Elephant in the room - accusation of judging

[shazeep]

ok well it has been interesting--like discussing the morality of slave holding with a plantation owner is interesting--and i think we have both exhausted our arguments, as well as possibly provided an outline of how denial and hypocrisy function.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ok well it has been interesting--like discussing the morality of slave holding with a plantation owner is interesting--and i think we have both exhausted our arguments, as well as possibly provided an outline of how denial and hypocrisy function.

Nothing has been exhausted by far, since there has to be the mutual discussion of actual scripture, and you have not provided your side of that. You just made casual references, expecting everyone to accept your interpretation without any exegesis involved. Bible students don't accept that. And this makes your judgmental claims of my person to be unsubstantiated.

A real Muslim would never agree with you about the Son of God issue, and a real Christian would never agree with you about your views on scripture. Not religious Christians, but real Christians. You're in no -man's land.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Lazarus' salvation,

Lazarus as in the one Jesus resurrected, or the one in the parable?

Christ had not gone to the cross when he spoke of Abraham's bosom, if you;'re talking about the parable. That's why Lazarus was not in heaven but in Abraham's bosom. Before the cross sheol/Hades contained both the righteous under Law and sinners. Two parts of it were there... Gehenna and Abraham's bosom. When Christ resurrected, He took those in Abraham's bosom into heaven, and this shows all the OT saints, including Lazarus, were faithful under Law that depended upon the time and space experience of the cross for its atonement to be redeemed and enter heaven.

or the GS's,

Jesus was not discussing salvation with the GS, for the umpteenth time. He was showing how believers saved by the cross must love others.

or the thief on the cross,

The thief died before Christ made atonement after His resurrection, putting him in the same boat as all OT saints awaiting Christ's atonement to be accounted to them for their faithfulness under sacrifical systems that were ineffective without the fact that the cross would LATER take place.

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.

They all fit my doctrine quite well. You have never said a note to indicate they do not.

Now your doctrine says muslims can find salvation in their dogma, while their dogma denies Christ so much as even died on a cross, let alone died to redeem us. And you call me hypocritical? You see, while you focus on personal attacks on ME, I am focusing on your doctrine and what you present and don't present. Talk about fruit!

[mfblume]

bump

Originally Posted by mfblume

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


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.



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.



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?



Nope. Nothing I do is done despite scripture.



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



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.

[shazeep]

When are you going to actually lay them out showing why you think I am in error

well, when an argument against holding slaves convinces a plantation owner to free them, i guess. I have no interest in showing why i think you am in error, Mike, i don't think that is my place, and i doubt that it is even possible. I mean, after all, you are perfect, right? Or, since that reads funny, perhaps 'you have no sin to confess' is a better way to put it; however you get to "i am perfect in Christ, right now."

[shazeep]

judging is creating your own qualifications for salvation, and then pointing out those who don't qualify,

gee, ya think?

when the picture here is that God laid out the qualifications. Big difference.

i hope you see that you are not being sincere, or we would have ended this long ago. You cannot quote "all _______ are lost" from anywhere in Scripture, and as we have seen you must adopt a quite restrictive view of the Bible in order to even hold your doctrine.

What is the point of showing you your error, if it was error that got you to where you are? Or iow how do you convince a plantation owner that holding slaves is immoral? He demonstrated that he was not interested in morality when he bought the slaves.

[shazeep]

if you freely admit that Scripture might be misinterpreted in other threads, why not admit that this law you have found might be misinterpreted? And if you have interpreted this law correctly, why do you not demonstrate your understanding of this complex thing by showing that you have grasped the simple ones, like humility?

You have made a law, but Christ frees us from the law; and i tell you this law of yours, that did not come from God, will let you down.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

When are you going to actually lay them out showing why you think I am in error

well, when an argument against holding slaves convinces a plantation owner to free them, i guess. I have no interest in showing why i think you am in error, Mike, i don't think that is my place, and i doubt that it is even possible. I mean, after all, you are perfect, right? Or, since that reads funny, perhaps 'you have no sin to confess' is a better way to put it; however you get to "i am perfect in Christ, right now."

I am not perfect. Sin works in all of us including me, and through the Spirit I see God subdue it.

By the way, nice ploy to get out of talking scripture again. You have 1001 of them I now see.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

if you freely admit that Scripture might be misinterpreted in other threads, why not admit that this law you have found might be misinterpreted? And if you have interpreted this law correctly, why do you not demonstrate your understanding of this complex thing by showing that you have grasped the simple ones, like humility?

You have made a law, but Christ frees us from the law; and i tell you this law of yours, that did not come from God, will let you down.

Same old same old. All these claims, but never bible discussion to back them up. I expect it now.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

judging is creating your own qualifications for salvation, and then pointing out those who don't qualify,

gee, ya think?

Hello? I've not created any qualifications. The bible did. Always miss point this easily?

when the picture here is that God laid out the qualifications. Big difference.

i hope you see that you are not being sincere, or we would have ended this long ago.

Same old same old. Accusations. Never any evidence.

You cannot quote "all _______ are lost" from anywhere in Scripture, and as we have seen you must adopt a quite restrictive view of the Bible in order to even hold your doctrine.

Jesus said all those who do not believe in Him are lost.

What is the point of showing you your error, if it was error that got you to where you are? Or iow how do you convince a plantation owner that holding slaves is immoral? He demonstrated that he was not interested in morality when he bought the slaves.

Same old accusations and no evidence. Yawn.

I see now it's not me you don't like, despite your repeated attack on my person. It's the bible you don't like. You pull things out of context as I have demonstrated with actual context laid out. And you never resort to scripture except in taking things out of context in your casual reference to scripture. You really don't like the bible.