Elephant in the room - accusation of judging

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

is it fair to say that if i am wrong i get to go 'oh, whaddya know," but if you are wrong you have to go find another religion, basically? That this belief of yours is central to your understanding of your doctrine?

I can't relate to how you overview the issue. The bible says what it says to me. I don't dare presume anything into it. I've been corrected on what it says by noticing context didn't allow what I formerly thought. so "your religion" or "my religion" is moot.

you can only say things that relate to me by giving beliefs and exegeting scripture to show it is true. I can't relate to anything else you say.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, that sounds good, until we look at the record; i am not insisting upon any interpretations for my quotes; the verse alone seemed to do fine in the moment.

well, i would put it more like how you interpret a verse reflects where your heart is, not God is trying to confuse you. And my answer was that Christ is a spirit, and believing on Him might have a spiritual interpretation that is more important than a verbal declaration, or a more literal interpretation. So what if you are wrong?

i mean, if i am wrong, i get to say 'hmm, what do you know, you learn something every day,' but if you are wrong, have you considered the ramifications? It seems like you are kind of in a no-win situation here. Aside from possibly providing a false sense of security, what is holding this opinion even doing for you? What is the point?

I don't believe in verbal declaration. and I obviously am never going to convince you I don't. it's still that old "trying to see what I mean than what I say".

[shazeep]

well that is why i included "more literal interpretation" in there, Mike, i'm not trying to make anything true that is not. I think it is worth acknowledging, as we customarily ask after peoples' state of salvation, and we customarily receive an answer that we accept at face value, or judge on its merits, right? "Yes, he was saved in 1969," or "No, he isn't saved, he's a Baptist," like that.

Originally Posted by mfblume

I can't relate to how you overview the issue. The bible says what it says to me. I don't dare presume anything into it.

wadr i would say that you presume quite a lot. You presume you are saved despite Scripture, and you presume everyone else is lost despite Scripture, when i pick the Scriptures, but you can surely find justification for these if i am not here and you get to pick all the Scripture that makes your point. Of course i do these too, have pretty much all my life, but i'm seeing the trap there now.

I mean, how do you treat verses like "any spirit that admits Christ came in the flesh is from God?" don't you effectively ignore them for the sake of your doctrine? When two Bible lawyers start debating some thorny concept, isn't the outcome always "well, who can say?"

Originally Posted by mfblume

I've been corrected on what it says by noticing context didn't allow what I formerly thought. so "your religion" or "my religion" is moot.

How long would you remain an OP pastor if you were to start preaching that Muslims or Catholics might find salvation within their own dogmas, one must wonder. So again, i don't think you are being genuine here, wadr; if "religion is moot" then how can "All Catholics are lost" be true?

Originally Posted by mfblume

you can only say things that relate to me by giving beliefs and exegeting scripture to show it is true. I can't relate to anything else you say.

Mike, when i first answered with "Little children, do not be deceived," you could not relate, either, and i didn't offer any interpretation at all, and haven't yet that i am aware of. And i am not bringing this up to put you down, i would have fared no better if we had started with my verse and you had replied with some truncated Paul; the point is that maybe we are misusing Scripture when we try to prove that what we believe is truth with It.

Which might seem counter intuitive, i don't mean to say that one cannot find truth in Scripture by any means, but there is always a valid counter argument from Scripture as well. So any "proving" ends up being self serving. We treat the Bible like a Book of answers when It might be better seen as a Book of questions.

[mfblume]

I'm amazed at how you don't see my explanations. I will write them out again. I responded to them all. I asked you to list them. I will respond next.

[mfblume]

BE NOT DECEIVED"

The verse in question, allegedly exposing an error in my theology.



Check context. The enemy of our souls hates context. So lest anyone misinterpret these passages, let us look.

1 John 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

Since the issue is righteousness, let us read the other passages that deal with the subject.

From this post:

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...24&postcount=9
MAY 26th

Christ's actions, not ours, make us righteous.

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

This makes righteousness a free gift, not earnings or wages as the result of working.

Romans 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

And God's righteousness is what we are given.

Philippians 3:9 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:

Even Jesus said to seek God's righteousness, not our own.

