Does the golden rule save without the cross? - Page 5

mfblume · #41 08-09-2016, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Somehow, fulfilling the law is salvation to our friend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

you employ every manner of deceit in our conversation, yet call me "friend."

I am not trying to deceive nor use deceit at all.

Correct me, then. You seemed to say that the phrase "fulfilling the law" is the same thing as saying "be saved." Is that not true? You said

Quote:

In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.

of course you are gonna want to run to your conception of 'faith' here, and dither over that, but do try and read the point here, and we can discuss that somewhere else. You are going to be very hard-pressed to separate salvation and fulfilling the law imo. Christ = the fulfillment of the law.

Then you say "You are going to be very hard-pressed to separate salvation and fulfilling the law imo", to confirm what I said to begin with!

shazeep · #42 08-09-2016, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esaias

Now you're lying. He never said what you are claiming.

didn't he? don't you have laws governing these declarations? Aren't all Catholics lost based upon their refusal to state them? Is this not in the same spirit as "Read some Paul, and voila" for understanding the cross and how to apply it? If not, then my apologies, and good day to you all.

mfblume · #43 08-09-2016, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thephnxman

I don't believe this is an "honest" thread.

Bro. Blume, it seems you are using this thread to keep up your banter
with shazeep, that false prophet, and giving him a place for his rantings.
In the meantime, it seems you want to want to gather opposition to
shazeep . . . for what purpose? It is only giving that false prophet just
another platform to use a little truth to introduce his lies.

It's time to go back to basics, Brother!

Brother, I am using this thread to show the false doctrine being presented on this forum lately, in case anyone missed it, so they know about it. And also to show that my views on how important the cross saves is the vast majority of views on this forum.

Shazeep needs to see how dead wrong he is. I doubt this will show him that, but at least others must see this in case they be deceived like he is. they need to see how false this false prophet really is. With scripture.

And the absolute necessity of Christ's sacrifice is the basics.

Also, these chats help me explain better the need and absolute need I might add, of the sacrifice, of Christ in our conscious awareness for our salvation.

He's proposed these false opinions far too much and they need to be exposed for the error they really are.

I appreciate your intention here, and I thank you, but this poison needs ot be exposed, and in my opinion stopped.

The forum has allowed heresy to be debated in a different section than this fellowship hall. Any genuine heresy has been removed from this section EXCEPT THIS ONE.

I have confidence admins will see that as well.

mfblume · #44 08-09-2016, 08:35 AM

Here are the core beliefs of error I am trying to expose:

It is clear from this exchange that Shazeep holds to the view that the golden rule "fulfills the law" like the cross "fulfils the law." Therefore, to Shazeep, obeying the golden rule saves you without your knowledge of the cross of Jesus whatsoever, because in his mind "fulfilling the law" is the same thing as being saved.

Posts from another thread on July 20th

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

So, to get to the core issues, you must show form the Word why fulfilling law equals salvation. Sin is not remitted by fulflling law, and the sin issue is not resolved by love.

sure it is. Confession and rebound (repentance) are acts of love, not legal maneuvers to get you out of jail, free. When you sin, who do you confess to? Whom do you ask for forgiveness?

Shazeep seems to feel that asking forgiveness OF PEOPLE is like salvation by the cross when we ask forgiveness of GOD. He can correct me if necessary, but that is what I am getting from his statements here

July 19th

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Do you believe loving each other as we would have others love us saves us without the work of the cross of Jesus involved to remit our sins?

i think the wording indicates that the one is the other in a vital regard; at the very least, they both fulfill the law. This is a powerful statement. I think a more spiritual view of the work of the cross demands this, personally. Paul is not negated if he is read in this light, but i notice that Christ is negated if you try it the other way around imo. gotta run for now.

July 19th

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

Catholic doctrine is satanic, imo, but individual Catholic people might easily be more righteous than either of us. I perceive your doctrine as satanic now, too, but that doesn't mean "All OPs are lost."

So, it is satanic to believe that one MUST know about the cross or be lost, according to Shazeep. That is what I have been espousing. He claims it is satanic to believe mulsims will be lost since they do not believe the cross even occurred, therefore seeing them manifgest no faith whatsoever in the work of the cross.

Quote:

[=mfblume]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

And YOU and EVERYONE ELSE believes what YOU and EVERYONE ELSE thinks about salvation ought to be believed by everyone else.

if i understand you correctly here, this is exactly what i doubt. There are many mansions in my Father's house.

That does mean there are many roads to God other than the cross, though.

So he believes there are many mansions in the Father's house, as if to imply other beliefs about salvation are acceptable. He can correct me if I am wrong. Many mansions has nothing to do with many DOCTRINES and OPINIONS of salvation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Please confirm. Do you believe loving each other as we would have others love us saves us without the work of the cross of Jesus involved to remit our sins?

"Fulfilling the law and prophets" is the same language we use to describe Christ and the cross, right?

Yes. But that does not mean that other things that fulfill law and prophets save us apart from the cross, just because we read the cross fulfills the law and the prophets. Is that what you suggest?

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

So granted, it sounds sacrilegious to us to advocate "Be as kind to people as you would want them to be to you" as a means to eternal life without recognizing Christ's sacrifice specifically, but on the other hand it is written this fulfills the law, so one could argue that one is spiritually recognizing Christ when they do this, v legally recognizing Christ via altar works, especially when supporting Scripture--that gives so many lawyers fits--is taken into account.But don't get me wrong, i think the one should be done and the other not neglected, ideally;

"Ideally" leaves room for salvation without the cross.

