Looking for a church

[servent101]

I am looking for a church, a place to fellowship. I thought I would say what my leanings are and see if you there at TOL would know of a church I would be at home in... a place of similar values and beliefs.

I try to walk the walk of a fundamentalist but appreaciate the non-condeming attitude of the liberalist. See value in liberalist thinking. Would rather associate with a non condeming Spirit in people that is so hard to find at the fundamentalist camp.

Interpretation of Bible is not Literal; example -Doctrin of hell is one that is a warning to us not a place that everyone who does not believe in Jesus is condemned to spend eternity in.

Preterest - believe that the book of Revalation has allready happened and even Jesus return could of allready happened - not sure, but leaning this way.

May think of some more but will put these up for now... Please don't preach to me - I am just asking for information of churches with similar beliefs...Thanks.

[Mara]

Don't know of any that combine all that, although I think the Unitarians would accept you. :rolleyes:

Of course you could always start your own church.

[servent101]

First Unitarian Church is dedicated to providing a welcoming community of diverse individuals; to promote love, reason, and freedom in religion; to foster

Looked them up on the net.... thanks seems interesting

[la rubia]

Aw, servent, just move to Indiana and go to church with me!!!:D
LOL Just kidding. I don't know much about what exactly all the different churches believe- so I'd better get off your thread and just be quiet. Sorry!

[servent101]

-----------------------------------------------------------
la rubia quote:
Aw, servent, just move to Indiana and go to church with me!!!
LOL Just kidding. I don't know much about what exactly all the different churches believe- so I'd better get off your thread and just be quiet. Sorry!
------------------------------------------------------------

la rubia... don't be sorry, that was very sweet - I like you already.

[Aimiel]

Have you ever tried Scientology?

[shilohproject]

Originally posted by servent101
Please don't preach to me - I am just asking for information of churches with similar beliefs...Thanks.

Have you gone to beliefnet.com and done a little research? It might help you in this search.:cool:

[4 A.M. Prayer]

Originally posted by famousGandalf7
Have you ever tried Scientology?

Did you actually read his original post? The 'Hubbard' crapola is garbage gandalf, I will give you that but....

Servent wants a church, a loving Christian fellowship, not your Enyart horse-poo.

Where's your Popeye icon?

Perhaps I shouldn't have gone after the Enyart way of thinking but his request seemed to be sincere...

[Aimiel]

Maybe if he wants to fellowship with Christians, he should begin by accepting the fact that the Bible is the authority, that hell is real, that Revelation has yet to be fulfilled, mostly, and / or seeking the direction and guidance of the Lord, to find the Church he belongs in. I was trying to say all that without 'preaching,' as he requested. I was being facetious. I should probably apologize, if I have offended. I do. But, the faith which has been delivered is not to be trifled with, it is a great thing, and should not be placed in a pigeon-hole of religion. I would encourage him, anyone for that matter, to attend a church on the basis of: "Where does God want me to go to church?" and not make the decision based on knowledge, but on faith.

[billwald]

Investigate the pot lucks.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by servent101

I am looking for a church...I was wondering if you found one yet?

[cattyfan]

servent101 (aka "!!!!First") is looking for a church that spouts some beliefs but doesn't hold you accountable (the dreaded judging we hear so much about.) The Unitarian suggestion is probably most appropriate for servent's "needs". That Universalist "all religions a valid and equal" crappola should be most palatable given the views states in servent's/!!!!First's previous posts. It appears from the opening post on this thread that servent likes the idea of "religion," but prefers to live with the idea that "I'm okay, you're okay, and there is no penalty here or later if you're not."

Sorry, but that's not a church...it's just a lousy therapist.

[On Fire]

Ever been to Disney World?

[Nineveh]

I heard one doesn't have to believe anything to be a methodist in good standing, might give them a shot sybel101 ...

[servent101]

Aimiel - thanks for asking - appreciate your thoughtfulness,


As for the other three respondents - it is obvious you are attracted to Christ so you can stone people, insult them, and generally feed your desire to hurt people - you should find a church that teaches you about the One True God - and the consequences you are actually facing right now - to anyone who can think - thanks for showing them that the Truth is not in you, and what an orthodox mindset does for people.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Aimiel]

It's still your turn... please answer the question.

