A Peculiar Kind of Gospel

[Philip]

It occured to me that some of the sayings of this sage should be collected for the edification of all.



The Gospel According to Sozo


"If you really loved your wife, you'd find a nice bridge with a swift river below, and have yourself a late night swim!"

Philosophy~ Religion > Sozo Shows Christian Love, #4



"I'd much rather see your mug on the news having been eatin' alive by several rabid dogs."

Back Alley > No Longer a Christian #693



"You are a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit, and YOU have no hope!"

Exclusively Christian Theology > grace and Works #227



"You're an idiot; a demon possessed idiot!"

Exclusively Christian Theology > Grace and Works #225


"Go back to hell, Stone! You are controlled by demons, and a madman."

Exclusively Christian Theology > Grace and Works #223



"However, YOU will receive the hell that you deserve, and those who knew you, will rejoice at your eternal torment."

Philosophy~Religion > Sozo Shows Christian Love #57



"Morphy is our resident pollock! He loves child molestors, rapists, and homos!"

Welcome Center > Greetings #20



"You are a pervert, worthy of death, and hopefully, someday, in this country, we can pass legislation to put fear in the minds of perverts by putting an end to their lives, so that others will think about their choices."

General Theology > Gays and Civil Penalties #39



" . . . God has clearly revealed that homosexual practices are worthy of death."

Genberal Theolgy > Wickwoman's Five Favorite Fundies #11



"These questions are subjective to each individual case, but if the infractions and penalties are known, and they still rebel, then ultimately the death penalty should be enforced.

"I would compare your questions to that of a child molestor, because currently that practice is not tolerated by society, and I therefore would suggest that those who allow them to live at home, associate, or knowingly employ such people be subject to similar penalties.

"Because our society tolerates homosexuals, it appears as though any association to them is moot, but it is only because society is grossly mistaken.

"There are alot of crimes that should be upgraded to the death penalty, and there are alot of behaviors that should be crimes, that are not."

General Theology > Gays and Civil Penalties #4



"I now know that those same evil people are right here in our midst, disguising themselves as a preacher, a wiccan mother, and other various characters. I hope that someday we can use the evidence of these views that they have posted (if and when this country comes to it's senses) to bring these wicked characters to the justice that they deserve, and as testimony to others that their endorsement of abominable acts will not go unpunished."

Current Events and Politics > God - For or Against Abortion, #46



"Schizophrenia is not an illness. It is a made-up term to describe an individual who has an unsound mind resulting from personal choices."

General Theology > Need some Honsest thoughts on Situation #35



"Go to hell... godrulz."

General Theology > Are you Perfect? #652


"You are a liar! And since you are not a Christian, you will go to hell! "

General Theology > Jesus is ... Lord? #45[/i]



"I am now offically naming my butt... Gerald. Would you like to be the first to kiss Gerald?"

General Theology > transexual Freaks of Nature #58


"My summary of the bible: God is God, and YOU are a Christ hating dog!"
Exclusively Christian Theology > Are you Perfect? #641


"You are the most ignorant @ss that the world has ever known! . . . THEN TELL US WHAT IT MEANS, YOU FRICKEN DUMB@SS."

Exclusively Christian Theology > Are you Perfect? #637



"You are a hypocrite, and a liar! You are going to hell. . . . You are a worthless piece of crap, and not fit for worm food.

Exclusively Christian Theology > Are you Perfect? #622



". . . He is going to throw your devil worshipping butt in hell!"

Exclusively Christiam Theology > Jesus is . . . Lord? #12


"NONE OF US could give a crap if you ever come back. You are a liar, a pervert, and have zero integrity. You cried like a baby for several days because I would not address your stupidity. Then once I gave you my response, you ran away like a beaten little puppy with your tail between your legs. You don't deserve an answer to any of your anti-Christ contentions. You are a godless pig, with no hope."

Exclusively Christian Theology > Are you Perfect? #265


"You scurvy liitle twerp. You run away from the other thread, where I proved you a liar, and a cultist to show up here and jump on the bandwagon of these godless, Holy Spirit blaspheming, pigs. You have no life in you. Go crawl back into your dung heap."

Exclusively Christian Theology > Are you Perfect? #186


"Hey butthead... you have NEVER responded to any post! So shut your big fat Jesus hating mouth!"

Exclusively Christian Theology > Are you Perfect? #169


Look, lame brain, it goes like this... You ask a question, I respond. . . . Get it? Or is that too complicated for your pea-sized intellect?

Exclusively Christian Theology > Are you Still Sinning? #262
_________________________


Not much comment on this body of work is needed. I endured weary hours of it, so as to present it to you.

I think I understand where the writer is coming from. His heavy emphasis on Christian perfection means to him that he, the writer, is perfect by virtue of his having been sanctified by the blood of Christ. So when he looks into his soul, whatever he happens to find in there seems to him perfect, even when it is vile, hateful, spiteful, arrogant and corrupt. And the putrification that he casts seems to him like the love of God.

In Him,

Philip

[Crow]

more peculiar gospel...

Matthew 23

(1) 1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, "Rabbi, Rabbi.' 8But you, do not be called "Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ,[2] and you are all brethren. 9Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.
13"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.[3]
15"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
16"Woe to you, blind guides, who say, "Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.' 17Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies[4] the gold? 18And, "Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.' 19Fools and blindFor which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? 20Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it. 21He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells[5] in it. 22And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.
23"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. 24Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
25"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence.[6] 26Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. 28Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30and say, "If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.'
31"Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. 33Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

1 Cor 6

9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 5

1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles--that a man has his father's wife! 2And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Mark 7
27But Jesus said to her, "Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs."

*note--"dogs" was a racial epithet in Jewish society which referred to Gentiles.

1 Timothy 1

9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.


18Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, 19holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. 20Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

Galatians 5
11Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!


Philip-

Anyone who reads your post knows you're referring to Sozo, so there's no point being coy about it. At least have the guts to give a person's name when you seek to impugn them.

Sozo gets carried away on some of the interpersonal stuff. I do too, as do most of us who are insufficiently practiced in the art of smarminess, some of us more frequently than others.

Sozo is one of the best teachers I have had as a Christian. He is just as happy to advise and guide and share and answer stupid questions asked out of a sincere desire to understand as he is to rebuke and correct. If someone shows a thirst to learn he is one of the most generous people with his time and with his advice that you could ask for.

What I have listed above is only a tiny fraction of stuff I can find in the scriptures where sin and false teaching were condemned soundly and sinners insulted. Sozo does not quietly suffer attempts to misuse the scriptures to suit man's idea of morality or fairness or what seems to be a better way of doing things. He does not preach "inclusiveness" other that that which we find as those who have Christ as Savior. He does not call evil good, nor good evil. I thank God that He has fostered this fearlessness in Sozo.

Neither Christ nor Paul shied from giving insult nor did they gloss things over. They were not double-minded. They called it as they saw it. They responded differently according to the situation, depending on whether they were being met with honest doubt and confusion or willful ignorance.

[Sozo]

:chuckle:


You should have entitled this thread... The Best of Sozo: Volume One!

What's so funny, is that instead of responding to a post that proved you to be a false teacher, you thought you could discredit me by revealing something that I do on a daily basis to people like you. I hate to disappoint you, but everyone knows full well what I am capable of when someone preaches a false gospel.

However, in your defense, I will say, that I do go overboard at times, and my passion for the truth, results in my greatest weakness, my thorn in the flesh, if you will, and I could probably accomplish more if I took a walk before I respond to people with your character. The difference between myself and others, is that I expose my weakness for all eyes to see, while the weaknessess of others are still hidden. Berating, lashing out, insulting, and mocking others for their perversions may not always be the best recourse, but, as Crow pointed out, sometimes it is the righteous thing to do.

I might make a suggestion to you Philip, (and I say this in all love and tenderness); If you would have spent as much time in prayer and reading your bible as you did in compiling your post, perhaps you would see the error of ways, and not be such a defender of perverts, because it tends to make us think that you are one.

[Philip]

Originally posted by Sozo

Rabid dogs . . . you have no hope . . . rejoice at your eternal torment . . . our resident pollock . . . worthy of death . . . YOU FRICKIN DUMB@SS . . . Go to hell . . . Renaming my butt Gerald . . . kiss my Gerald? . . . Christ hating dog . . . worthless piece of crap not fit for worm food . . . scurvy little twerp . . . crawl back into your dung heap . . . Hey butthead . . . big fat Jesus hating mouth . . .

big fat Jesus hating mouth . . .

big fat Jesus hating mouth . . .

big fat Jesus hating mouth . . .

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Philip

:chuckle: :chuckle:

You should have entitled this thread... The Best of Sozo: Volume One!

What's so funny, is that instead of responding to a post that proved you to be a false teacher, you thought you could discredit me by revealing something that I do on a daily basis to people like you. I hate to disappoint you, but everyone knows full well what I am capable of when someone preaches a false gospel.

