross means he DIED: nothing else. He still needed to be
buried (proof he had died); and the resurrection was also pending (proof
of the acceptance of the sacrifice).
2) The cross, of itself, doesn't save: the othe elements must be active;
3) ALL THE STEPS matter;
4) That's why we must be very explicit in stating the gospel.

Believing the gospel is good: KNOWING the gospel is better!

[shazeep]

rectifying it with your first love is best.

[thephnxman]

rectifying it with your first love is best.

Your first love, as with all muslims, is the love for allah, whom the
Apostle Paul called ". . . the god of this world." Yet not the God that
CREATED this world, even the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:
but the god to those who reject the gospel that saves.

[mfblume]

These things really hit me today as I read this today:
1) The cross of Christ alone can save.
2) If we add one thing at all to the saving power of the cross, we can add anything. When does it stop?
3) Among all the debates as to how many steps there are to salvation, we seem to miss the fact that the only step that matters is the step taken by Christ on the cross.
4) There clearly is a cost to pay if one teaches that the cross of Christ alone can save.

The "Cross of Christ" can only refer to the gospel that saves.

1) Jesus on the cross means he DIED: nothing else. He still needed to be
buried (proof he had died); and the resurrection was also pending (proof
of the acceptance of the sacrifice).
2) The cross, of itself, doesn't save: the othe elements must be active;
3) ALL THE STEPS matter;
4) That's why we must be very explicit in stating the gospel.

Believing the gospel is good: KNOWING the gospel is better!

Amen. The reason I bumped this is because of all the anti-cross rhetoric that folks like shazeep have proposed, after he posted in this thread, resurrecting it again, AS WELL AS taking advantage of the first post and showing that all of the alleged STEPS accused to be AFTER the cross are actually not steps distinct from the cross. Who started that nonsense of STEPS anyway? IT's all the ONE BIG STEP OF THE CROSS! Repentance, baptism and Holy Ghost are all ONE BIG STEP. This accusation of three steps is ridiculous.

[thephnxman]

[QUOTE=thephnxman;1444373]

Amen. The reason I bumped this is because of all the anti-cross rhetoric that folks like shazeep have proposed, after he posted in this thread, resurrecting it again, AS WELL AS taking advantage of the first post and showing that all of the alleged STEPS accused to be AFTER the cross are actually not steps distinct from the cross. Who started that nonsense of STEPS anyway? IT's all the ONE BIG STEP OF THE CROSS! Repentance, baptism and Holy Ghost are all ONE BIG STEP. This accusation of three steps is ridiculous.

I like it.

[shazeep]

Your first love, as with all muslims, is the love for allah, whom the
Apostle Paul called ". . . the god of this world." Yet not the God that
CREATED this world, even the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:
but the god to those who reject the gospel that saves.then it seems to me that you must identify those who say they have accepted this gospel, and even claim great works because of it, and yet hear i never knew you.

[mfblume]

then it seems to me that you must identify those who say they have accepted this gospel, and even claim great works because of it, and yet hear i never knew you.

Only if those folks never made a priority out of union to Christ's death and taking up their crosses so their houses are not built on sand by hearing His words to take the cross and not doing it.

Context is always tossed away by so many.

[thephnxman]

Muslims cannot deny allah, their false god.
Your first love, as with all muslims, is the love for allah, whom the
Apostle Paul called ". . . the god of this world." Yet not the God that
CREATED this world, even the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:
but the god to those who reject the gospel that saves.

[shazeep]

your first love is all that should matter to you, imo. Defining others' first love is the same as saying you are God.

yes, and apparently doctrines are built upon sand, when strangers are not judged by their fruit, but condemned out-of-hand based upon words. This is plainly revealed when you cannot admit how you would react when informed that you are lost. among many other things.

[thephnxman]

your first love is all that should matter to you, imo. Defining others' first love is the same as saying you are God.
yes, and apparently doctrines are built upon sand, when strangers are not judged by their fruit, but condemned out-of-hand based upon words. This is plainly revealed when you cannot admit how you would react when informed that you are lost. among many other things.

Muslims cannot deny allah, their false god.
Your first love, as with all muslims, is the love for allah, whom the
Apostle Paul called ". . . the god of this world." Yet not the God that
CREATED this world, even the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:
but the god to those who reject the gospel that saves.

[mfblume]

The first love IN CONTEXT is what is meant to be everyone's first love.

:lol

How many more verses can be taken out of context?

FIRST LOVE:

Matthew 6:33 KJV But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Philippians 3:7-10 KJV But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. (8) Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, (9) And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: (10) That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;


But we can excuse an entire religious movement urging people to abandon Christianity and follow their ways, because they said follow Christ or perish. Meanwhile they deny the very event of the cross that is the core of salvation, making everything else moot if the cross is abandoned. Why can we excuse them? Because of the mean Catholics who persecuted them and made them disdain the cross.