[On Fire]

He hasn't found one that doesn't burn when he touches the door knob.

[servent101]

It's still your turn... please answer the question.

I do not answer questions to the likes of you, and your cohorts. Answering your questions - only heaps more coal on the fire of your condemnation - if you were not in hell already - you would have the sense for asking me that question in the likes of the company here on this station.

Lets see if you can find fault with your own beliefs - including the question you asked me - or can you not understand anything outside of your pre packaged dogma concerning the Word.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Aimiel

I was wondering if you found [a church] yet?


Originally posted by servent101

Aimiel - thanks for asking - appreciate your thoughtfulness,


Originally posted by Aimiel

It's still your turn... please answer the question.


Originally posted by servent101

I do not answer questions to the likes of you, and your cohorts. :confused:


Originally posted by servent101

it is obvious you are attracted to Christ so you can stone people, insult them, and generally feed your desire to hurt peopleHow is that different than what you do here at TOL, even in this post?

[SOTK]

Originally posted by AtheistsSuck

He hasn't found one that doesn't burn when he touches the door knob.

:darwinsm:

[Free-Agent Smith]

What kind of church do you want to be part of?

Do you want to be in fellowship of a church that condones gay marriage or is against it?

Do you want to be in fellowship of a church that hides childmolesters or one that pushes them into the hands of justice?

Do you want to be in fellowship of a church that believes everyone is saved regardless or one that teaches that you must repent and believe that Jesus Christ is our Redeemer and died for our salvation?

Do you want to be in fellowship of a church that believes God loves us all regardless or that even God has standards for our behavior?

You really don't have to answer these questions openly to me but it would be interesting to see how you would intepret God's opinion using verses from the Bible to answer them.

[SOTK]

Originally posted by servent101

I am looking for a church, a place to fellowship. I thought I would say what my leanings are and see if you there at TOL would know of a church I would be at home in... a place of similar values and beliefs.

I try to walk the walk of a fundamentalist but appreaciate the non-condeming attitude of the liberalist. See value in liberalist thinking. Would rather associate with a non condeming Spirit in people that is so hard to find at the fundamentalist camp.

Interpretation of Bible is not Literal; example -Doctrin of hell is one that is a warning to us not a place that everyone who does not believe in Jesus is condemned to spend eternity in.

Preterest - believe that the book of Revalation has allready happened and even Jesus return could of allready happened - not sure, but leaning this way.

May think of some more but will put these up for now... Please don't preach to me - I am just asking for information of churches with similar beliefs...Thanks.

I've never met anyone with your beliefs who call themselves a Christian. I don't think there is a single Christian Church out there for you. You'd have better luck with some type of self-help group. Something New Age-ish.

[servent101]

SOTK4ever I've never met anyone with your beliefs who call themselves a Christian. I don't think there is a single Christian Church out there for you. You'd have better luck with some type of self-help group. Something New Age-ish.

In reality there is only one church - and the idea of a denomination is something that is only here for a few hundred years - and this is not to say that the Orthodox -Greek or Catholic - had it right - church is an individual process - and the tares and wheat are growing up together - as Jesus instructed - until the day of judgment.

I do have a life apart from this board - and there are a lot of people with similar beliefs - people who are fed up with the dogma of the church, the separation of clergy and laity etc. The actual church in the Bible in no way resembles the church today - in code, mindset or framework. Your concepts and apologetics would be just as out of sorts with what the people believed and did back then - 100 A.D. as what you think mine are. Most of what you consider the church believes is white washed elevated saintly talk - that is Greek to most common people - and it quickly elevates people to their level of incompetence. - Food for thought I hope.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[servent101]

How is that different than what you do here at TOL, even in this post?

I was not rude to Aimeil first - and I do struggle with posting as I do - but it is Aimiel who posts like that to me first, so I answer according to Scripture - answer a fool according to his folly. As well the example of Jesus - to the professing leaders and teachers - Jesus rebukes them quite harshly - self professed guides - who are blind.