However, in your defense, I will say, that I do go overboard at times, and my passion for the truth, results in my greatest weakness, my thorn in the flesh, if you will, and I could probably accomplish more if I took a walk before I respond to people with your character. The difference between myself and others, is that I expose my weakness for all eyes to see, while the weaknessess of others are still hidden. Berating, lashing out, insulting, and mocking others for their perversions may not always be the best recourse, but, as Crow pointed out, sometimes it is the righteous thing to do.

I might make a suggestion to you Philip, (and I say this in all love and tenderness); If you would have spent as much time in prayer and reading your bible as you did in compiling your post, perhaps you would see the error of ways, and not be such a defender of perverts, because it tends to make us think that you are one.

[Balder]

I think Philip should have entitled this thread:

Nostalgia for the Inquisition

[cattyfan]

Is it like a rite of passage for new people to pick an unnecessary fight with Sozo? :chuckle:

[Granite]

Philip, for what it's worth, don't waste time trying to tangle with, reason with, or argue with Sozo. Just accept him for what he is. (Actually haven't made my mind up on that, come to think of it.):D

Yes, I think you're right catty: the newbies wander into Sozo, get their thumb chopped at his verbal wood chipper, then realize they can just leave him be. He's all bark, no bite. Of course the fact that this is all virtual may have something to do with that...

[Crow]

It kinda reminds me of tossing a rock into a hornets nest, and getting mad if the hornets don't chase you.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by cattyfan

Is it like a rite of passage for new people to pick an unnecessary fight with Sozo? :chuckle:

Maybe I should copyright those phrases :think:

My personal favorite is...

"I am now offically naming my butt... Gerald. Would you like to be the first to kiss Gerald?"


Anyone get the feeling that Philip is related to Mateo?

:chuckle:

[Crow]

:think:

[Lovejoy]

Originally posted by Sozo

Maybe I should copyright those phrases :think:

My personal favorite is...

"I am now offically naming my butt... Gerald. Would you like to be the first to kiss Gerald?"


Anyone get the feeling that Philip is related to Mateo?

:chuckle:

Actually, I still talk to Mateo on several other forums. For some reason, he gets in trouble virtually everywhere he goes. I have never seen a man get banned in such a serial manner. However, it does end up leading me to some very interesting sites!

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Lovejoy

Actually, I still talk to Mateo on several other forums. For some reason, he gets in trouble virtually everywhere he goes. I have never seen a man get banned in such a serial manner. However, it does end up leading me to some very interesting sites!

I don't really think that Philip is Mateo, because their writing styles are different, and Philip ends his with "In Him, Philip", but there is still something about Philip that is familiar, and I can't quite put my finger on it.

:think: :think: :think:

[Crow]

:think:

Dang, Sozo, Phillip must have spent hours digging through all of your posts. I hope that isn't a sign of some sort of unwholesome interest in you.

:shocked:

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by Crow
:think:

Dang, Sozo, Phillip must have spent hours digging through all of your posts. I hope that isn't a sign of some sort of unwholesome interest in you.

:shocked:

Or he might have just used the search function...

[Crow]

Originally posted by Philip

Not much comment on this body of work is needed. I endured weary hours of it, so as to present it to you.

[1PeaceMaker]

Originally posted by Philip

Not much comment on this body of work is needed. I endured weary hours of it, so as to present it to you.

I think I understand where the writer is coming from. His heavy emphasis on Christian perfection means to him that he, the writer, is perfect by virtue of his having been sanctified by the blood of Christ. So when he looks into his soul, whatever he happens to find in there seems to him perfect, even when it is vile, hateful, spiteful, arrogant and corrupt. And the putrification that he casts seems to him like the love of God.

In Him,

Philip :sigh:

It seems that you aren't focusing on whether or not certain aspects of Sozo's theology is correct, but instead on what kind of writing/communicating he does.

That is too bad for you.

Remember what Jesus said? "do what they say not what they do."

That way you won't be troubled with issues of what kind of relationship with God they are having. That is not your business, you know? Don't act like Sozo if you don't like his manners, but listen to what he says, and embrace the TRUTH. Reject only what is false.

BTW, it is possible to act like an @ss without sinning, however, it is not recommended. :chuckle:

[Philip]

Greetings, 1Peacemaker -

I hardly felt that an explaination was needed.

Sozo regrets some of his hasty utterences, but falls short of admitting error. In fact, I do not think we could find any significant example of Sozo changing his mind. Sozo has absolute faith that his mind contains a perfect and true reflection of God's reality.

Sozo experiences himself as being incapable of error. I think this belief of his results from a chain of thought something like this:

"I am saved. Those who are saved find themselves to be in compliance with the Lord's teaching that we should be perfect, even as the Father is perfect. I am therefore perfect. And since I am perfect, I cannot be in error.

"If I cannot be in error, then those who have doctrinal differences with me must be in error. And if they are in error, and if they will not readily change their minds when I correct them, then they are not perfect. And if they are not perfect, then they are not saved. And if they are not saved, then they will go to hell.

"I rejoice in the perfect justice of God. If it pleases God to condemn certain men to the agonies of hell, then it pleases me when he sends these men to hell."

Sozo is a very intelligent man, and devotes much thought and energy to justifying something that is very simple when you strip away the rhetoric. If you represent a challenge to what Sozo thinks is true, then he wishes for you to be killed and burned in hell. It really is that simple, but it seems more complicated and sophisticated in Sozo's explainations.

The pattern can be seen again and again in these threads. Initially, when a user takes issue with Sozo, Sozo is polite and civil, and he backs up his beliefs with evidence from the scriptures or with rational arguments. Sometimes Sozo's antagonist presents counterargument to what Sozo said - and Sozo at first responds in kind. But soon, Sozo's patience wears thin. When it becomes apparent that he will not easily prevail, he stops addressing the arguments and starts attacking the arguer - because the possibility that he, Sozo, might be wrong cannot be entertained. He wonders aloud if maybe the arguer is not saved. Then he proclaims that the arguer is not saved. Next comes the juvenile name-calling. After that, he accuses the arguer of being stupid or insane. The next step is to proclaim the arguer an enemy of God. And even if the issue under debate is a relatively subtle doctrinal point, he ends up calling for his antagonist's death and agony in the flames, and he makes it clear that he, Sozo, will have a good time watching this piece of human crap wiggling and sizzling forever.

Beyond the obvious profile of an emotionally insecure, controlling type of personality that desperately desires to impose its own wishes upon reality, there are deep problems here that Christ would indeed identify as errors. Foremost is the desire that certain people should be condemned, and an anticipation of taking pleasure in their destruction. Christianity identifies one ancient being who desires destruction and who takes pleasure in it, and that being is niether Christ, the Holy Spirit nor the Father.

Sozo is not a monster. He wants to draw nearer to God and he seeks always to deepen his relationship with Jesus Christ as his Lord. He loves his family fiercely, and he even has a good sense of humor. He is honest and consciously desires to do what is right. But he is a profoundly frustrated person whose repressed dark side gains expression, in whole or in part, here, on the Internet.

Sozo shares a trait in common with us all: he is not perfect. His most obvious flaw is his misconception that he is perfect, and that misconception holds him back from his fondest desire - which is to draw ever nearer to perfection.

_________________

I will save Sozo the trouble of explaining his opinion of me. Sozo wants all of you to know that he thinks I am a God-hating criminal who should be eaten by rabid dogs, the excrement from which would provide Sozo with millenia of pleasure. That thought should make the part of Sozo's soul which is isolated and insulated from the trasformative power of God's grace dance with an ecstatic delight, much like Gollum when he momentarily recovered his precious at the very Crack of Doom.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Philip


Sozo regrets some of his hasty utterences, but falls short of admitting error. I never should have traded my TE to BillyBob :doh: In fact, I do not think we could find any significant example of Sozo changing his mind. Wnen I first came to this sight, I believed that the future was completely closed. No one should flippantly change their mind because of something they hear on a website. My relationship with God is intensely personal, and I did not come to the beliefs that I now hold without substantial impassioned prayer and study. Sozo has absolute faith that his mind contains a perfect and true reflection of God's reality. That's not true. But, I do have perfect access.Sozo experiences himself as being incapable of error. How about you prove this through something I said, rather than your mendacious quotes."I am saved." That is correct; salvation is an exchanged life.
Those who are saved find themselves to be in compliance with the Lord's teaching that we should be perfect, even as the Father is perfect. "Behold, I have come to do Thy will." He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. We have been sanctified; and those who are sanctified have been perfected for all time.

Your argument is not with me Philip.

And since I am perfect, I cannot be in error. Once again, you fail miserably in your pedomorphic logic.

I have never affirmed that I am perfect in thought, word or deed. I have been made perfect in spirit, which is my life, and that which has been changed. My mind is being changed through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and my body will be changed in the resurrection. This is fundemental stuff, Philip, are you sure you understand the gospel? "If I cannot be in error, then those who have doctrinal differences with me must be in error. (See above) Your logic falls flat. The truth is available to all those who are in Christ, and it comes directly from God, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit.And if they are in error, and if they will not readily change their minds when I correct them, then they are not perfect. This is not completely without merit. I do believe that those in Christ (including myself) will eventually come to the knowledge of the truth when confronted by it. The key to this is to be willing to examine what is being presented through prayer and bible study to see if the things spoken are true. We should all be Bereans. It should be a concern to everyone when someone continually rejects the truth, especially if they are the only one who sees it that way.

