Love One Another and the Cross

[shazeep]

i am not seeing how your position is any different from a modern day Spanish Inquisition. Don't the righteous elements of our gov hold your position, with the power of the military to enforce it? If not, how not?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, i'm lobbing grenades at it, yes. To me, it reeks of lack of humility, and/or self-servitude, and/or false superiority. "While i am saved?" Who lied to you, and told you that you were saved? You are not saved, and i can prove this with Scripture. Definitively. I would not describe myself as saved, either, although there were multiple decades when i would have.

You also believe no one can know for sure they're saved, anyway. So much for your opinion on that issue.

To you what lacks of humility is just the problem. TO YOU. Maybe you were so self righteous in your Acts 2:38 days that you think no one can espouse Acts 2:38 without being full of pride. But it's downright ignorant to accuse someone of lacking humility just because they read John says denial of the son is antichrist, then read the koran deny the son's existence left, right and centre, and say anyone who agrees with the koran is antichrist and therefore lost.

Everything is "TO ME."

I'm also having issues with "who i think is lost," for more or less the same reason; you believe you somehow have got a bead on who is saved or lost,

Lol. No. I said a child could understand that. Those who deny the son are antichrist. Koran teaches God has no son in multiple places. A child could understand that. No "bead" needed.

and this is a dangerous, self serving position.

It's solid bible teaching. Nothing to do with self-serving, though I'm sure some use it for that reason.

None of these people has "held out to the end." I can make a case for many who you would surely term saved having not even begun holding out at all yet--they don't even know what holding out means, perhaps.

NO, of course I don't. Anything you say. You know, "TO ME" and all.

I am trying to imagine the case where "I, who am saved, humbly feel for those who don't believe as i do, and are lost" would not be accompanied by crocodile tears; and i can't.

That's the problem. Its'a all "TO ME."

I can remember experiencing this perception, and of course "pride" is not how any Christian would describe it, once they know that "pride" is a code-word to be avoided,

Exactly. "TO ME." You judge everyone but what you did. You cannot imagine another intention apart from the one to do with "TO ME."

but that is pretty much full blown lack of humility regardless. Of course it is all Scripturally, factually justified; "proven," if you will. By ignoring some other Scripture--lots of other Scripture.

Ignoring none. And I asked you to present them then you say you're not interested after pounding that mantra over and over.

Well, heres "TO YOU."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i am not seeing how your position is any different from a modern day Spanish Inquisition. Don't the righteous elements of our gov hold your position, with the power of the military to enforce it? If not, how not?

Of course you don't see it. "TO ME" is your universe. No chance of error there.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

This is still disingenuous, and does not fairly address the statement "the overwhelming majority of churchianity accept bona fides as de facto evidence of salvation." Also, you say what God thinks is what matters, but you also say that All Muslims are lost because they lack your dogma and bona fides, and the two are not compatible. They are hypocrisy.

You have a unique way of thinking. lol

God says denial of son is antichrist. Not me. God. And Koran denies the son's existence , let alone his words. A child could understand it.

You count heads, bag me in with the head-counters, and when I say the issue is what God sees, and who cares what the majority thinks, you say I am being disingenuous. Okaaaay.

then you are halfway home!

Oh why thank you! "TO ME" has spoken!

by the same logic--which btw will never get one to God; logic--if one is rejected for non-bearing, they are accepted for bearing.

Howso?

Yes, it is a seemingly blasphemous leap; i'm still not quite sure i believe it myself. The position that one is presented with the GS merely as an example to follow has some merit, on its own; but for me, at least, taken with all of the other supporting Scripture, 9/10ths of the law, what you are insisting upon amounts to some words.

You actually cannot grasp the issue of the NT explanation of how the law said successful compliance with Law of works causes one to have eternal life, but that route is impossible to keep, so grace brought the same life through the means of faith instead. And you cannot actually grasp the point that, yes, we all need to be like the good samaritan, nothing against that at all. BUT AFTER we're made righteous by faith not works. I've seen people in church for decades who never realized that, so don't think you actually do when it is apparent you do not, especially after thinking you abandoned that faith years ago when in reality I doubt you ever knew it.

[quot]
So in all conscience i am forced to look for a Scriptural situation in which the words might expressly be "no, i am not interested in your Christ, tyvm," that still end up being considered doing his father's will. And viola, the First Son. Now, you might have valid arguments against that, but i have not heard them. And that does not mean you are wrong; you do not have to believe what i believe.[/quote]

You are classically throwing out the baby with the bathwater due to some "TO ME" experiences in the past that paste everyone with the same tar.

2Pe 2:2 KJV And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

well, it's either what God sees, or what you have defined as denying the Son,

I'm not even listening to that nonsense any more. A child can see the point of denial of the Son.

but not proven that God holds your definition; not necessarily both. Sounds good, i will admit; but frankly it is your surety that gives me pause. It is patently obvious how that can be made to be self-serving.

You're too pessimistic to see what a child could plainly see, and how blinding must that be?

What if, say, i am a guy raised by two hypocritical Lord crying Bible-thumpers, and i'm now psychologically unable to follow anything that includes the terminology they used, but i have a good heart? What if i am the First Son, iow?

A twisted heart from hypocritical parents is far from a good one.

But this is the best evidence yet for the reason as to why you claim muslims cannot be said to be lost even though they flatly deny the Son of God. It does not matter what the WORD SAYS and if people deny the WORD. You are so stuck on the heart that you think God will overlook their fundamental hatred of what He claims is salvation, so long as their deception does not affect how kind they are to people at the same time. THAT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING! Wow.