The word gives no free ticket to those who deny truth because of evildoers claiming Christ.

2 Peter 2:2 KJV And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

No matter how the devil gets us to deny the cross, denial of the cross is antichrist and leaves one lost. There are no crosses for us to take up, to follow Christ with, if He never took His cross to begin with.

I am amaazed at the latest months-long flurry of antichrist false doctrine on this forum.

Wow.

[shazeep]

yes, i certainly assumed everyone's first love was the same, and said as much. i understand your need to discredit me any way possible, though; do your worst. I am amazed that you cannot honestly answer how you would feel about being informed that you are going to hell, and only slightly less amazed that this is not a road sign for you, on the heels of "gutless" and "no, you are refusing to answer because you are about to be painted into another corner," all of which are searchable. When you are prepared to search yourself, instead of others, i have 4 or 5 more that you can reflect upon. But you must seek your own salvation. Have a good day.

[thephnxman]

yes, i certainly assumed everyone's first love was the same, and said as much. i understand your need to discredit me any way possible, though; do your worst. I am amazed that you cannot honestly answer how you would feel about being informed that you are going to hell, and only slightly less amazed that this is not a road sign for you, on the heels of "gutless" and "no, you are refusing to answer because you are about to be painted into another corner," all of which are searchable. When you are prepared to search yourself, instead of others, i have 4 or 5 more that you can reflect upon. But you must seek your own salvation. Have a good day.

YOU HAVE ADMITTED allah AS YOUR FIRST LOVE.

Muslims cannot deny allah, their false god.
Your first love, as with all muslims, is the love for allah, whom the
Apostle Paul called ". . . the god of this world." Yet not the God that
CREATED this world, even the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:
but the god to those who reject the gospel that saves.

[mfblume]

Some folks always make it personal and insulting no matter what, while others try to be objective. Never changes.

When an issue is over belief and not personal qualities there is nothing insulting intended, and only those who always make things personal can't see that.

Compare gutless with wrong.

[Evang.Benincasa]

how you would feel about being informed that you are going to hell,

I believe in a Fulfilled Eschatology in the Apostolic Pentecostal movement.

When I first notified my brethren of my discoveries they were less than welcoming.

But we still were able to have discussions even to this day. Without me or anyone else going wee wee wee all the way home. Dude your arguments are pretty shallow and sad. Maybe you should take the time to consider what Brother Blume is trying to say to you. Instead of just wanting to fight anything he posts to you.

[mfblume]

Basing our love upon whether or not we inform people they are lost is ridiculous. God so loved us while we were sinners, and LOST, that He sent His only begotten Son to die for those sins. Telling them they're lost is one thing. Telling them they're lost and God loves them so much that He sent His Son to die for the reason that they're lost is totally something different.

Furthermore, misrepresentation abounds of late. No one told a muslim here, "You are lost." It's a far cry from stating a belief about a general religion and facing an individual and point-blank saying, "You are lost," and leave it at that.

Honesty is a rare jewel.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Basing our love upon whether or not we inform people they are lost is ridiculous. God so loved us while we were sinners, and LOST, that He sent His only begotten Son to die for those sins. Telling them they're lost is one thing. Telling them they're lost and God loves them so much that He sent His Son to die for the reason that they're lost is totally something different.

Spare the rod spoil the child means if you don't correct you don't love.

Warning a Muslim or a Catholic they are lost isn't hate. Telling them they are alright with God is dangerous to both sides.

Muslims don't believe in the Cross of Christ, and they believe as well with the Catholics that they must work their way towards God's Grace. Both religions have no Cross salvation.

[mfblume]

Truth or error, and saved or lost, is not a matter of love or hate.

Except for mixed up minds.

[shazeep]

Truth or error, and saved or lost, is not a matter of love or hate.

Except for mixed up minds.Love your neighbor; this fulfills the law and prophets.

and that's me, right? ya, i can live with that :)

[Evang.Benincasa]

Love your neighbor; this fulfills the law and prophets.

and that's me, right? ya, i can live with that :)

For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God's laws.

So, how do you reconcile the two verses?

Because if you break one you have broken them all.

Therefore loving your neighbor fulfilling the whole law, James either didn't know that, or didn't have YOUR understanding.

Which was it?

[mfblume]

Always missing the point. When an issue is truth or error, that issue has nothing to do with if someone loves or not. Love and hate are serious issues, but are not determined by whether one believes another is in truth or error.

But that will go ignored as well.

[shazeep]

i would argue that the entire issue of truth or error in a matter--or "law," iow--is dependent on love, and i'm not sure how the two could be separated. Sinning against someone = not loving them.
For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God's laws.