My insults are generally the result of others insulting me or the message of Christ without first giving the verses I quote any consideration. They tend to arrogantly hold to their religious baggage and anti-Christ religious doctrines, rather than what the writer has said. Most Christians have the idea that God is still judging them for sin, and so they are ineffective in both their relationship with God and in their presentation of the message of the gospel. I do question a person's salvation, if they repeatedly teach that the cross did not satisfy God's justice for sin, and that those who are in Christ have not been freed from sin.

"And we have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this, love is perfected with us, that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love."

And if they are not perfect, then they are not saved. And if they are not saved, then they will go to hell. Do you believe that unsaved people go somewhere else?

"I rejoice in the perfect justice of God. If it pleases God to condemn certain men to the agonies of hell, then it "pleases" me when he sends these men to hell." You are displeased with what pleases God? :confused: Why do you say that it pleases God to see these wicked men burn? I would say it is important to warn them of their impending doom. Wouldn't you?...there are deep problems here that Christ would indeed identify as errors. Foremost is the desire that certain people should be condemned, and an anticipation of taking pleasure in their destruction. You don't think that "certain people" should be condemned?

God does not take "pleasure" in the destruction of the wicked. But, He does warn them, and He does await their demise.

"You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you escape the sentence of hell?"

"But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who after He has killed has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!"

"He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet."

Your problem, Philip, is that you have not taken much time to read your bible, nor have an intimate relationship with God whereas you receive the message of Christ. But, that's fine, just do so, and when you can think, and see clearly, we can get back to correcting your beliefs that God wants criminals to run freely in our streets.

[1PeaceMaker]

*

[Sozo]

:confused:

[godrulz]

A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.

Speak the truth in love.

Sozo has a heart under the crusty exterior.

Earl Jabay (interesting books on our propensity to play God): "The Kingdom of Self" "The god-players"

Philip has some interesting insights into sozo's modus operandi (patterns).

One's communication is enhanced or detracted by character and personality.

The Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. No individual has cornered the market on truth. The Word, not our commentary on it, is authoritative.

= Proverbial platitudes and principles from a pious punk who has been plastered by Sozo the Perfect Philosopher in the past causing myself and others persistent pain.

[1PeaceMaker]

*

[1PeaceMaker]

Originally posted by godrulz

A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.

Speak the truth in love.

Sozo has a heart under the crusty exterior.

Earl Jabay (interesting books on our propensity to play God): "The Kingdom of Self" "The god-players"

Philip has some interesting insights into sozo's modus operandi (patterns).

I am thinking I should tell you what I feel about you, and why I call you a viper. You preach non-perfection in Christ. The ability to fall, to sin. That is a misleading thing, for you, and for others. If you die imperfect, you will not be in heaven.Originally posted by godrulz

= Proverbial platitudes and principles from a pious punk who has been plastered by Sozo the Perfect Philosopher in the past causing myself and others persistent pain. who's the pious punk who got plastered by Sozo? What meaneth "plastered"? :confused:

[godrulz]

punk= moi

'Perfection in Christ' is meaningless if the pastor is having an affair with his secretary (sin; breaking the moral law of God). I believe we can be perfect/mature in Christ, walking in the light as He is in the light. To deny it is impossible to sin as a believer is contrary to the experiences recorded in Scripture and modern church life (I John; I Cor.; Eph. 4-6; Romans; Rev. 2;3). This does not mean that we must sin. There is power and freedom in Christ to be holy as He is holy (He commanded this; He did not say just recognize your position in Christ).

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

punk= moi

'Perfection in Christ' is meaningless if the pastor is having an affair with his secretary (sin; breaking the moral law of God). I believe we can be perfect/mature in Christ, walking in the light as He is in the light. To deny it is impossible to sin as a believer is contrary to the experiences recorded in Scripture and modern church life (I John; I Cor.; Eph. 4-6; Romans; Rev. 2;3). This does not mean that we must sin. There is power and freedom in Christ to be holy as He is holy (He commanded this; He did not say just recognize your position in Christ).

These false ideas alone are why I believe you have never come to Christ. Most of the time, you have some good things to say, and then it is like some evil spirit wells up in you and you spew out this combination of easily refutable lies. There must be something stuck in your brain that keeps you rejecting the truth when it comes to one's identity in Christ, and other than boneheaded pride or a religious demon, I have no idea what that might be.

[godrulz]

I think I understand your idea of perfection in Christ (all of God, none of me). I am just suggesting it should manifest in reality. It seems specious for a pastor to claim perfection in Christ while he is skimming church funds, sleeping with the secretary, etc. This man needs to repent and renew obedience to walk in the light as He is in the light. One could say he was not a genuine believer, but there are Christians who lie, cheat, and lust. God rebukes and convicts those who are not holy, mature, and 'perfect'. We are to BE holy, as He is holy (command in NT), not just BELIEVE we are 'perfect'.

I am recognizing the verses that say we are in Christ. It just seems you are not recognizing the hundreds of exhortations, imperative/commands relating to the moral law of God for NT believers. To recognize discipleship and right living does not mean one dismisses justification by grace through faith apart from the law. To recognize the exhortations about obedient choices does not mean we do it in our own strength or that the Spirit has no role. We are warned to not quench or grieve the Spirit, to not live as we used to live, etc. Recognizing these explicit truths should not put one outside of salvation, but should be seen as reconciling all the relevant texts, not just the ones that emphasize God's role rather than our part.

[1PeaceMaker]

Godrulz, have you ever read my thread, entitled The Spiritual Law? (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16916) Some may argue it is an incomplete work, and perhaps that is why it didn't really stimulate discussion.

The reality is, if God's love for you awakens faith-filled love for Him, how can we sin? Christ, the seed of our hearts keeps us from sin. Love dominates, and in the end, despite an abundance of all other emotions, love rules the day. Love to God, and love for our brother, and that is why we cannot sin.

We can only keep the Royal Law of Love in Christ.

[Balder]

1PeaceMaker,

The reality is, if God's love for you awakens faith-filled love for Him, how can we sin? Christ, the seed of our hearts keeps us from sin. Love dominates, and in the end, despite an abundance of all other emotions, love rules the day. Love to God, and love for our brother, and that is why we cannot sin.

We can only keep the Royal Law of Love in Christ.

Is this theoretical or actual? If you believe it is actual, how would you account for all the negative things that have been done by Christians throughout history? Would you say that whoever did those things "wasn't really Christian"? How about the Christian man or woman who gives in sometime to temptation and cheats on his/her spouse, or takes something that doesn't belong to them, or takes the Lord's name in vain? They might repent afterwards ... and if they are truly serious about their faith, they probably will. But does this mean that because they "sinned" at some point after professing Christianity, they couldn't really have been true Christians? Or would this mean that these things cannot be counted as "sin" because these people now have Christ's righteousness covering them?

Peace,
B.

[1PeaceMaker]

Balder,

Have you read my thread, the Spiritual Law? I have a link to it in post #28 of this thread.

It is more about love than anything.

I think my thread will help you understand where I am coming from. You are welcome to comment there, despite where it is located. Or you can just post you thoughts here, I guess.

[1PeaceMaker]

To answer your question more directly, it is both theoretical and actual. Just at face value, you can see the legal transactions, and the fairness of the contract.

Underneath that, you can see more. The blood = the life of God, the one Spirit in us each, and the white garments speak of putting on a new paradigm(God's paradigm). A worldveiw that makes a fundamental shift from looking at outward works for goodness, to a paradigm where love, not an action, rules the concience. Not in a fleshly, hormonaly-shifting weak way, but one that is rooted in the spiritual essence that God has imparted to us as his sons. I am talking about deep motives.

Another thing. Just because one claims to be changed, and to accept Christ as Lord of their life, it means nothing if they are truly unchanged beneath. They have taken the Lord's name in vain. That is what that commandment means.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by 1PeaceMaker

Godrulz, have you ever read my thread, entitled The Spiritual Law? (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16916) Some may argue it is an incomplete work, and perhaps that is why it didn't really stimulate discussion.

The reality is, if God's love for you awakens faith-filled love for Him, how can we sin? Christ, the seed of our hearts keeps us from sin. Love dominates, and in the end, despite an abundance of all other emotions, love rules the day. Love to God, and love for our brother, and that is why we cannot sin.

We can only keep the Royal Law of Love in Christ.

There is a difference between WILL not sin, and CANNOT sin. Genuine believers should not sin and do not have to sin. The reality is that some believers sin in thought, word, deed, or motive (only God knows the heart). To say that we cannot sin is to misunderstand the nature of sin. Sin is a wrong moral CHOICE, not a substance. Unless we are more free before conversion, it is possible to sin. I John 1, in context, exhorts us to not sin, but reminds us that we are to repent and renew obedience IF we do sin. There is also a difference between an isolated lapse and an ongoing, habitual sin/bondage. This is supported by the continuous, habitual present tenses (Greek) in the relevant passages.