If you take Jesus literally on hell - you are blind, and the truth is severely hampered in your life. The doctrine of literalism is what people are teaching - to take the words literally - and there was no such instilled orthodox mindset in the people Jesus was talking too. Many people are forced out of the church by the orthodox mindset - they take over the whole church building, and anyone who does not conform to the same energy feed is psychologically attacked by the likes of such as Aimiel.

If you are blind to this in the church - well when your compensation comes - it will be the just Wrath of God - take warning - while you still can.

How is the polite way to say what you believe about hell is absolutely insane? – and as well causes a neurosis that effects your mental stability?

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by servent101

I do have a life apart from this board - and there are a lot of people with similar beliefs - people who are fed up with the dogma of the church, the separation of clergy and laity etc.Yes, for instance: Wickwoman, Beanieboy, etc..The actual church in the Bible in no way resembles the church today - in code, mindset or framework. Your concepts and apologetics would be just as out of sorts with what the people believed and did back then - 100 A.D. as what you think mine are. Most of what you consider the church believes is white washed elevated saintly talk - that is Greek to most common people - and it quickly elevates people to their level of incompetence. - Food for thought I hope.No, its gobbledey-gook. You're just dodging the issue, again. You've said nothing.I was not rude to Aimeil first - and I do struggle with posting as I do - but it is Aimiel who posts like that to me first, so I answer according to Scripture - answer a fool according to his folly.Where, after you said, so graciously, "...thanks for asking - appreciate your thoughtfulness," did I get 'rude' to you? I think that you're having flashbacks.As well the example of Jesus - to the professing leaders and teachers - Jesus rebukes them quite harshly - self professed guides - who are blind.I'm not 'self-professed,' I've been called, anointed and appointed by the Lord, with the confirmation by the laying on of hands by the presbetry.If you take Jesus literally on hell - you are blind, and the truth is severely hampered in your life.No, if you don't understand that Jesus described hell, literally, you are literally in danger of that fate, because you call Him a liar. You also demonstrate your own inability to endure sound doctrine.The doctrine of literalism is what people are teaching - to take the words literally - and there was no such instilled orthodox mindset in the people Jesus was talking too.No, they had been led astray, by blind fools, not unlike yourself, who professed to know The Lord, and who had only studied 'about' Him.Many people are forced out of the church by the orthodox mindset - they take over the whole church building, and anyone who does not conform to the same energy feed is psychologically attacked by the likes of such as Aimiel.Only in your mind.If you are blind to this in the church - well when your compensation comes - it will be the just Wrath of God - take warning - while you still can.Spoken like a true self-proclaimed 'prophet' who speaks for his god, Baal.How is the polite way to say what you believe about hell is absolutely insane? – and as well causes a neurosis that effects your mental stability?Your lack of credentials and poor responses to inquiries about your faith in The Lord mark your judgements as mere sideshows, designed to give you credability, and make others feel inferior. Wish you could see how poorly your 'show' isn't working, but, what with that blindness that plagues your spirit, I don't see how that should ever occur. You seem to be turning into what Mr. Smaller used to be, a repetitive, non-sensical broken record. Maybe we should buy you a smiley: :kookoo:

[cattyfan]

excellent post, Aimiel. Thorough, articulate, and right on point with the truth, as always.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by servent101
If you take Jesus literally on hell - you are blind, and the truth is severely hampered in your life.

What makes your opinion more valid than mine?

[servent101]

AimielWhere, after you said, so graciously, "...thanks for asking - appreciate your thoughtfulness," did I get 'rude' to you?

I was sincere when I thanked you – but when you pressed – after being aware of the comments by the peanut gallery posters – to think you would still think it a good idea to post – and even to post to you – when you simply take the opposite view – if I say this – you say that – if I say that – you say this – you are just looking for a contentious issue to stir up.

But the point – why do you only condemn those who are outside of the so called church? – those who try to understand what the words say that make up the apologetics of the Christian faith – a person is safe from the likes of you as l ong as they just mindlessly say the jargon of your creeds, and don’t try to understand what exactly it is they are talking about. As for you – you would disagree with anyone who tries to understand what is being said, and from you posts , and your actions – you are quite willing to attempt to pull someone out onto the floor to have your fellow wolves try to tear to shreds their beliefs.