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

Self-righteousness is what is attained by self's efforts to be good.

So, when we read he that does righteousness is righteous, our interpretation cannot conflict with these other passages. And when we reconcile all references to righteousness, the truth comes to light.

John said the one who does righteousness is righteous. He did not say the doing comes before, as though it CAUSES one to be righteous. It is saying the one who IS righteous is the one who does righteousness. How did that righteousness come about? John's verse did not say. He only said the person who already is will manifest an d indicate that by their deeds.

John spoke much of deeds.

1 John 1:6-7 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: (7) But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Walking in darkness is living a lifestyle of sinning. Walking in light is doing righteous deeds. So, John is saying claims are betrayed as false when one walks in darkness.

But he's careful to remind us that those who are in the light are continually cleansed by the blood of Jesus, which is a reference to the work of the cross.... yes, that pesky cross that excludes adherents to all other religions and faiths that deny Jesus had to die in sacrifice for our salvation and righteousness.

1 John 1:8-10 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (9) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (10) If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

We all have sin and require His blood to cleanse us. And the cleansing is related to forgiveness through the work of the cross, where the blood was shed. It's not enough to repent. I repent daily. But I must repent on the basis of my acknowledgement that the work of the cross is the only means whereby God will forgive us, and without faith in it, there is no forgiveness.

1 John 2:1-2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: (2) And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

And the text continues, when we're not supposed to stop at a chapter end to follow it, by saying the advocacy of Christ for us to the Father is a vital part of what is the remedy for us if we sin. And the advocate always points ONLY to the cross, when He recognizes our faith in it, which is what instigates his intercession. Without that faith in the cross there is no intercession.

Then John reverts back to lifestyle again.

1 John 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

This is similar to the John verse Shazeep quoted. The ones who know God are the ones who keep His commandments. They do not sin. But again, it is because of what chapter 1 said. The blood of the cross cleanses us.

John continues.

1 John 2:4-6 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (5) But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. (6) He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

We should be living as Christ did if we truly know God. Being IN CHRIST is what is described as truly knowing God. And how do we get into Christ? It's by the same means whereby we are made righteous. We exert a genuine faith from our hearts that His death is our deaths. We come into union with Him at the point of His death. So, it always and never fails to go back to the cross. And it's not this false accusation of empty lip service, but as I have repeated, it is the genuine faith in the heart that only God can see that determines if we've been put into His death. But you have to have faith in that death in order to be put into it,. And that is where we also get His righteousness.

Abiding in Him is not a crossless good life of righteous deeds. Ha! It is getting into union with Christ who is the vine and we are branches. His life flows through us like sap from a vine into the branches. Paul said that is only accomplished by us being crucified with Him, that HIS VERY LIFE AND FAITH manifest through our lives. He actually indwells us and lives through us. It's not copying his behaviour as though we imitate Him, like Thomas Aquinas erringly proposed. He actually indwells us and lives through us. He was on the cross to die as us, but He is inside us to live as us.

And the commandment John wrote was not new but yet is new. John continues to write about antichrists who deny the relationship of actual Father and actual Son in Jesus Christ and God, which clarifies what it means to propose Jesus came in the flesh. He came in the flesh, BUT BY INCARNATION THROUGH BEGETTING OF THE FATHER, which false religions deny. Oh, they like His good deeds and His miracles, but that pesky begetting of the Father and the work of the cross -- the beginning of the Son and the end of the earthly life of the Son 00 begetting and the cross -- are the two vital things we find the Bible focusing on, that false religions deny.

1 John 2:23-26 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. (24) Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. (25) And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life. (26) These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.

Why does John write these things about the Father actually BEGETTING the Son, making God a begetter? It is so that no one will seduce us!

So, when we read, "Do not be deceived," that CONTEXT of this epistle is saying that in reference to the elements of His birth after being begotten, and the work of the cross in providing us cleansing from sin, and consciously abiding in Christ through union to His death that John has in mind.

Be not deceived? You better believe it! But in PROPER CONTEXT!