Love involves will and intellect. If we love God and others, we will live up to the principles of the decalogue. A Christian should not covet, but Paul warned NT believers to not do so. This implies it is possible, even if unlikely, that a believer could covet, lust, etc. How many Christians are dabbling in pornography? This is lust and a sin. Your theory might be nice on paper, but it is simplistic to say lust is not sin, or that a professing Christian who is tempted to lust is not really a Christian.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

There is a difference between WILL not sin, and CANNOT sin.

godrulz... where do you come up with this strange theology of yours? Are you sure you know what sin is? According to Paul, "where there is no law, neither is there violation". Do you understand that? If there is no law to prove you guilty, then you cannot sin. John states: "Sin is lawlessness", and Paul also declares that "sin is not imputed when there is no law".

I would assume that we agree that the wages of sin is death, do we not? It is not being in and out of fellowship. It is not walking in and out of the light. It is death! You cannot make up some new system to relate to God concerning sin. Have you not read Hebrews chapters 7-10?

Genuine believers should not sin and do not have to sin. That is just plain screwy! :kookoo:

If the law still condemns men of sin, then they are incapable of not sinning. Paul affirms this when he states:

"I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet." But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. And I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive, and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me."

For you to claim that you are capable of not sinning, and to still be under the demands of the law, is the apex of self-deception.

You are either under the Law, in sin, and dead to God, or...

You are under grace, in Christ, and alive to God.

It is that black and white, and to suggest otherwise is to completely undermine the gospel, and to insult the shed blood of Jesus.

[godrulz]

Sin is lawlessness. Sin is a wrong moral choice. The law convicts of sin.

King David was a believer. He committed adultery and murder. These are sins, lawlessness, wrong moral choices. It does not help to say he was in the OT. OT and NT believers and unbelievers did sin, despite your sinless perfection concepts. We do not have to sin, but it is self-evident a Christian can commit adultery (or does God strike them dead before intercourse)? There is no excuse for a believer to sin. If sin was not a choice, but a substance, then maybe God could eradicate it. To say we cannot sin means God eradicated free will, moral responsibility, accountability. We could do what we want, including evil, and chant I cannot sin, but sin is sin.

Can a pastor have an affair? Is adultery a sin? Can a believer sin?

You misinterpret the intent of the passages on the law. We are under grace, but this does not mean that the universal moral code is meaningless and lawlessness rules. We are not under the law, but if we rebel and disobey volitionally, the law will condemn us and drive us back to surrender and grace.

[Lawless]

Godrulz:.....

Open your heart to the Perfect Sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ. Be Obedient to our Lord's Authority, and rest in the security of that perfect blood. The ministry of death (Law) was fullfilled at the cross, it too was crucified.....Why do you cling to it? If you have Christ you are dead to the Law. You are free!

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

Sin is lawlessness. I have already affirmed that.

Why do you continue to provide further evidence that any relationship you have to the Christian faith is just religious lip service, and not the reality of someone who has been saved?

Your post is so twisted with lies and perversion, that it makes it difficult to find a place to begin with you. For the most part, I have already addressed your spurious arguments, but you completely ignored them, and just keep repeating yourself with the same earthly, demonic wisdom that does not come from God, but from a heart that is filled with deception.

Christians have NO relationship to God through the Law.

"Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter."

How much more evidence do you need? Are you a slave of righteousness, or a slave of sin? You cannot be both. You cannot serve two masters. Are you in the spirit, or in the flesh? You cannot be in both. You cannot move out of one and into the other through an act of human will. Are you alive, or are you dead?

"For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God."

"Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus."

"...having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness"

I am certain, that YOU, godrulz, will just gloss over those verses and continue to ignore them, as you always do. Your religious spirit will not allow you to know the truth.Sin is a wrong moral choice Where does the bible say that? This is YOUR interpretation of lawlessness. YOU are a moralist, and not a Christian. Morality is not righteousness. You are confused. Christians are righteous, not moral. If "moral choices" is what defines a Christian's righteousness, then there are NO christians. *Note* (The following is not a rhetorical insult, but a fact based on your own doctrine) YOU are anti-Christ, and pro-godrulz. YOU believe and teach that you are righteous because of what YOU do, because of your "moral choices" and not because of your identity with Christ.The law convicts of sin It sure does, but "Christians" have no relatioship with the Law. We "were made to die to the Law, through the body of Christ".
YOU refuse to do that, which means that YOU refuse Christ.King David was a believer Yes he was, but he was also under the demands of the Law. David had not died with Christ. Christ had not yet died, nor been raised from the dead. David was looking forward to the promise, and was not saved. He committed adultery and murder. Yes he did, and so have YOU & I, under the Law. And apparently, YOU still do.These are sins, lawlessness, wrong moral choices. Once again, YOU add your own commentary to lawlessness, and pervert the truth.It does not help to say he was in the OT. OT and NT believers and unbelievers did sin, despite your sinless perfection concepts. My "sinless perfection" concepts? You're an idiot!

"For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin."

"For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God."

"But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus, in order that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus."

"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit"

"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death."

"And if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness."

"Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus"

"For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions"

Please define for me how someone can be complete and yet not perfect.

"God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect"

"For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified."

"No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. Little children, let no one deceive you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

1. He who has died is free from sin.

2. Christians have died and their life is hidden in Christ.

3. No one who is in Christ sins.

4. No one who is born of God sins.

5. The one who practices sin is of the devil.


Are you a Christian?

or

Are you of the devil?


We do not have to sin, but it is self-evident a Christian can commit adultery (or does God strike them dead before intercourse)? If YOU actually took the time to read those verses (and the adjoining comments), YOU might have a clue what a stupid statement that is... but I doubt it.

There is no excuse for a believer to sin. Considering the fact that they are DEAD TO IT, I would say that is true! :rolleyes: "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law"If sin was not a choice, but a substance, then maybe God could eradicate it. Ever heard this...

"Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"

"For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for all"

"For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh"

"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

"...but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."

"...having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him."

"He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness"

"And you know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin."

ARE YOU "IN HIM"?

"And this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins."

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures"

"For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And I will remember their sins no more."

"...having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God"

""And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."

"He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."

"Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin."



To say we cannot sin means God eradicated free will, moral responsibility, accountability You are trying to amalgamate righteousness and morality, yet again. YOU just don't get it. Dead men have no free will. The gospel message is the only thing that sets men free from being dead in Adam to being alive in Christ, and dead toAdam. In Adam, you are not "free" to be righteous, and in Christ, you are not "free" to be unrighteous.

Can a pastor have an affair? Is adultery a sin? Yes, they can, and they often do. They will also suffer in the flesh for it. But, sin brings death, and if it is a sin, then they will die. Sin is a transgression of the Law. A Christian has no relationship to the Law.Can a believer sin? ummm...NO! If he could, he would not be a believer.We are under grace, but this does not mean that the universal moral code is meaningless and lawlessness rules. You cannot mix Law and grace, without destroying them both. They are both holy.

We are not under the law, but if we rebel and disobey volitionally, the law will condemn us and drive us back to surrender and grace. That is a blasphemous statement, and because of your ignorance of all that I have pointed out in this post, I will let it go.

[1PeaceMaker]

Originally posted by godrulz

There is a difference between WILL not sin, and CANNOT sin. You cannot forget how to brush your hair can you? In your normal healthy state. You learned how to a long time ago, and you can't just choose to go back to your babyhood, now matter how free you feel you are. As Paul said, "when I was a child, I spoke as a child," etc. Right? That is the difference. And he won't allow us to lose what we got by this spiritual maturation.(using Paul's example, from 1cor 13) Originally posted by godrulz

Sin is a wrong moral CHOICE, not a substance.As I have said before, that is wrong. Only in the fleshly, sin-bound world can that falshood seem true.Originally posted by godrulz

Unless we are more free before conversion, it is possible to sin.By George, I think you may just get what I am saying, if you are reading this post! :thumb:Originally posted by godrulz

I John 1, in context, exhorts us to not sin, but reminds us that we are to repent and renew obedience IF we do sin. Re-think your scripture, there Dude. I know that this is a hard one for you, as we have been over this scripture with you probably a 100 times, but maybe you'll get it today. I hope you do.Originally posted by godrulz

There is also a difference between an isolated lapse and an ongoing, habitual sin/bondage. This is supported by the continuous, habitual present tenses (Greek) in the relevant passages.Please, I don't know how many times you must be told how greek tenses work. This is not a scholarly way to read scripture. Why don't you go take a Greek course. That should help you.