I'm not 'self-professed,' I've been called, anointed and appointed by the Lord, with the confirmation by the laying on of hands by the presbetry.

So what – every madman in religious history has been thus ordained – the same as you – in fact if you listed all the people who are thus as you are – they are ten times worse than those who have no such ordination – no one but an idiot would accept your self professed dictations as any proof of anything- except the ramblings of misguided soul in need of instruction and insight. By your own logic – how many people claim what you claim – and yet are in no way able to teach or preach?

What use is it to post such: No, if you don't understand that Jesus described hell, literally, you are literally in danger of that fate, because you call Him a liar. You also demonstrate your own inability to endure sound doctrine.
You know what I am saying - No, if you understand that Jesus described hell, literally, you are currently in danger of that fate, because you call the Spirit of Truth a liar. You also demonstrate your own inability to understand sound doctrine.

Anyways I give up on you again for a while – I will not respond to you for a time.

Learn to reason and produce some reasonable discourse – for intelligent discussion of the Scripture. You have wshown great improvement – and hopefully there will be a time, when you actually turn you ability to teach the truth to the people to whom it is useful – to the lost in your own church.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

[servent101]

A.S. You do no thave an opinion - you just have a mindless energy feed that is a result of a pysical adiction to adrenalin.

Think about it if you still can

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Nineveh]

Have you found a "church of the mindful energy feed" yet, sybel?

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by servent101

A.S. You do no thave an opinion - you just have a mindless energy feed that is a result of a pysical adiction to adrenalin.

Think about it if you still can

With Christ's Love

Servent101 And here I was being civil towards you. What a shame you have to be so rude all the time.

[Turbo]

What's with all the question marks, servent101?

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by servent101

I was sincere when I thanked you – but when you pressed – after being aware of the comments by the peanut gallery posters – to think you would still think it a good idea to post – and even to post to you – when you simply take the opposite view – if I say this – you say that – if I say that – you say this – you are just looking for a contentious issue to stir up.If you're so poorly rooted and grounded in your faith, then why mention that you have any at all? If you are a believer, then why not defend your faith in The Word, and give some basis for people to perhaps understand you better, if you are able to take a stand at all, other than to simply dismiss everyone who has faith in The Word of God and decides that the faith, once delivered unto the saints, is enough for them? You make yourself an enemy of The Gospel, otherwise.But the point – why do you only condemn those who are outside of the so called church?Because The Body of Christ truly exists, but you can't quite come to grips with that, being outside of it. The preaching of The Cross is foolishness to you. – those who try to understand what the words say that make up the apologetics of the Christian faith – a person is safe from the likes of you as l ong as they just mindlessly say the jargon of your creeds, and don’t try to understand what exactly it is they are talking about. What, exactly, if anything, do you think that I (or anyone else, for that matter) don't understand? You seem to be, once again, simply dismissing people right and left, without any basis. Please be specific.As for you – you would disagree with anyone who tries to understand what is being said, and from you(r) posts , and your actions – you are quite willing to attempt to pull someone out onto the floor to have your fellow wolves try to tear to shreds their beliefs.Sorry about your 'symbols' being confused, but this is a matter of you (servant101) being a wolf, and parading around in sheep's clothing. It is evident to everyone but yourself.So what – every madman in religious history has been thus ordained – the same as you – in fact if you listed all the people who are thus as you are – they are ten times worse than those who have no such ordination – no one but an idiot would accept your self professed dictations as any proof of anything- except the ramblings of misguided soul in need of instruction and insight.I'm not asking you to accept anything that you're not able to. Obviously you don't even believe me when I tell you that I am a Christian. Where's your proof? You are a blind guide, and can't see much at all, since you're stranded in your little ditch.By your own logic – how many people claim what you claim – and yet are in no way able to teach or preach?Did you have someone specific in mind, or were you trying to dismiss all of Christendom?What use is it to post such:
You know what I am saying - No, if you understand that Jesus described hell, literally, you are currently in danger of that fate, because you call the Spirit of Truth a liar.I would never presume to do such a thing. He is The One who confirms His Word, and that Word says that hell is a real place. You also demonstrate your own inability to understand sound doctrine.Where do you find such foolishness (there is no hell) other than Universalism, paganism and every limp-wristed false religion on this earth? That's not sound doctrine, it's simple lies.Anyways I give up on you again for a while – I will not respond to you for a time.That's very mature, and won't promote your growth, but, rather, tend to make you fester in your own judgementalism.Learn to reason and produce some reasonable discourse – for intelligent discussion of the Scripture.Where do you believe I have been un-reasonable or not responded to reason, or lacked reasoning abilities? Please be specific. You're using blind accusations, once again, to cloud your own judgement. It has you by the nose.You have wshown great improvement – and hopefully there will be a time, when you actually turn you ability to teach the truth to the people to whom it is useful – to the lost in your own church.Were you to come to my church, I believe that thing would leave you, you'd come to a knowledge of The Truth, and come to know Him, so that when that thing comes back to you with ten of his friends, you'd be able to stand against him, instead of being in agreement with him, as you obviously are today. :devil:
:devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by cattyfan

