Love One Another and the Cross

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

If you think I espouse the law is negated in those posts, then you totally misunderstood what I said.

You disagree. Prove why I am wrong. Discuss. Talk. Show me where I went wrong. I guess you simply don't want to think anything else.

well, explain what you mean by

"Love is 9/10 of law and law saves no one."

I explained it in those two posts I listed.

See? Not reading what I said. I never said mental acceptance or agreement. It's the heart. Evidently you equate the heart with the mentality of a person. All I ever emphasized in this is the heart

No, i am the one who says that OPs accept a profession of faith to be faith. "I came to the Lord in suchandsuch church on suchandsuch date, and spoke in tongues and was baptized by suchandsuch pastor" is considered bona fides for salvation. Is it not?

Nope. Not in my OP faith and circle. i already said it is the HEART many times.

You won't talk. I never said anything about changing the mind. But you want to believe what I espouse is the way you misunderstand it, so what can I do?

What you may mean is that i'm not answering the way you like.

No. You are not answering what I am saying but answering what somebody else may have said or what you THINK I said.

I am the one who said about changing your mind, not you. What you espouse is OP doctrine, and what you can do is address the statement, or not. From a doctrinal level, not personal. After all, we are just talking, i might be the puppy killer for all anyone knows

If you are talking then address what I said, not a distortion of what I said. I already said several days ago what you came across for Acts 2:38 is way offbase. I think you got a wrong understanding of it. You even said yourself Acts 2:38 is fine unless it's taken out of its proper context. So anyone who mentions Acts 2:38 is boxed in with the misunderstanding you evidently were presented. You forget there is a proper context to it. And you are convinced, with no evidence, I have the wrong context.

But you will not talk, so what can anyone do? You put words in my mouth and ignore what I actually said.

[shazeep]

You like John's words about love, which are good words, but you dislike what he says about antichrist. Words lose all meaning. Evil becomes good and good becomes evil. Quite the trick.

I would say that i insist upon John's Word about love, which is shown to be the doctrine, by his own Word. Put love one another first, and the need for the Cross quickly becomes apparent, and thus spiritually understood.

i have no problem with "antichrist," but we are just going to come to the same loggerheads without a more spiritual understanding of Christ, i think.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

You like John's words about love, which are good words, but you dislike what he says about antichrist. Words lose all meaning. Evil becomes good and good becomes evil. Quite the trick.

I would say that i insist upon John's Word about love, which is shown to be the doctrine, by his own Word. Put love one another first, and the need for the Cross quickly becomes apparent, and thus spiritually understood.

i have no problem with "antichrist," but we are just going to come to the same loggerheads without a more spiritual understanding of Christ, i think.

You reject plain statements the bible says about love and the cross. God loved us first including folks who could not nor did not love. THAT love of God is first, not ours. The way you say it leaves the unloving people without the cross.

Rom 5:8 KJV But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

And you're misunderstanding the reference to doctrine in John's epistle. No scholar agrees with you, if you want to talk about what you heard before..

A commandment is not a doctrine.

Read it again.

You have thrown away the need for the cross of Christ by misunderstanding 2 John verse 9. I think you better rethink your interpretation of the verse. The doctrine in verse 9 is not the commandment in verse 5. Commandments aren't doctrines.

Why do n't you answer all my questions? What verses am I avoiding? List them here and I will answer them all. You just don't talk.

[shazeep]

I explained it in those two posts I listed.

yes, and i explained that your explanation negates Christ's Word, and meaning

Nope. Not in my OP faith and circle. i already said it is the HEART many times.

i don't believe you, frankly. At the very least, it is a denial of what most any OP would accept as bona fides, would you not agree?

No. You are not answering what I am saying but answering what somebody else may have said or what you THINK I said.

so iow you don't wish to pursue the the statement

If you are talking then address what I said, not a distortion of what I said. I already said several days ago what you came across for Acts 2:38 is way offbase. I think you got a wrong understanding of it. You even said yourself Acts 2:38 is fine unless it's taken out of its proper context. So anyone who mentions Acts 2:38 is boxed in with the misunderstanding you evidently were presented. You forget there is a proper context to it. And you are convinced, with no evidence, I have the wrong context.

it is the evidence that leads me to the conviction. What i said about Acts 2:38 is widely accepted. That doesn't mean the verse is broken or anything, but that if it leads one to "i found it! And you must find it, too, or you are lost and going to hell!" then maybe it isn't working as planned anymore.

But you will not talk, so what can anyone do? You put words in my mouth and ignore what I actually said.

because it has led you to "they are all lost," which understanding i have left--i'm not interested. You are free to address the statement, or any of my unanswered questions. Shall i repost them?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

What you may mean is that i'm not answering the way you like.

More likely you do not like what I said since it contradicts your expectations of why you already judged as being wrong.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

I explained it in those two posts I listed.

yes, and i explained that your explanation negates Christ's Word, and meaning

NO you did not. You showed nothing of what I stated and indicated why I was wrong and what the proper context is in 1 Tim and Rom 8. In short, still won't actually talk.

Nope. Not in my OP faith and circle. i already said it is the HEART many times.

i don't believe you, frankly. At the very least, it is a denial of what most any OP would accept as bona fides, would you not agree?

I already stated there are many OP's who are wrong. But you od not read what I write.

No. You are not answering what I am saying but answering what somebody else may have said or what you THINK I said.

so iow you don't wish to pursue the the statement

I wish to pursue the real issue which is what the bible says and how you or I are correct about it, by actually showing the passages and discussing the interpretation.

If you are talking then address what I said, not a distortion of what I said. I already said several days ago what you came across for Acts 2:38 is way offbase. I think you got a wrong understanding of it. You even said yourself Acts 2:38 is fine unless it's taken out of its proper context. So anyone who mentions Acts 2:38 is boxed in with the misunderstanding you evidently were presented. You forget there is a proper context to it. And you are convinced, with no evidence, I have the wrong context.

it is the evidence that leads me to the conviction. What i said about Acts 2:38 is widely accepted. That doesn't mean the verse is broken or anything, but that if it leads one to "i found it! And you must find it, too, or you are lost and going to hell!" then maybe it isn't working as planned anymore.

Still won't talk. Circles.

But you will not talk, so what can anyone do? You put words in my mouth and ignore what I actually said.

because it has led you to "they are all lost," which understanding i have left--i'm not interested. You are free to address the statement, or any of my unanswered questions. Shall i repost them?

You think you know it all when you say this and there is no possible way you could be wrong about my conclusions those who disobey Acts 2:38 are lost. So you will not chat about whether or not I could be right in making that conclusions. You simply think it cannot be right and you're not willing to discuss that point.

Closed minded.

[shazeep]

So, no, you will not address the statement, and no, don't bother to repost them?

[shazeep]

If Acts 2:38 is sufficient for salvation, what precludes me from waiting until i am about to die to pursue it?

[shazeep]

If one is correct in their belief that restating Scripture at people to show they are lost = proving they are lost, am i somehow being disingenuous when i do it to an OP? Iow, does the statement "You are lost, OP, and will die in your sins if you don't change your mind on this issue, and i can prove it with Scripture" bear examination, or is that only valid if one is an OP?

[shazeep]

What did Christ mean when He said "Love God and your neighbor is 9/10ths of the law and the prophets?" Did He really mean "don't love your neighbor as a means to salvation, that is following the law?" or was He saying that these fulfill the law?