Originally posted by godrulz

Love involves will and intellect. If we love God and others, we will live up to the principles of the decalogue. A Christian should not covet, but Paul warned NT believers to not do so.You are making an assumption that all those Paul addresses are converted. That is a mistake. The church is a school, and a battleground, as well as a hospital, if you will. Many people join, and are there for a while before they finally get it. Peter is a good example. He was a disciple before he was converted. And there is nothing wrong with that. Originally posted by godrulz

This implies it is possible, even if unlikely, that a believer could covet, lust, etc. How many Christians are dabbling in pornography? This is lust and a sin.Maybe those Christians are converted, maybe they are not. What you are discussing is irrelevant, though. You are very flesh obsessed in your thinking. What is their paradigm, what is yours? You can do many unprofitable things that have nothing to do with your conversion/walk with God. But is there Love for God and your brothers? An abiding love?Originally posted by godrulz

Your theory might be nice on paper, but it is simplistic to say lust is not sin, or that a professing Christian who is tempted to lust is not really a Christian. You think you have all the bases covered, don't you? You are thinking it is either A) or B) .... but watch out... there is a new idea sneaking up behind you... You weren't planning for option C)

In the flesh, lust is sin, because everything is focused on the law, graven in stone. In the Spirit, there is neither male nor female, and how can you lust for something that is already yours? Then, coming from a place of love, that being the law ruling your spirit, you would never rape, or murder, or do anything you thought would harm your brother without any just cause.

In Christ, there is no sociopath. You know? Only faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is Love. :)

[1PeaceMaker]

Originally posted by Sozo

"...having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness"

That was a great post, Sozo, and I agree with everything but the David thing. There was a point where David did sin, and that was the bathsheeba incident, but a couple of things were going on there, I think.

First of all, he was a lot like the pre-conversion Peter, and although he was a man after God's heart (a compassionate man, devoted to God's cause) he did not understand what it meant to be righteous. After he royally screwed up, he came to the end of himself, just as Peter did, after he denied his Lord. After all that, then David said, "blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity" or something like that. You get the idea.

Now, because he was God's anointed one, similar to Peter's baptism, in a way, he was guiltless in God's eyes. And Nathan told David that God had already put away his sin. Because otherwise David would have had to be under a mountain of stones for what he did.

Now, what do you think of that?

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Lawless

Godrulz:.....

Open your heart to the Perfect Sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ. Be Obedient to our Lord's Authority, and rest in the security of that perfect blood. The ministry of death (Law) was fullfilled at the cross, it too was crucified.....Why do you cling to it? If you have Christ you are dead to the Law. You are free!

Absolutely, we are free. There is provision and power to live a sinless life. Some seem to imply we are perfect even if we persist in sin. We agree on the key to victory. What I am trying to suggest is that not every believer walks in victory and the light. Theoretically, to deny the possibility that a believer can never have a sinful thought, motive, act, word, etc. is contrary to experience and Scripture.

[godrulz]

Phil. 1:12,13 "Therefore, my dear friends (believers), as you have always OBEYED (volitional vs believe 'perfect')...continue (process) to work out your salvation (we do not work out physically to get a body, but to enhance the one we have...we cannot earn salvation) with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to His good purpose."

Rick Warren's Purpose Driven teaching mentions that we have a role/responsibility and God also does. Discipleship and character growth is not passive or unilateral. Obedient choices is a biblical concept, but you folks seem to think they have something to do with the Law. Disobedient choices can be sinful, even for a believer. Lighthouse euphemistically (?) calls believer's 'sins' unprofitable acts only.

Talking about loving God and others (living up to the moral law of God= summary of decalogue) does not mean one denies the finished work of Christ on the cross or self-sanctification. We are not robots that are just zapped by God. Believers do not float through life in a bubble. We will be tempted just as Jesus was. He was tempted, yet without sin. We are tempted, and do not have to sin. Is it theoretically possible to yield to temptation as a believer? Yes. Deny it with circular arguments all you want. It does not change the fact that some yield to temptation, contrary to God's will and work of the Spirit.

Just as God's provision for justification must be appropriated through repentant faith, so our Christian life must involve appropriating His provision. If we do not at times, we may walk in the flesh vs light at that moment. This does not mean we lose our salvation.

Despite sounding spiritual, your views on sanctification or held by very few people. Entire sanctification, absolute sinless perfection with an inability to ever have a wrong thought, motive, deed, etc. is considered unscriptural.

Peace told me to take Greek. I have studied Greek for my Bachelor of Theology. I John and its uses of the present, continuous tense undermines your understanding of 'we cannot sin', etc. I exegeted this previously. Those like sozo who argue foolishly from ignorance about Greek (the 'all' episode on another thread) should not cling to ideas that are not grammatically defensible. The Spirit inspired the grammar and context.

I Peter 1:13 ff. emphasizes our role...you prepare, be self-controlled, obedient children, do not conform, be holy, live your lives...

These imperatives/commands show that we have a volitional responsibility to be holy as He is holy. This is done in the power of the Spirit. The opposite is possible that we could NOT be self-controlled and sin

(believers have affairs= sins...why deny this? Oh, it does not fit your theology that Christians CANNOT possibly sin, because they are in Christ and not under the law...the law still exists with its consequences whether we sin or do not sin, whether believer or unbeliever...if you murder someone with a gun...what do you mean you cannot pick up a water gun and squirt someone? you will sin if you kill with a real gun...if you can hunt an animal, you can murder a human).

Pointing out these self-evident extremes should not label me as an unbeliever or fleshly thinker. It is scripturally and logically defensible. Try telling a judge that you are a Christian and your affair leading to divorce or vehicular homicide due to speeding is not wrong because you are in Christ, perfect, and cannot sin/make mistakes!?

[Sozo]

godrulz... I addressed your points one by one, and, once again, you ignore them to hold on to your religion, and your rejection of Christ. If you want to come to the truth, then you have got to debate the points one at a time.

btw... Rick Warren is one of the greatest false teachers in the world today, and it is no surprise to me that you would mention him.

Rick Warren’s church-growth developments are reminiscent of movements within the church during the latter part of the 20th century, e.g., the Latter Rain movement, Kingdom Now theology, Dominionism, and Christian Reconstructionism. All of these promoted the religious humanistic idea that Christianity, through the application of biblical principles or signs and wonders, would transform the earth into a paradise and thereby convert the majority of its population to Christ.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by 1PeaceMaker

That was a great post, Sozo, and I agree with everything but the David thing. There was a point where David did sin, and that was the bathsheeba incident, but a couple of things were going on there, I think.

First of all, he was a lot like the pre-conversion Peter, and although he was a man after God's heart (a compassionate man, devoted to God's cause) he did not understand what it meant to be righteous. After he royally screwed up, he came to the end of himself, just as Peter did, after he denied his Lord. After all that, then David said, "blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity" or something like that. You get the idea.

Now, because he was God's anointed one, similar to Peter's baptism, in a way, he was guiltless in God's eyes. And Nathan told David that God had already put away his sin. Because otherwise David would have had to be under a mountain of stones for what he did.

Now, what do you think of that?

The OT is a different covenant than the NT. OT people were as much believers as NT people. David illustrates humanity and free will and was a believer and sinned. Your theology does not allow NT believers to sin, so you make an artificial distinction between OT and NT believers. OT believers have wills and were not supposed to sin. NT believers do not have wills anymore and cannot possibly sin and the Law does not apply to them because we are in Christ. So, if a believer sins (adultery, lust, etc.), they must not be a true NT believer OR the act, thought was not really a sin because the Law was thrown out the window and is only used against unbelievers to condemn them in the NT??

David(believer): Against you only God have I sinned (repentance, humility, renewed obedience/worship).

NT (believer): I did the same thing as David (but God is blind due to the blood), but I am not under the law, so that means I did not really sin. I am free in Christ. I can continue with my affair if I want. I should not do it...wait...I CANNOT sin, so maybe this is just a dream or sin is no longer really sin. Maybe it was my twin brother?:doh:

[julie21]

...jumping in at the deep end...
If I was a believer pre Crucifixion, then I fell under the Law andany sin I committed was atoned for by the action of burnt offerings and other offerings through the Priesthood.

When Jesus spoke to the adultress woman, His words to her were "Go and sin no more." He did not tell her that He would make it impossible for her to not sin again. His death covered the sins of all believers, and was the new covenant that God made with us...that we could have eternal life if we believe in Him...not...if we never sin again.
I believe in Him, and that it is by His grace, not works, that I am saved.
But, believing does not stop me making sinful choices...it does make me aware afterwards that I have sinned,and so must strive to not repeat my sinful choice.
I was not made perfect. The one who died for me is, and I believe that He forgives me for my imperfections,when I ask Him, as long as I keep trying to be more like Him.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sozo

godrulz... I addressed your points one by one, and, once again, you ignore them to hold on to your religion, and your rejection of Christ. If you want to come to the truth, then you have got to debate the points one at a time.

btw... Rick Warren is one of the greatest false teachers in the world today, and it is no surprise to me that you would mention him.

Rick Warren’s church-growth developments are reminiscent of movements within the church during the latter part of the 20th century, e.g., the Latter Rain movement, Kingdom Now theology, Dominionism, and Christian Reconstructionism. All of these promoted the religious humanistic idea that Christianity, through the application of biblical principles or signs and wonders, would transform the earth into a paradise and thereby convert the majority of its population to Christ.

I do not know much about Rick Warren. He seems to be a run of the mill Baptist/Calvinist. 40 days of purpose is having positive impact on churches and lives. Have you read the book?