excellent post, Aimiel. Thorough, articulate, and right on point with the truth, as always. My fan club now has a new President: CattyFan!!! :aimiel:

[Aimiel]

Servant101,

Obviously you need to keep 'church-shopping,' since you haven't joined one yet, that is able to deliver you from your current dilemma.

[billwald]

Choose the closest Christian Church where you will be useful to the congregation.

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by Aimiel

Have you ever tried Scientology?


Originally posted by 4 A.M. Prayer

Did you actually read his original post? The 'Hubbard' crapola is garbage gandalf, I will give you that but....

Servent wants a church, a loving Christian fellowship, not your Enyart horse-poo.

Where's your Popeye icon?

Perhaps I shouldn't have gone after the Enyart way of thinking but his request seemed to be sincere... WHAT??!!!! :confused:


:darwinsm:

[cattyfan]

My fan club now has a new President: CattyFan!!!

Hey! Is this by any chance a paid position? :)

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by cattyfan

Hey! Is this by any chance a paid position?It's a Fan Club, not a publicity gimmick. :aimiel:

Any and all opinions expressed by the fans of Aimiel do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Aimiel. See The Word of God for details. Now available in all states. Most especially valid where prohibited by law.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

And here I was being civil towards you. What a shame you have to be so rude all the time.

It was talking to me, I think.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by the Sibbie

WHAT??!!!! I think that if Servant101 wants a church that agrees with his theology, he's going to have to ask Wickwoman or Gnostic for suggestions.

[keypurr]

Servent101,

I you find a church that has the faith of Jesus Christ and keeps his commandments, let me know, I will join it with you.

[Aimiel]

I wonder if Jesus will find faith in this earth when He returns. It's getting so you can't even find a Christian who has faith enough to believe that there is a single church (anywhere) that is worthy of his attendance. Sounds like self-righteousness getting in the way of good sense.

[BChristianK]

Servent101,

What is the one, most important thing you are looking for in a church fellowship?

Grace and Peace

[godrulz]

I commend you for desiring fellowship and recognizing the importance of church.

Run, do not walk, to the nearest evangelical Church that knows and loves God passionately, preaches and teaches the Word of God, loves one another, reaches the lost, etc. When you find it, let the rest of us know where it is;)


If you are looking for a church with your beliefs, find a sect, a dead/liberal/nominal church. You may be comfortable there, but there will not be abundant nor eternal life for the taking.

God came to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. You should ensure your vertical relationship with God is valid and real, before you work on your horizontal relationships with His people. Who do you say Jesus Christ is? Where did you get those ideas? Have you considered what He said about Himself?

We need a divine invasion: revival in the Church and spiritual awakening in the world. We must arise and be the army and family of God, not a dying institution.