And here it comes:

1 John 3:4-7 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (5) And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. (6) Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. (7) Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

Notice the context wherein we read about deception, is conjoined and united to the concepts of Jesus MANIFESTED to take away our sins. How did He do so? By the blood that chapter 1 mentioned. Cleansing us from sin BY THE BLOOD.

We cannot get away from it. Talk about deception and righteous deeds! Please do! But don't rip out the elements that are intrinsically involved in John's context: THE BLOOD OF THE CROSS, JESUS LITERALLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER. the two things false religion will scream against in fury!

Amen. Do not be deceived with scripture taken out of context.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well that is why i included "more literal interpretation" in there, Mike, i'm not trying to make anything true that is not. I think it is worth acknowledging, as we customarily ask after peoples' state of salvation,

Who is there around here who customarily asks people of the state of their salvation?

and we customarily receive an answer that we accept at face value, or judge on its merits, right? "Yes, he was saved in 1969," or "No, he isn't saved, he's a Baptist," like that.

It matters not what denomination one is in, but whether or not one believes what the word actually, says. And just because one is sincere and thinks their interpretation is correct, it's still their interpretation. God does not let us arbitrarily claim what His word means. He has a single meaning He intends to relate by His word, and we must pray and sincerely study to learn what that is., realizing we may have a misinterpretation. This is what I remind my congregation about every now and then.

wadr i would say that you presume quite a lot.

I think the same of you. That's why I always go back to the word and compare your ideas with mine and allow challenges FROM THAT WORD to show each of us who is correct. But you never do that. you run.

You presume you are saved despite Scripture,

Wrong. iu believe I am saved because of what ALL scripture says about it. But you claim the cross is not necessary, despite your claims to the contrary, and I will show you how you do that. Really sly, you know, but you have a way, don't you?

and you presume everyone else is lost despite Scripture,

Nope. Nothing I do is done despite scripture.

when i pick the Scriptures, but you can surely find justification for these if i am not here and you get to pick all the Scripture that makes your point. Of course i do these too, have pretty much all my life, but i'm seeing the trap there now.

If repeatedly offer you to BE HERE and pick scriptures and discuss them. You refuse.

I mean, how do you treat verses like "any spirit that admits Christ came in the flesh is from God?" don't you effectively ignore them for the sake of your doctrine?

I already answered that. See? You do not read what I write. Rather convenient, I know. But not honest.

Let me answer that passage again! (sigh)

The scripture that states antichrist denies Christ came in flesh must be read in conjunction with all references to both antichrist and how he came in flesh. You faithfully cherry pick scripture and remove the context away from it. When I hold your feet to the fire to deal with context you run away never respond and then casually mention the cherry picked passage again weeks later as if I never responded to it, like you just did here now.

Here goes again:

The first mention of antichrist:

1Jn 2:18-25 KJV Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. (19) They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. (20) But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. (21) I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. (22) Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. (23) Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. (24) Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. (25) And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.

Antichrist is directly related to denial of the Father and the Son. The Koran teaches GOD CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN, and the online muslim with whom I spoke said I was lost because I believed God begat a Son. For the Koran says God did not beget a Son neither has he the ability to do so... ever.

They say: "Allah has begotten a Son". Glory be to Him! His is what the heavens and the earth contain; all things are obedient to Him. Creator of the heavens and the earth! When he decrees a thing, He need only say "Be", and it is.
—Qur'an 2:116

God only speaks but never BEGETS, it claikms.

Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth; how can He have a son when He has no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things.
—Qur'an 6:101

The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, while the Christians say the Messiah is the son of God. Such are their assertions, by which they imitate the infidels of old. God confound them! How perverse they are!
—Qur’an 9:30

They say, ‘God has begotten a son.’ God forbid! Self-sufficient is He. His is all that the heavens and the earth contain. Surely for this you have no sanction. Whould you say of God what you know not?
—Qur’an 10:68

Such was Jesus, the son of Mary. That is the whole truth, which they still doubt. God forbid that He Himself should beget a son! When He decrees a thing He need only say: ‘Be,’ and it is.
—Qur’an 19:35

Those who say: ‘The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,’ preach a monstrous falsehood, at which the very heavens might crack, the earth break asunder, and the mountains crumble to dust. That they should ascribe a son to the Merciful, when it does not become the Lord of Mercy to beget one!
—Qur’an 19:88

Say: ‘How then can you be so bewitched?’
We have revealed to them the truth, but they are liars all.