What do you object to about his simple Bible teachings on worship, fellowship, the glory of God, discipleship/character, service, mission, etc.

Is there any other Christian besides yourself that has any truth or ministry validity?

Once again, narrow minded sozo is right and hundreds of millions of godly, trained believers and leaders are dead wrong (false teachers).

If you have not read Warren's book, you have no credibility to criticize his beliefs. You may object to your perceptions of his church growth method (whatever that is...love God and love people is probably what he promotes), but at least people are growing in their faith and coming to Christ through the small groups established by the churches through 40 days. His first tape calls people to repentant faith in Christ. I suspect he will have more impact for the Kingdom than you or I ever will.

There is something wrong with an individual who thinks everyone else is wrong and no one has a valid ministry. I disagree with many ministries and individuals, but it would be god-like presumption to label them as unbelievers or false teachers in every way.

How familiar are you really with Rick Warren? I do not know details, but am leading a group through 6 weeks of his study. I sense the Spirit and am seeing lives changed as we focus on basic truths. You would have to really nit pick with his simple reading of texts and Sunday School explanations of the verses to label him a false teacher. Cmon, sozo, show some discernment. Give me an example from his book that proves he is a false teacher (I disagree with his view that God knows the future exhaustively. Most would say I am the false teacher. The majority believe his view. Guess what, this is not a heaven-hell issue!).

[godrulz]

Originally posted by julie21

...jumping in at the deep end...
If I was a believer pre Crucifixion, then I fell under the Law andany sin I committed was atoned for by the action of burnt offerings and other offerings through the Priesthood.

When Jesus spoke to the adultress woman, His words to her were "Go and sin no more." He did not tell her that He would make it impossible for her to not sin again. His death covered the sins of all believers, and was the new covenant that God made with us...that we could have eternal life if we believe in Him...not...if we never sin again.
I believe in Him, and that it is by His grace, not works, that I am saved.
But, believing does not stop me making sinful choices...it does make me aware afterwards that I have sinned,and so must strive to not repeat my sinful choice.
I was not made perfect. The one who died for me is, and I believe that He forgives me for my imperfections,when I ask Him, as long as I keep trying to be more like Him.

Run away...you are about to be blasted by sozo as a false teacher and a Christ-hater.

Pre-crucifixion animal sacrifices did not atone for sin. The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world alone dealt with sin. The animal sacrifices were a shadow/type of the reality of Christ that was to come. They had no power to atone or Christ's death would not be necessary. They merely pointed to the future sacrifice. They were a temporary 'covering' and point of obedience. They were powerless to bring redemption in themselves.

I agree that the NT talks about obedient choices and exhorts us to no longer live in the flesh. It is disingenuous to say a believer has no free will and cannot sin. We do not have to sin, we should not sin, but it is theoretically possible to sin (I Jn. ) (despite some ideas that spirit and flesh distinctions mean that we cannot possibly sin).

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

I do not know details, but am leading a group through 6 weeks of his study.

Jesus, please deliver those people from the mind of this man who knows you not.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sozo

Jesus, please deliver those people from the mind of this man who knows you not.

What is your specific criticism of Warren's book? It is endorsed by some of the greatest leaders in the Church today (oh, I forgot, even Billy Graham does not preach sozo's gospel).

It is strange that we sense the presence of God in our group as we honor Him in worship and study and apply His Word. He blesses, while sozo-god curses the presence of God in others except himself and those who uncritically agree with him.

Sozo treats me like I am a Mormon or JW. Clearly he lacks discernment and acts like he is part of an exclusivistic cult or sect.

I am done with you and your ignorant assumptions.

I would prefer you do not waste your breath interacting with my thoughts. You do not show respect for fellow believers, so have lost credibility and a right to be heard or an influence in a public forum (accusing them of being Christ-haters, grieving the heart of God...I am bought with a price...how dare you negate the work of Christ and my relationship with Him...to do so means you are playing god and know the thoughts and beliefs of the heart).

Shame on the moderators for siding with sozo and proclaiming him a great teacher. His unique ideas do not compensate for his arrogance, immaturity, and lack of discernment into spiritual matters.:(

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

I am done with you and your ignorant assumptions.

... know the thoughts and beliefs of the heart

I judge you, based on what you teach. Should anyone do otherwise?Shame on the moderators for siding with sozo and proclaiming him a great teacher. His unique ideas do not compensate for his arrogance, immaturity, and lack of discernment into spiritual matters On the contrary, shame on you for your lack of discernment and defense of a gospel that Paul declares the teachers of, to be accursed.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

It is endorsed by some of the greatest leaders in the Church today

btw... this is just another of many shining examples, from you, that you do not worship God, but men.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

What is your specific criticism of Warren's book? I have been contemplating a thread to discuss this for some time. However, for now, I will just say that his gospel resembles a pop-psychology Jesus through a mass marketing campaign.

Instead of presenting the gospel of Jesus for men to accept, he has created a Jesus that is acceptable to men.

Once you use an abundance of techniques to make Jesus acceptable to people, then you have to maintain that facade, less the people look somewhere else.

[Granite]

Does Sozo even go to a church or is he a home churcher?

[Lawless]

Quote: Godrulz


You misinterpret the intent of the passages on the law. We are under grace, but this does not mean that the universal moral code is meaningless and lawlessness rules. We are not under the law, but if we rebel and disobey volitionally, the law will condemn us and drive us back to surrender and grace.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How can the Law condemn what the precious Blood of Jesus paid for?

"do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sozo

I judge you, based on what you teach. Should anyone do otherwise? On the contrary, shame on you for your lack of discernment and defense of a gospel that Paul declares the teachers of, to be accursed.

What was the context of Galatians 1? Am I a Judaizer? Please share my posts that would place me in the category of those who have another gospel preached by an angel. I do not deny justification by faith in Christ alone.

You could apply the verses in Galatians by way of principle to the Mormons and Moroni. I adhere to a standard evangelical statement of faith and do not preach a different gospel from most evangelicals. I affirm the Trinity, Deity of Christ, justification by grace/faith, etc. Your accusations are an example of poor interpretation and application of Gal. 1.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sozo

btw... this is just another of many shining examples, from you, that you do not worship God, but men.

I worship God in spirit and truth. How dare you say I WORSHIP men because I agree with some of their teachings. Those who agreed with Paul did not worship him!

You once gave a list of authors you agree with. Does this mean that you worship them?

I sense God's presence and pleasure as I worship privately or with His people. Who are you to say I worship men, and not the living God?:doh:

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sozo

I have been contemplating a thread to discuss this for some time. However, for now, I will just say that the his gospel resembles a pop-psychology Jesus through a mass marketing campaign.

Instead of presenting the gospel of Jesus for men to accept, he has created a Jesus that is acceptable to men.

Once you use an abundance of techniques to make Jesus acceptable to people, then you have to maintain that facade, less the people look somewhere else.

Have you read his books and watched his tapes? Does he deny the Lordship of Christ? Does he teach easy-believism? Does he deny the Deity of Christ and His resurrection?

He primarily targets those who already are believers and challenges us to love God and others with our whole hearts, evangelize, and become more like Jesus in character. How is this making Jesus acceptable to the people?

You once tried to make us think you knew what you were talking about on a basic Greek point of grammar. You were exposed as someone who did not know what they claimed. I call your bluff again, and suggest you are not familiar enough with 40 Days of Purpose to know if God is using it or if it is a plague on His church.
I am not that familiar either, but what I have seen seems standard stuff. That does not mean I agree with every idea, but that does not make the whole thing 'false teaching'. I will be the first to side against Warren if it can be shown he has false teaching and a mere marketing scheme (I do have concerns about the money machine the program has become). The burden of proof is on you since you are out of step with credible people and churches who endorse his program and see changed lives, salvation, and fruit that remains.

Specific quotes in extended contexts or retract your false accusations....:help:

[godrulz]

Originally posted by granite1010

Does Sozo even go to a church or is he a home churcher?

He should answer this. It is likely he is a lone ranger. He probably could not find a church that would condone all of his ideas and attitudes. He would end up clashing with leadership and contending that everyone else is wrong except himself.

Being an island separated from the Body leads to error and deception.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

What was the context of Galatians 1? Am I a Judaizer? Please share my posts that would place me in the category of those who have another gospel preached by an angel.

The Judaizers were not angels from heaven. :rolleyes:

Paul is making a point that the gospel he preaches is the only gospel, and that no matter who brings "another" gospel, they should be accursed. You have repeatedly affirmed that there are several different gospel messages within the pale of orthodoxy. Paul says otherwise.

Anyone who teaches progressive sanctification in the pursuit of perfection through a cooperative effort with God, is preaching "another" gospel.... YOU have done so time and again.

Anyone who teaches that Christians can be in and out of the spirit, in and out of the light, and in and out of fellowship with God through the ability to maintain righteousness in their behavior, preaches "another" gospel.... YOU have done so time and again.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Lawless

Quote: Godrulz


You misinterpret the intent of the passages on the law. We are under grace, but this does not mean that the universal moral code is meaningless and lawlessness rules. We are not under the law, but if we rebel and disobey volitionally, the law will condemn us and drive us back to surrender and grace.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How can the Law condemn what the precious Blood of Jesus paid for?