So, how do you reconcile the two verses?

Because if you break one you have broken them all.

Therefore loving your neighbor fulfilling the whole law, James either didn't know that, or didn't have YOUR understanding.

Which was it?well, neither, and i mean, listen to yourself--what then is the inescapable conclusion of "love your neighbor, this fulfills the law and prophets?" It could only be "don't do this, at all costs" right? I mean, what are you saying?

If one 'fulfills the law and prophets,' 'keeping all the laws except one' does not even apply, so 'fulfills the law' shouldn't be conflated with 'has faith in the law.'

[Evang.Benincasa]

i would argue that the entire issue of truth or error in a matter--or "law," iow--is dependent on love, and i'm not sure how the two could be separated. Sinning against someone = not loving them.
well, neither, and i mean, listen to yourself--what then is the inescapable conclusion of "love your neighbor, this fulfills the law and prophets?" It could only be "don't do this, at all costs" right? I mean, what are you saying?

If one 'fulfills the law and prophets,' 'keeping all the laws except one' does not even apply, so 'fulfills the law' shouldn't be conflated with 'has faith in the law.'

Again, you are refusing you simply answer my direct question to you.

How do you reconcile the two verses?

James is making the statement, if you break one you have broken them all.

Therefore loving your neighbor fulfilling the whole law, James either didn't know that, or didn't have YOUR understanding.

James even goes on to say in Acts 21:20 that many thousand new converts to the Apostolic truth were zealous for the law. If you believe that loving your neighbor was fulfilling all of the law, then what is happening in Acts 21:20?

Also at the Jerusalem conference the opening statements found in Acts 15:1 are never refuted with love thy neighbor?

Why not?

Also please show where Paul lays out your teaching of loving your neighbor as fulfilling the law? Therefore anyone who loves their neighbor can believe in whatever they want and still make it through the narrow way, and the straight gate?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Shazeep, read James 2 and it might help you with a direct answer to my direct question.

Or do you ever read the Bible?

[shazeep]

Again, you are refusing you simply answer my direct question to you.my answer is that you are trying to conflate fulfilling the law with following the law, faith in the law, when the two are not the same, otherwise you must arrive at a different understanding of love your neighbor--which it appears many have done. If one has an issue with reconciling James with Christ, that still does not mean it is ok to try to reconcile Christ with James imo.

[shazeep]

as to the rest, you are asking the wrong guy, but i can't help but feel that i am being sukked into 'law' here, and

James even goes on to say in Acts 21:20 that many thousand new converts to the Apostolic truth were zealous for the law

and

Also at the Jerusalem conference the opening statements found in Acts 15:1 are never refuted with love thy neighbor?


might be why Paul avoided, or at least did not seek the opinions of the est'd church of his day.

[shazeep]

lso please show where Paul lays out your teaching of loving your neighbor as fulfilling the law?

um, after Christ has already done so? far be it from me! Paul's obligation may have been to obscure the truth to those who are perishing, for all i know, which is not to say that anything he said is error, but that one interprets according to their premises, which is self-evident.

[shazeep]

Therefore anyone who loves their neighbor can believe in whatever they want and still make it through the narrow way, and the straight gate?

this assumes some kind of feel-good love, and ignores the difficulty of facing oneself, imo, reflected in many peoples' inability to admit wrong and ask forgiveness, from the one they have sinned against, in the same arena, instead suggesting that one ask God, who has already forgiven you, for forgiveness, in some empty prayer that discounts the need for rebound, and shields the supposed petitioner from the humility engendered by true confession.

it is also what allows people to confidently judge those they do not know based upon something other than righteous judgement, completely discounting You think you can judge, but you cannot.

[shazeep]

why are all these new converts seeking the Scriptures for law daily, when they have been freed from the law?

[Evang.Benincasa]

my answer is that you are trying to conflate fulfilling the law with following the law, faith in the law, when the two are not the same, otherwise you must arrive at a different understanding of love your neighbor--which it appears many have done. If one has an issue with reconciling James with Christ, that still does not mean it is ok to try to reconcile Christ with James imo.

Did you read James 2? Or better yet have you ever read James 2? I never posted to you that James was speaking of following the law, I asked you a direct question. Yet, you either are refusing to answer directly, or you simply don't understand what is being asked. How about this, what is James context of James 2? What is he getting at when he quotes Leviticus 19:18? May I suggest you read James 2 and Leviticus 19:9-18 before you answer me. :heeheehee

[Evang.Benincasa]

as to the rest, you are asking the wrong guy, but i can't help but feel that i am being sukked into 'law' here, and

You see, this is why we never get a decent conversation going with you. It is a game to you. You are always trying to read between the lines within our postings to see if we are trying to trip you up, or entrap you with your words. While that may happen in forum land it is usually done with trouble makers who are only hanging around the forum to troll Apostolics.



might be why Paul avoided, or at least did not seek the opinions of the est'd church of his day.