Never has God begotten a son, nor is there any other god besides Him. Were this otherwise, each god would govern his own creation, each holding himself above the other. Exalted be God above their falsehoods!
—Qur’an 23:91

Surely they lie when they declare: "Allah has begotten children".
—Qur'an 37:151

He (exalted be the glory of our Lord!) has taken no wife, nor has He begotten any children. The Blaspheming One among us has uttered a wanton falsehood against God, although we had supposed no man or jinee could tell of Him what is untrue.
—Qur'an 72:3

Say: ‘GOD is One, the Eternal God. He begot none, nor was He begotten. None is equal to Him.’
—Qur’an 112:1-4

The Koran denies God begat a Son, and the bible says God begat a Son.

Psa 2:7 KJV I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

The Koran teaches people to DENY the FATHER AND THE SON. For in denying Jesus is begotten of the God is to deny Jesus is God's Son and to deny God is Christ's Father.

So, antichrist is denial of the Father and the Son. The Koran says anyone who says God begat a Son is a liar. the Koran calls the bible a lie.

And when we read Antichrist denies Christ came in the flesh it is related to 1 John 2 where we also read antichrist denies Father and Son, for the two references to what antichrist does in one chapter as well as the other chapter are form the single book written by John the apostle. And they mean the same thing. So when we read antichrist denies Christ came in the flesh it also means for us to understand Christ came in the flesh by having been begotten of God. the Koran patently teaches people to deny Christ was begotten by God, and therefore denies HOW Christ came in the flesh.

[mfblume]

The chapter that mentions antichrist and denial of Jesus come in the flesh:

As with other passages I quoted, the enemy of our souls hates context.

Shazeep, you take verse 2 below and claim Muslims cannot be antichrist because they claim Jesus did indeed come in flesh. I am thankful they believe he was in flesh. but a real muslim would laugh at you because they know what the entire chapter says about that.

1Jn 4:1-10 KJV Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (2) Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: (3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Notice John said "THAT SPIRIT OF ANTICHRIST, WHEREOF YE HEARD THAT IT SHOULD COME." He is directly pointing back to chapter 2:18 and its context where we read a reference to antichrist that should come. And in that context we read denial of the Father and Son is antichrist.

Continue...

(4) Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. (5) They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. (6) We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. (7) Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. (8) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. (9) In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

There it is. HOW Jesus came in the flesh. He was SENT, first of all. And He was BEGOTTEN OF GOD when He was sent.

THIS is directly.... not vaguely or not elusively like you present your beliefs and answer questions... refuted by the Koran. DIRECTLY!

A muslim would laugh at anyone who did not agree!

So, the passage YOU USE to justify MULSIM religion and claim it is not antichrist actually says in the SAME CONTEXT that GOD BEGAT THE SON, and THAT is how Jesus came in the flesh. That is patently denied by Muslims, because Muslims are people who believe the Koran, and the Koran denies Jesus was Begotten by God.

(10) Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

This is also denied by mulsims, for mulsims deny Jesus was even crucified, let alone died fro a propitiation for our sins.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

How long would you remain an OP pastor if you were to start preaching that Muslims or Catholics might find salvation within their own dogmas, one must wonder. So again, i don't think you are being genuine here, wadr; if "religion is moot" then how can "All Catholics are lost" be true?

This is is the zingiest zinger you have yet posted.

Catholics can indeed find salvation easier than muslims since they have a Bible, and the bible teaches these things. But muslims finding salvation within their dogma? How>? Their dogma includes -- and would not be their dogma if it excluded -- the belief that Jesus did not even die on a cross, let alone died for our salvation.

So please explain to me how muslims can find salvation in that dogma that says Christ did not so much as die on a cross.

And you noted I would not remain an OP pastor if I reached muslims can find salvation in their own dogma. Sir, I would not be a Bible believer if I preached that! lol

And I am NOT worried about my occupation as pastor in the sense you imply. I am NOT concerned about coming to some reality that means I have to quit pastoring if I believe it. I have to throw away the bible in that case.