"do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."

If we step out from the grace of Christ and murder someone, commit adultery, renounce God, etc. then we are no longer under the provision of the blood. We end up condemned by the Law again (cf. apostates in Hebrews who renounced their faith and returned to Judaism and its sacrifices, ceremonial laws, etc.). Righteousness did not come through the law. We are in the covenant of grace. However, if we return to a godless life, the blood does not continue to 'pay' for our heinous sins that we now commit as someone who rejects the grace of God. If we return with repentant faith, renounce our rebellion, and follow Christ again, we will be forgiven. If we persist in apostasy until death, we will be judged by the Law, not covered by the blood.

If a genuine believer sins, this does not put them totally back under the law. It does not make the sin a non-sin, it does not forfeit salvation, it is to be repented of with renewed obedience (I John).
(This assumes that OSAS is specious).

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

He should answer this. It is likely he is a lone ranger. He probably could not find a church that would condone all of his ideas and attitudes. He would end up clashing with leadership and contending that everyone else is wrong except himself.

Being an island separated from the Body leads to error and deception.

Like Aimiel, when challenged on your heritical doctrines and "personal experience" theology, you revert to trying to discredit me as qualified to teach and share the truth.

If you can prove that any of my presentation of the gospel is in any way contrary to that which was presented by Paul to the church, then I will recant. You have yet to do so.

In regards to my rejection of a greek word that still is not listed in the five highly accepted resources that I use to supplement my studies, it in no way negates what I teach in regard to the message of Christ, and is simply your childish attempt to discredit me. There is still no evidence that the word is all (men), even though the word pantas does appear to be in the NT in other texts (even though that word is absent in the sources I mentioned).

I have mentioned the church I attend many times on TOL. It is a Bible Baptist Church .

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

If we step out from the grace of Christ and murder someone, commit adultery, renounce God, etc. then we are no longer under the provision of the blood. We end up condemned by the Law again (cf. apostates in Hebrews who renounced their faith and returned to Judaism and its sacrifices, ceremonial laws, etc.). You want proof that you preach another gospel? Well, there it is!However, if we return to a godless life, the blood does not continue to 'pay' for our heinous sins that we now commit as someone who rejects the grace of God. Do you seriously not see how incredibly self-righteous those comments are? YOU must be blind!!

Please tell us, godrulz, how you qualified yourself today, based on the Law, not to be found guilty of sin?If we return with repentant faith, renounce our rebellion, and follow Christ again, we will be forgiven. YOU are a blasphemer! You are anti-Christ, and pro-flesh righteousness! How can you not see that? It can only be because you do not have the Spirit of God. May you be accursed!If we persist in apostasy until death, we will be judged by the Law, not covered by the blood. In other words, the blood of Jesus is only as good as you are!

If anyone else agrees with that egregious statement from godrulz, please speak up!

[Lawless]

Godrulz is saved by his own works I guess! He limits the blood of Jesus to himself and his actions.....What a trampling under foot, of the presious blood of Jesus. Why would you limit the Love, mercy, and grace of Jesus Godrulz? How will you answer to the lord for it?

Sozo, your post are eloquently spoken! Well done!

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sozo

You want proof that you preach another gospel? Well, there it is! Do you seriously not see how incredibly self-righteous those comments are? YOU must be blind!!

Please tell us, godrulz, how you qualified yourself today, based on the Law, not to be found guilty of sin? YOU are a blasphemer! You are anti-Christ, and pro-flesh righteousness! How can you not see that? It can only be because you do not have the Spirit of God. May you be accursed! In other words, the blood of Jesus is only as good as you are!

If anyone else agrees with that egregious statement from godrulz, please speak up!

These comments relate to whether one can become apostate. If you reject Once Saved Always Saved then it is possible to become an unbeliever and be lost. If you think we lose free will at salvation and remain a believer despite renouncing your faith and returning to Satan worship and child sacrifices, then you are correct.

If we are in Christ, we are saved.

If we renounce Christ and the Gospel, we are no longer saved.

My points were not relating to flesh vs Spirit issues as a genuine believer...so chill.

Many evangelicals reject OSAS. Calvinists and Enyartists affirm it. I reject it on the basis of the biblical evidence. Whether we believe it or not is not a heaven-hell issue academically. It could be if we think we can trust Christ and Satan at the same time and still be saved.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Lawless

Godrulz is saved by his own works I guess! He limits the blood of Jesus to himself and his actions.....What a trampling under foot, of the presious blood of Jesus. Why would you limit the Love, mercy, and grace of Jesus Godrulz? How will you answer to the lord for it?

Sozo, your post are eloquently spoken! Well done!

I fully affirm that we are saved by grace through faith and not by works (Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 1-6). You folks lack the critical thinking skills to understand my points, but jump to conclusions because it is not an articulation that you are familiar with.

I do not limit the love and grace of Christ. What I suggest is that He commands us to be holy as He is holy. This is explicit. Easy believism is a false gospel where people parrot a prayer with their lips and have no evidence of love for God or others because they continue to live for Self vs God. They have a false sense of security and think salvation is saying I believe (like the devil does). One does not just go to a Billy Graham crusade and repeat a prayer as fire insurance from hell and then continue in their former life of godlessness and sin. The NT Gospel challenges us to turn from sin and trust Christ as Lord and Savior. It means dying to self and following Him for the rest of our lives.

[Lawless]

Quote: Godrulz:
Many evangelicals reject OSAS. Calvinists and Enyartists affirm it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------





What is a Enyartist?

[Crow]

Originally posted by Lawless

Quote: Godrulz:
Many evangelicals reject OSAS. Calvinists and Enyartists affirm it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------





What is a Enyartist?

That is a term that is used around this place to describe those who agree with Bob Enyart.

Bob Enyart is now a pastor, and he has a radio show. In the past, he had a television show for several years. The best way I can explain what he's all about is let some of the things he's written and said speak for him.

The Plot (http://www.kgov.com/docs/ThePlot/ThePlotEnglish01.html)

Home Page (http://www.kgov.com/#HomePage)

Sermon on Luke 22:63-65 and Crime (http://www.kgov.com/bel/2004/20041119-BEL232-24k.mp3) (audio)

Debate: Does God exist (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7709)

He believes that salvation is by grace, not works. And he affirms OSAS.

[godrulz]

I appreciate Pastor Enyart (what little I know about him). I realize we do not follow men, but this forum does have people supportive of his ministry.

OSAS is usually associated with Calvinism (tuliP). Enyart adopts some Open Theism ideas, but also OSAS. Open Theism is more a sub-type of Arminianism (as opposed to hyper-Calvinisn). Arminians are usually not OSAS.

This is not a salvific issue, but I think OSAS is logically incompatible with libertarian freedom (free moral agency).

Robert Shank (Southern Baptist...ironically) has a classic exegetical work dealing with the perseverance of the saints: 'Life in the Son." He cogently refutes OSAS looking at relevant texts used by both camps (some verses are claimed by both sides, so it is a matter of translation/interpretation).

[Batman]

It's time I start putting my 2 cents in. I've been a member for a long time but rarely post. Now that I'm a youth pastor, I'd like to start debating more to keep myself sharp. Also I'm getting tired of threads full of bad interpretation of Biblical passages, like this one. BTW, I'm on godrulz side for this thread. Why? I'll just point out one passage that Sozo has used - Hebrews 10.

If you place the parts of Heb 10 Sozo has used in the context of the rest of the chapter and the entire book, Paul doesn't say we will never sin once we are saved. He does say that once we are saved we are made perfect, meaning that all our past sins are forgiven and will be remembered no more (as in forever). If we reject Christ, either by not accepting Him or turning away from, we can turn to no one else for salvation for He is the only way and the once-for-all sacrifice.

Besides, Paul even implies in Heb 10 that a believer can sin b/c he tells them to persevere so they can receive what God has promised; consequently, if they don't persevere, they won't receive.

[Sozo]

Batman... it is a tragedy that someone of your limted biblical knowledge is placed in a position of teaching young people a false gospel.

It is also a tragedy that you are using Batman as a user ID. Batman would never be as ignorant as you.

Anyone who believes or teaches the possibilty that salvation can be lost is anti-Christ. They are enemies of the cross, and have never been born again.

You do not know what salvation is, nor have you been saved.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by julie21

...jumping in at the deep end...
If I was a believer pre Crucifixion, then I fell under the Law andany sin I committed was atoned for by the action of burnt offerings and other offerings through the Priesthood.