That's the same sort of thinking that says, "Well if the Bible says Acts 2:38 is the plan of salvation, and there's a vast majority of christianity who don't obey it, then there must be something wrong with the way we read Acts 2:38. After all, counting heads is more reliable than plain reading." Forget the fact that only eight souls were saved in Noah's day.

That explains everything Shazeep! You THINK SO MUCH about whether someone is honest and sincere to themselves in your "TO ME" universe, and that you have no concept that someone can be sincerely wrong, but God does not judge by His word but buy the degree of sincerity no matter how wrong a person might be.

So, in your TO ME universe the word is arbitrary. TO ME the word says one thing but TO YOU it says another, because both of us are sincere. No, wait a minute. If TO ME the word means a group is lost then that cannot be good variance, although variance is acceptable to muslims if TO THEM it says something else because they never said muslims are lost.

Shazeep, do you think muslims as a whole think all christians are lost?

Your TO ME doctrine that gauges salvation by sincerity, except when it violates your conditions by stating a group is lost wholesale if they deny what the bible plainly says is antichrist due to such denial, has no room in its universe for the concept of deception. Deception is when someone is certainly wrong, but they think they're right. It's what Jesus referred to when he said if the darkness in a person is considered light, then how great must that darkness be. There's no existence of deception in your universe except for those who disagree with your TO ME philosophical conditions. As long as a Muslim is loving and sincere, surely there's a misinterpretation of the statement that denial of son is antichrist's in God's word. You're deceived by the "no deception exists" concept, except where you declare it to exist.

The twelve-ring circus continues! No word. Just philosophical contradictions.

[shazeep]

You actually cannot grasp the issue of the NT explanation of how the law said successful compliance with Law of works causes one to have eternal life, but that route is impossible to keep, so grace brought the same life through the means of faith instead.

so now, are you back to "When Christ said that loving your neighbor was 9/10ths of the law and prophets, He didn't really mean to love your neighbor, He meant to not love your neighbor, as that would be attempting salvation by works."?

of course i put my impression, not how you would have put it. So, could you put it your way? (i would have said "can you clear that up," but apparently that carries some negative connotation now that i am not aware of)

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

You actually cannot grasp the issue of the NT explanation of how the law said successful compliance with Law of works causes one to have eternal life, but that route is impossible to keep, so grace brought the same life through the means of faith instead.

so now, are you back to "When Christ said that loving your neighbor was 9/10ths of the law and prophets, He didn't really mean to love your neighbor, He meant to not love your neighbor, as that would be attempting salvation by works."?

No. That is not what I am saying. He only indicated something that would work if we had no sin. And the truth is the rest of the bible teaches us God expects the same good people through grace that Law tried to produce. The goal for Law and grace is one and the same.

That's why I quoted 1 Timothy.

1Ti 1:5 KJV Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

THE END is the GOAL.

1) charity out of a pure heat.
2) Good conscience.
3) Unfeigned faith.

Those three things are what Law intended to produce in us by getting us to do good works to save ourselves. But we had sin in our flesh, so Law was disabled from accomplishing that.

Paul then stated the same ends and goals are abundantly found in grace.

1Ti 1:14 KJV And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

What Law could not produce was exceeding abundant in grace!

So, grace does not contradict Law as per its goals. Grace does not produce people who don't have the traits Law tried to produce. It's just that the MEANS of grace to bring about these things is contrary to Law. It is faith as opposed to works.

I am saying He was confirming the fact that doing those works successfully would save him. But the truth is that no one can do them due to sin. But that does not mean once we are saved by the OTHER ROUTE aside from works, called grace, we still do what the law said do. And grace is abundant with the very things about love that law instructed. The only difference is the good works of loving were intended to save under Law, and Law could not succeed, so we're saved by grace, and we still are told to love the same way Law instructed.

That is what Paul meant in Romans 8 about the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh. Walking after the flesh is trying to serve God under fleshly exertion under Law's command to do so to gain life. It does not work. But the same conclusions of loving God and people that God told man to achieve by works is provided by grace. The same goodness.

Rom 8:3-4 KJV For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

The law tried to get us to be good people, but failed due to sin in us. The same goal of having good people is provided by a means other than Law. Grace! The righteousness of the law being fulfilled in us is the same good people Law tried to make us.

of course i put my impression, not how you would have put it. So, could you put it your way? (i would have said "can you clear that up," but apparently that carries some negative connotation now that i am not aware of)

...Whatever that means.

Anyway, this is what I mean by you not grasping this concept. It is actually the entire basis of Grace. By the way you keep responding, confusing Christ's intention in His words about the Good Samaritan you reveal you are missing what I meant. No biggie in one sense since I will seek to be more clear, but in a way it is the biggest issue between Law and Grace.

[shazeep]

Grace may be much larger than we envision.

No. That is not what I am saying. He only indicated something that would work if we had no sin.

this is just another way to say the same thing, Mike. It is denying that Christ said this for the Church, as a direction to follow.

[shazeep]

I am curious now if you know of some exposition on this, or if any other Christian believes this.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

I am curious now if you know of some exposition on this, or if any other Christian believes this.

They certainly do. Want me to provide commentary as witness? It is really basic, Shazeep. I am not kidding.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Grace may be much larger than we envision.

No. That is not what I am saying. He only indicated something that would work if we had no sin.

this is just another way to say the same thing, Mike. It is denying that Christ said this for the Church, as a direction to follow.

Nope. You totally misunderstand.

I will provide commentary to show as witness of my thoughts.