Wow, Paul tells everyone in his writings to the Galatians why he did what he did. We don't need to wonder, or maybe, or might be. Dude, do you seriously get a kick out of this?

[Evang.Benincasa]

um, after Christ has already done so? far be it from me!

Hoss, Jesus was quoting Torah, James was quoting Torah. They all taught from Torah. Rabbi Hillel is quoted as saying "that which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary". Simply put do unto others as they would do unto you. This is what Leviticus is saying, that is what James is saying concerning the poor and the rich.

Yet, you were asked to explain, but you can't because you make it up as we post to you. :heeheehee




Paul's obligation may have been to obscure the truth to those who are perishing, for all i know, which is not to say that anything he said is error, but that one interprets according to their premises, which is self-evident.

May have been? So, everyone is wrong based on your feelings that they are wrong? Your arsenal doesn't even have a grenade to lob. So, why are you creating argument when you yourself haven't the slightest idea what you believe is even Biblical? Why would you mock Brother Blume and others when your defense is based on your own personal world views fueled by personal feelings?

You shouldn't have a problem with anyone disagreeing with you because after all what you are presenting is just your what if scenarios.

[Evang.Benincasa]

why are all these new converts seeking the Scriptures for law daily, when they have been freed from the law?

Are you referring to Acts 17:11?

[shazeep]

yes, i agree, these are all deflections from the real issue, which is that religion teaches what it does not know, and encourages judgement instead of faith.

[Evang.Benincasa]

yes, i agree, these are all deflections from the real issue, which is that religion teaches what it does not know, and encourages judgement instead of faith.

Now, pay attention.

YOU don't know.

Ok?

You don't know, and instead of taking the time to learn and know, you mess with people who do know.

Now run along. :laffatu

[Evang.Benincasa]

yes, i agree,

Now answer my questions.

[thephnxman]

Therefore anyone who loves their neighbor can believe in whatever they want and still make it through the narrow way, and the straight gate?

this assumes some kind of feel-good love, and ignores the difficulty of facing oneself, imo, reflected in many peoples' inability to admit wrong and ask forgiveness, from the one they have sinned against, in the same arena, instead suggesting that one ask God, who has already forgiven you, for forgiveness, in some empty prayer that discounts the need for rebound, and shields the supposed petitioner from the humility engendered by true confession.
it is also what allows people to confidently judge those they do not know based upon something other than righteous judgement, completely discounting You think you can judge, but you cannot.

You have ADMITTED your FIRST LOVE is allah, THE FALSE GOD!
Muslims cannot deny allah, their false god.

Your first love, as with all muslims, is the love for allah, whom the
Apostle Paul called ". . . the god of this world." Yet it's not the God
that CREATED the heavens and the earth, even the God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob. You, and ALL muslims, serve the god of those who
reject the gospel that saves: and you, as them, come NOT to drink of
the waters but to trample underfoot the waters, and deny them that
are true believers access to them.

[Evang.Benincasa]

You have ADMITTED your FIRST LOVE is allah, THE FALSE GOD!
Muslims cannot deny allah, their false god.

Your first love, as with all muslims, is the love for allah, whom the
Apostle Paul called ". . . the god of this world." Yet it's not the God
that CREATED the heavens and the earth, even the God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob. You, and ALL muslims, serve the god of those who
reject the gospel that saves: and you, as them, come NOT to drink of
the waters but to trample underfoot the waters, and deny them that
are true believers access to them.

I think he got the point.

Would you like to add anything else since you posted this numerous times already? :)

[thephnxman]

I think he got the point.
Would you like to add anything else since you posted this numerous times already? :)

I'm glad YOU got the point!

[Evang.Benincasa]

I'm glad YOU got the point!

I couldn't avoid getting the point.

Thank you beloved. :)

[shazeep]

Now answer my questions.you ask for more information, disregarding the information inherent in "now run along" that i am compelled to respect.

[Evang.Benincasa]

you ask for more information, disregarding the information inherent in "now run along" that i am compelled to respect.

Then why are you still posting? :laffatu

[shazeep]

well, i meant different information that that order provides, but because we are surrounded by witnesses, and perchance a seeker genuinely has the same question you do.
Have a nice day.

[Evang.Benincasa]

because we are surrounded by witnesses, and perchance a seeker has the same objection you do.
Have a nice day.

Oh, so you want to be obnoxious to anyone who disagrees with you? Even if they are lurking the forum?

Wow. :laffatu

[shazeep]

lol. note edits.