When Jesus spoke to the adultress woman, His words to her were "Go and sin no more." He did not tell her that He would make it impossible for her to not sin again. His death covered the sins of all believers, and was the new covenant that God made with us...that we could have eternal life if we believe in Him...not...if we never sin again.
I believe in Him, and that it is by His grace, not works, that I am saved.
But, believing does not stop me making sinful choices...it does make me aware afterwards that I have sinned,and so must strive to not repeat my sinful choice.
I was not made perfect. The one who died for me is, and I believe that He forgives me for my imperfections,when I ask Him, as long as I keep trying to be more like Him.
You're new, so I'm going to help you out here. Christ died once, for all. All sin, for all time, was forgiven. You were forgiven, before you even asked. One confession is all it takes to be made righteous, in God's sight. And He lives in you. No sin is in Him. Therefore, you do not sin. Your flesh does, but you are no longer your flesh. Your flesh is dead. And Christ, living in you, keeps you. He aligns you with His will. So it is not anything you do to keep from doing somehting wrong, it is Christ who keeps you from it. If you submit/surrender to Him. And He will remove your desires, and replace them with His own. You are not your own. You were bought with a price.

[Batman]

In two ways I'm like Batman:

1. Unlike you, I use logic and deductive reasoning (not to mention prayer and the Holy Spirit) when studying Scripture.

2. I think people like you should be locked away and heavily medicated so the good citizens of this fair city can live in peace.

BTW, attacking me won't get you anywhere and I would beware of sitting in God's judgment seat when you accuse me of not being saved. Try responding to my post, evil-doer!

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by godrulz

(...I am bought with a price...how dare you negate the work of Christ and my relationship with Him...).
You do that all on your own, godrulz.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Batman

It's time I start putting my 2 cents in. I've been a member for a long time but rarely post. Now that I'm a youth pastor, I'd like to start debating more to keep myself sharp. Also I'm getting tired of threads full of bad interpretation of Biblical passages, like this one. BTW, I'm on godrulz side for this thread. Why? I'll just point out one passage that Sozo has used - Hebrews 10.

If you place the parts of Heb 10 Sozo has used in the context of the rest of the chapter and the entire book, Paul doesn't say we will never sin once we are saved. He does say that once we are saved we are made perfect, meaning that all our past sins are forgiven and will be remembered no more (as in forever). If we reject Christ, either by not accepting Him or turning away from, we can turn to no one else for salvation for He is the only way and the once-for-all sacrifice.

Besides, Paul even implies in Heb 10 that a believer can sin b/c he tells them to persevere so they can receive what God has promised; consequently, if they don't persevere, they won't receive.
Paul wrote Hebrews?!:confused:

That fallacy aside, John wrote that sin is transgression of the law. No other definition of sin is given in the Bible. Paul writes that apart from the law there is no transgression. Paul also writes that we are not under the law, but under grace. And he writes that the law, including the ten commandments, was nailed to the cross, with Christ. As was all sin.

How many times did Christ die, Batman? Does He continually die? Do you have to aks His forgivness eery time you do something wrong, or is once, as long as it's sincere, enough? How many times do you think you need to be forgiven? Do you think you can lose your salvation? Do you think you can actually walk away from God? Would you? Would He let you? Would He ever leave you?

It is my contention that you have no idea who is responsible for your salvation. You probably htink that you're responsible for your faith, as well. Don't you?

[Batman]

lighthouse quote:
"Paul wrote Hebrews?!"

Sorry, I got carried away in commentary. Although, I think he's the best candidate for the mystery author.

lighthouse quote:
"John wrote that sin is transgression of the law."

That being said, he also wrote the following in 1 John:
Chap. 1
8If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.
Chap. 2
1My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.
Chap. 4
16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

It's true that John defines sin as transgressing the law, but he also says any wrongdoing is sin and indicates that a Christian can sin.

lighthouse quote:
"Paul writes that apart from the law there is no transgression."

Actually apart from the law there is no knowledge of sin, for Paul also says in Romans 2:
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

And in Romans 3:
9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better[2] ? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.

Apparently people can sin apart from the law.

lighthouse quote:
"How many times did Christ die, Batman? Does He continually die?"

I anwered that - once.

lighthouse quote:
"Do you have to aks His forgivness eery time you do something wrong, or is once, as long as it's sincere, enough?"

Every time. 1 John speaks for itself.

lighthouse quote:
"Do you think you can lose your salvation?"

Yep. I've seen it happen one of two ways:

1. Going into a continual lifestyle of sin after once living for God.

2. An event happens in someone's life that makes him question God and eventually decide that He either doesn't exist or care.

In either case God will do everything He can to get him back, just look at David.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Crow

That is a term that is used around this place to describe those who agree with Bob Enyart.The rest of us call them "Enyartians".

:chuckle:

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Batman

lighthouse quote:
"Paul wrote Hebrews?!"

Sorry, I got carried away in commentary. Although, I think he's the best candidate for the mystery author.
Why? Especially since there is a difference in teachings...

lighthouse quote:
"John wrote that sin is transgression of the law."

That being said, he also wrote the following in 1 John:
Chap. 1
8If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.
Chap. 2
1My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.
Chap. 4
16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

It's true that John defines sin as transgressing the law, but he also says any wrongdoing is sin and indicates that a Christian can sin.
What Bible are you reading?! 1 John 4:16-17 say no such thing!

Wait, I found it. It's in chapter 5, not 4.

"If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death."
What version did yours come from? Do you think "wrongdoing" and "unrighteousness" mean the same thing? Are you unrighteous, or has God made you righteous?

Also, you forgot to read on:
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness."
-1 John 5:18-19

Have you been born of God? Does Christ live in you [Galatians 2:20]?

As for your interpretation of 1 John 1, think about it:
"If we say that we have no sin [have never sinned], then we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not siined, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

Also, 1 John 1:1-5 shows that it is written to the unbeliever.

Jesus is the advocate for sinners. His blood was shed for the forgiveness of all sin.
"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
-1 John 2:2

lighthouse quote:
"Paul writes that apart from the law there is no transgression."

Actually apart from the law there is no knowledge of sin, for Paul also says in Romans 2:
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
Context, context, context!:doh:
The Gentiles did not have the law, as the Jews did. But they still transgressed it, because they were not in Christ. the last tow verses prove the point I have presented. And they argue against your foundation.

As for your argument that apart from the law, there is no knowledge of sin, and that what I said was wrong:
"Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression."
-Romans 4:15

And in Romans 3:
9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better[2] ? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.
We are under sin, if we are not under grace. For in Christ, there is no sin.

Apparently people can sin apart from the law.
Not under grace, they can't. Are you going to suffer the wages of sin? Or did Christ suffer for you, already?

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
-Romans 6:23

Also:
"(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."
-Romans 5:13-14

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"
-Romans 6:1-2

"Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the [b]body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin."
-Romans 6:6-7

"For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord."
-Romans 6:10-11

"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."
-Romans 6:14

"But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness."
-Romans 6:17-18

"For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness."
-Romans 6:20

"But now being made free from sin, and become servants of God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life."
-Romans 6:22

lighthouse quote:
"How many times did Christ die, Batman? Does He continually die?"

I anwered that - once.
So, how many times need you confess?

lighthouse quote:
"Do you have to aks His forgivness every time you do something wrong, or is once, as long as it's sincere, enough?"

Every time. 1 John speaks for itself.
1 John 1:9? The verse that states that if you confess he will cleanse you from all unrighteouness? That verse tells me that once is enough. His dying once is enough. Why wouldn't one confession be enough? Why is it not enough for someone to admit their need for Christ once? Why must they do it multiple times? Is that not like crucifying Him over and over, again?

lighthouse quote:
"Do you think you can lose your salvation?"

Yep. I've seen it happen one of two ways:

1. Going into a continual lifestyle of sin after once living for God.
So you htink that someone who actually knows God would walk away from Him?:nono:

2. An event happens in someone's life that makes him question God and eventually decide that He either doesn't exist or care.
So, someone who once knew God, intimately, on a personal level, could actually deny His existence? You believe that?!
At what specific point is salvation lost? What makes you so certain that someone who walks away from God ever knew Him in the first place? Is it not more evident that those who leave were never saved?

Would you ever leave Him? Would He ever leave you?

In either case God will do everything He can to get him back, just look at David.
You think David lost his relationship with God?!:noway::shocked:

That's sad.:nono:

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sozo

Batman... it is a tragedy that someone of your limted biblical knowledge is placed in a position of teaching young people a false gospel.

It is also a tragedy that you are using Batman as a user ID. Batman would never be as ignorant as you.

Anyone who believes or teaches the possibilty that salvation can be lost is anti-Christ. They are enemies of the cross, and have never been born again.

You do not know what salvation is, nor have you been saved.

Thus saith the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent sozo-god, judge of mortals on the internet.

OSAS is not a salvific doctrine. Sozo has no credibility or right to denounce our precious relationship with Christ because we are more Arminian than Calvinistic.

Robert Shank: Life in the Son...A study of the doctrine of perseverance (Southern Baptist) exegetically destroys the OSAS teaching that makes people think they can accept Christ at a crusade with no responsibility to continue in Him.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Batman

In two ways I'm like Batman:

1. Unlike you, I use logic and deductive reasoning (not to mention prayer and the Holy Spirit) when studying Scripture.

2. I think people like you should be locked away and heavily medicated so the good citizens of this fair city can live in peace.

BTW, attacking me won't get you anywhere and I would beware of sitting in God's judgment seat when you accuse me of not being saved. Try responding to my post, evil-doer!

A man with backbone. Be p