[keypurr]

One should not compromise his beliefs just to sit in a church with people who have no clue who God is. They sit there week after week saying the same thing over and over and it means nothing to them. The churches are at a standstill because of their traditions. They say follow me and you will get to heaven. I say follow God, read his word, pray for understanding to build your faith. Then, if you can, find his church. I find his church in it's people, not it's building. Many churches contain sincere people seeking truth. I have often thought if Luther would be a Lutheran today. The that church stopped growing when he died. Why, because they started to quote him, and live by his interpertations and not God's. As time moves on more Bible truth appear, yet the traditional churches look back instead of forward.
Te revival of the church that godrulz is looking for is taking place, yet he does not see it. Look to the people that make up HIS church. They think differently that of the "Old Time Religion"

[Aimiel]

If you forget the past, you're doomed to repeat it. You have to study Church history to understand why they made the mistakes they did, learn from their blood, sweat and tears, and try (only by participation, not by being an 'armchair Christian') to make His Church into what He designed it to be: one without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.

[godrulz]

There are many healthy, great churches in the world. If you are looking for a perfect church while you are imperfect, you will be disillusioned. The imperfection of the church is not an excuse to forsake fellowshipping with one another. I am part of a solid, growing church. The Spirit of God is there. I am not running around immaturely seeking where the action is.

[Aimiel]

If you find a perfect church, don't join it, you'd just mess it up. The church that Jesus is coming back for is not a building, but they attend servcies in those buildings, out of obedience, though. The ONLY way to improve a church is to join one, and then pray that God's Will might be done. I've seen it. Been there, done that and love every minute of it.

[keypurr]

Why are you so defensive of your churches? Do they teach the whole truth as you see it? Do they follow the teachings of Christ? I know I am not perfect, but I don't put on a robe a tell people it is OK not to follow God's rules either.

I believe in a commandment keeping church. That means church services on Saturday. The adventist are the only ones in this area to do so and I cannot condone some of their doctrins. If I am wrong, God will deal with me. I seek perfection through him, not a church. Do you worship a church, or God?

[godrulz]

Most Sabbath keeping churches have contra or extrabiblical teaching. Whether you worship on Saturday, Sunday, or treat every day the same (Pauline teaching), we are to fellowship with believers. This is not putting the church above God, but fitting into His intention for believers and plan for world evangelization. There was a transition from the OT Sabbath to meeting on the Lord's Day (resurrection). There is a can of worms for another thread.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by keypurr

I seek perfection through him, not a church. Perfection isn't something that we can find by obeying the law, it comes through applying the law of reciprocity.Do you worship a church, or God? I worship The Spirit of The Lord, Who dwells in temples not made with hands, most of whom attend some type of church service.

[purfle]

My wife and I have had a real time finding a church. As someone in a chat room said - if you are expecting to find a church or denomination that 100% agrees with everything you want, be prepared to be discouraged. Also, itchy ears can cause anyone to stumble into a cult or an off-the-wall organization don't you think?

[keypurr]

Aimiel, I think you and I share some of the same ideas. However my road is differant than yours. I too worship The Spirit of The Lord, Who dwells in temples not made with hands. I just don't find him the churches. Only because the churches have turned their backs to God's laws. They teach Jesus as died and risen, but they do not teach and do his commandments. Walk as he walked, talk as he talked. Teach what HE taught.
Do not think that I hold no value to the churches. They do a lot of things right. They do a lot of good. Without the church, scripture would not be available. I know all this. But that is not enough. Truth must be taught.

[keypurr]

purfle, define a cult.

A lot of people thought Jesus formed a cult.

[purfle]

Below is a list of some cults...if you know anything about them then you know something about cults. Some include Roman Catholicism in the list as well.

Christian Science
Church of Christ
Islam
Jehovah's Witnesses
Mormonism
New Age Movement
Oneness Pentecostal
Open Theism
Seventh Day Adventism
Shepherd's Chapel
Universalism
etal.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by purfle

Below is a list of some cults...if you know anything about them then you know something about cults. Some include Roman Catholicism in the list as well.

Christian Science
Church of Christ
Islam
Jehovah's Witnesses
Mormonism
New Age Movement
Oneness Pentecostal
Open Theism
Seventh Day Adventism
Shepherd's Chapel
Universalism
etal.

We should define 'cult'. Technically it refers to a body of beliefs (including Christianity). In apologetics, it is a group that deviates significantly (essentials) from biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity.

The above list is subjective depending on the author and their perspective.

There are many 'Church of Christ' groups. Some are evangelical, while others are heretical.

Christian Science is a 'christian' cult that is out to lunch (started by Mary Baker Eddy).