What you call salvation is something nonexistent, and not what the bible calls it. IN fact, everything you say about salvation and God and what is lost or saved is some mythical non-existent contrived belief of your own that you evidently created as a backlash of bitterness toward your parents that coloured everyone who calls themselves OP people by the same brush and tar and feathers. It certainly has NO foundation in the Word.

Not only that, I dare say I'd be on the money if I told you that there was a point in your life after you were offended by your own parents, that you started conjuring these beliefs, and you were afraid of what you were doing, and felt resistance from God about it. But you were that bitter that you trudged on ahead anyway, and eventually that hesitation left you and you do not feel it any more. You walked into reprobation, seared your conscience orom the warnings the Spirit of God impressed upon you, until He let you go.

I cannot say that is concrete, obviously, but nothing else explain how you can twist and distort the plain words of the bible to the contradiction of actually saying you never said the cross was not necessary for salvation, and turn around and just as easily say muslims can find salvation in their own dogma.

THE ONLY WAY a muslim can find anything in their own dogma is to see the high regard the Koran gives Jesus, and to start praying to Jesus and see Jesus pull them out of the hellish doctrine and come to a saving faith in the cross of Jesus.

[shazeep]

so it seems we are back to "religion is not moot, one must find the correct religion to please God."

So please explain to me how muslims can find salvation in that dogma that says Christ did not so much as die on a cross.

poor Mike, still trying to convince me that all Muslims are lost. Heck no, i am not Muslim, and i am not trying to defend Muslims i do not know, even as an academic exercise. I will let you do that, but you will be found to be a hypocrite when you cannot explain Lazarus' salvation, or the GS's, or the thief on the cross, or the others, and you work so hard to reason away the Scripture that probably explains these, because of course they do not fit into your doctrine.

So then you must either concede a point--which is not in your nature--or become disingenuous in your replies in order to hide your hypocrisy, when wouldn't it be much easier to just admit that judging others displays a lack of humility, and you don't truly know everything about salvation? Like the seeker in Scripture admitted? "Who then can be saved?"

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

so it seems we are back to "religion is not moot, one must find the correct religion to please God."

Religion is moot. Religion is not the point. But you won't read whaty I say about that, as I explained it before. So... read on, selectively.

So please explain to me how muslims can find salvation in that dogma that says Christ did not so much as die on a cross.

poor Mike, still trying to convince me that all Muslims are lost.

Actually I am not trying to convince you of anything. Just showing to readers the error of your reasoning in scripture.

Heck no, i am not Muslim, and i am not trying to defend Muslims i do not know, even as an academic exercise. I will let you do that, but you will be found to be a hypocrite when you cannot explain Lazarus' salvation,

here you go again making references to how the bible proves my error, when you refuse to actually outline the passages ands show why your claims are true. When are you going to actually lay them out showing why you think I am in error, rather than may glanced references to them, proving nothing?

or the GS's, or the thief on the cross, or the others, and you work so hard to reason away the Scripture that probably explains these, because of course they do not fit into your doctrine.

I reason none of these away. All of it formed my doctrine. I got my doctrine from these passages. Prove how they don't support my doctrine. I've been waiting weeks now.

So then you must either concede a point--which is not in your nature--

I've conceded more points I think than you have seeing as I have changed understanding throughout the years.

or become disingenuous in your replies in order to hide your hypocrisy, when wouldn't it be much easier to just admit that judging others displays a lack of humility, and you don't truly know everything about salvation? Like the seeker in Scripture admitted? "Who then can be saved?"

And this is not judging anyone, but the bible made the judgment call already for us. Again, judging is creating your own qualifications for salvation, and then pointing out those who don't qualify, when the picture here is that God laid out the qualifications. Big difference.

It has nothing to do with humility to say God judged this and that, and here is what He said. But it has everything to do with humility to say that God does the work to save us, and we cannot save ourselves. If we were left up to saving ourselves by good works, we'd burn in hell and forever be wretched sinners. Paul said, "Where is boasting" in that?

So keep on making your casual references without actually pinning the issue on the table for discussion, and I will keep exposing that ploy.