Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
Again, you're so vague and oddly elusive in your posts. I cannot get your point.
Let me try. When someone claims a way to be saved is by doing good deeds, more than bad deeds in most claims, that reveals they know nothing about the trust we must have solely in the work of the cross for righteousness. So, that is plain as plain can be.
What IT TAKES to be saved is to genuinely believe god's work on the cross makes us righteous. But only God truly knows if a heart believes like that. But when someone flatly states they don't believe that but believe some other method, then we know they do not have it in their hearts. lol. When they claim they have it in their hearts we cannot know. Simple. If you cannot see that, then no sense talking.
|
i can see that that might be tripe; we can compare one's speech with their actions,
spiritual discernment, or keep believing them in the face of evidence to the contrary,
denial, and as to the "flatly states" part, i would not hold out much hope for them myself, but we have the Vineyard Owner with Two Sons to consider; and the fact that you may have a poor or at least one-dimensional definition of "righteousness."
Women might be saved in childbirth, so you surely have a bad def of "saved," too. The point is that you demonstrably do not know, and surely should not be trying to reduce salvation to your--or rather Rhema's--inadequate understanding for purposes of dissemination as a pastor, at least imo, do it if you like. I would have vastly more respect for a pastor who said "I don't really know, but i can regurgitate what i was told, and maybe do some reflecting upon it and get back to you" than one who insists his regurgitation is some kind of irrefutable law.
Threaded Mode