He says what sounds sacreliegious is eternal life without recognizing Christ's sacrifice on the cross. And what sounds sacreligious is what fulfills the law. So, once again he equates fulfilling the law with salvation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

What about remission of sins? With out the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Fulfilling law is not pointing toward that which saves us. Someone who refuses to murder people is someone who fulfils law. But that doesn't mean that one is saved.

But don't get me wrong, i think the one should be done and the other not neglected, ideally;

"Ideally" leaves room for salvation without the cross.

no, it just serves you to believe that so that you may be perceived as the one with knowledge, perhaps. you do not get to define what the cross means for me.

This is dishonest. He says the golden rule fulfils the law, so it's the same thing as faith in the cross saving us, since the cross also fulfils the law. And he says it may sound sacreligious to say one need no awareness of Christ's sacrifice if one obeys the golden rule, meaning one is saved. But IDEALLY, he says, one should have both the golden rule and the cross. And when I respond saying the use of the word IDEALLY means faith in the cross is not absolutely necessary, he says that is not what he said. He says that is me trying to serve myself so I can perceive myself as one who has knowledge.

Okaaaay.

The truth is it does not serve me. It is what he said. He said IDEALLY we need the cross as well as loving each other. That implies that less than ideally -- IOW, no faith in the cross -- one is still saved. Ideally is what is best, but not vital. Unless IDEALLY means something else to you than the dictionary's definition.

Unless he is trying to say that the "CROSS" for our salvation is not restricted to Christ's specific death on the cross, but to obeying the golden rule, which is the same thing as Christ's cross. In fact, I think this is what he means. He once said we must carry our crosses when I would say that the cross saves. He then equates US CARRYING OUR CROSSES with Christ's death on the cross. In his mind this means if we know nothing about Christ's death on the cross, we can still be saved by carrying our crosses, which is what the golden rule is all about. Thus, Christ's sacrifice is ABSENT from this salvation, but in his mind it's JUST AS GOOD as OUR sacrifice.

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mblume

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

however, we condemn Muslims for a few verses that we read as "antichrist" when they could rationally be construed as a defense against the RCC of the Dark Ages, and we might condemn apostates, 65 million strong in the US, who have abandoned the est'd church, but this does not mean that they are not seeking Christ, necessarily, so much as it is an indictment of religion, and the churches' tendency to obscure Christ with Law.
I think one might at least consider that the point may be to give people someone to condemn out of hand, that hearts may be revealed, but this is just imo.

Yeah, I understand you have a unique way of thinking of how the bible offers people to fall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

Are they in fact lost? Anyone who has not fulfilled the Law is, surely.

Incorrect. Anyone who has not received God's righteousness via the cross is lost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

do you have some requirements that i must fulfill in order to be considered "saved" by you?

I have NONE! The Bible says obey Acts 2:38, though. But that's the bible not me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

Do you know for a fact that God has these same requirements?

They're his words, not mine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

Is there any Scripture that can even be construed as mitigating against this?

His word does not contradict itself.

mfblume · #45 08-09-2016, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

didn't he? don't you have laws governing these declarations? Aren't all Catholics lost based upon their refusal to state them? Is this not in the same spirit as "Read some Paul, and voila" for understanding the cross and how to apply it? If not, then my apologies, and good day to you all.

No one is lost based upon what they fail to state. They are lost based upon what they fail to believe and and fail to show in works that manifest that belief as genuine.

shazeep · #46 08-09-2016, 08:55 AM

As Prophet Christ receives the Word from God, and as Priest He delivers and teaches that Word.

Esaias · #47 08-09-2016, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

ya, ok, i guess i wasn't supposed to react to the intent or something, got you.

Uh, OK, whatever. Yeah, on a discussion forum we're supposed to react to what is said, not we think someone's hidden intent is. You've got a case of forum paranoia.

Here's some "intent" for you: *I* think you're a standard internet troll, who needs to get a life. I think you're utterly self centered, conceited, full of yourself. Literally gushing over with pride and self righteousness. I also think you never had and never will "intend" to engage in the least bit of self examination regarding your forum etiquette or your blathering troll-baiting on here.

So, back on ignore you go, troll.

shazeep · #48 08-09-2016, 09:03 AM

um, and i didn't "react to what was said?" ok, my bad. Ty for the unsolicited eval, i'll take a look at that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thephnxman

I don't believe this is an "honest" thread.

Bro. Blume, it seems you are using this thread to keep up your banter
with shazeep, that false prophet, and giving him a place for his rantings.
In the meantime, it seems you want to want to gather opposition to
shazeep . . . for what purpose? It is only giving that false prophet just
another platform to use a little truth to introduce his lies.

It's time to go back to basics, Brother!

wadr i submit that you are done posting here, because you cannot back this up.

thephnxman · #49 08-09-2016, 09:23 AM

[QUOTE=mfblume;1443205]Here are the core beliefs of error I am trying to expose:
I have erased, as you can see, all except the above.

Beloved, it does not interest me what shazeep as to say or offer. I have
heard enough of his using a little truth to introduce a lie.

shazeep · #50 08-09-2016, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thephnxman

Beloved, it does not interest me what shazeep as to say or offer. I have
heard enough of his using a little truth to introduce a lie.

ya, only you cannot say what the lie is, and you must admit that you have a dynasty to protect. I am lying by advocating that people listen to Christ?