Islam is a world religion, not a cult proper (usually North American groups for popular definition).

JWs and Mormons are the largest and fastest growing 'christian' cults and false.

New Age movement is an unorganized world view/philosophy with many variations of belief. It is possible to attend nominal churches and be a New Ager.

"Oneness Pentecostals" are unorthodox due to their rejection of the Trinity. They strongly affirm the Deity of Christ, but see Jesus stepping into offices or modes (Father, Son, Spirit) rather than personal distinctions within the Godhead. It is possible to be a modalist and a Christian. There are a variety of 'oneness' groups. The United Pentecostal Church does contribute to the evangelical, conservative Society for Pentecostal Studies and are considered evangelical.

Open Theism is a philosophical view held by some Baptists (Dr. Gregory Boyd) and other evangelicals teaching at conservative seminaries. They do not deny the essentials of the faith, but do deny Calvinism (usually) and wrestle with peripheral issues like the relationship of God's sovereignty to man's free will. This does not make them a cult any more than Calvinists or Arminians are cults. Whether one believes in exhaustive foreknowledge of future contingencies or an open future is not a salvific issue.

Universalism is a wrong doctine of salvation and eschatology. You may be thinking of Unitarianism, a cult.

SDA have split into 2 streams (as has the WWCofG- Herbert Armstrong). One part is evangelical (with some wrong teachings and practices), while the other part is heretical.

Moonies are another cult.

Shepherd's Chapel is not a significant group. It does have wrong doctrines on many points.

Catholicism is one of the main branches of Christianity (+ Orthodox, Protestant, Evangelical). They have core truths such as the Trinity and Deity of Christ, but add many extra/contrabiblical ideas. It is theoretically possible to be a Catholic Christian, but many are nominal and trust the Church rather than Christ for salvation.

[keypurr]

It seems that any every religion but yours is a cult.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by keypurr

It seems that any every religion but yours is a cult. There aren't any perfect churches, or perfect Christians.

"...a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

It is not by belonging to this church or that, or even having enough sense to stay away from this whole denomination or that 'group;' The Lord knows how to find us, and deliver us from whatever we're imprisoned by.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by keypurr

It seems that any every religion but yours is a cult.

Diametrically opposed beliefs are not all true.

Hinduism is either true of false.

Islam is either true of false.

Mormonism/JWs are either true of false.

They are not all equally true or valid.

Christianity contains redemptive, salvific truth. Other religions have behavioral truth, but lack a knowledge of the true God and Gospel.

What exactly is my religion? Do you even know what denomination I belong to our all my beliefs? I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. Salvation is in a person, not an organization or church.

I distinguish between world religions and cults. Objectively, the above groups have significant aberrant teachings that put them outside of biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity. One must have a minimum of essential truth. The Deity of Christ, the oneness of God (vs many gods), the Bible as the Word of God, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc. are essential to salvation.

Either Jesus is God or He is Michael the Archangel (JW). There is another gospel (Paul curses the false teachers) and another worthless counterfeit Jesus (Gal. 1:6-10l 2 Cor. 11:4). Scripture warns about false teachers who will be lost and drag others with them.

There are hundreds of millions of genuine believers within Christianity who attend hundreds of different denominations, besides my own. Christianity is the only true religion, but my version of it is not the only one (with everyone else being a cult).

There is much tolerance on the numerous divisive, peripheral issues. We have spiritual unity with diversity, not cultic uniformity.

If labeling false religions as cultic is intolerant, your quibble is with Jesus, Paul, and the Word. We need to proclaim and defend the faith once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 4). False religion leads people away from God. You might like Unitarianism or Bahai. They are tolerant of all religions.

Your accusation was not well thought out, was it now?:p

[keypurr]

Who are you (all) to judge what is a cult? Your theology is not perfect. Neither is mine. But I try not to live a lie and that is what most churches are. They contain only half truths.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aimiel quote
"...a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

I disagree.
Man will be judged by the law. Salvation comes by grace. but justification come by the deeds of the law.

-----------------------
Godrulz, how can you be sure that your faith is "true or false"?

Some one else might call your faith a cult, could you prove them wrong?

World religions are just that, "Of the world."
His kingdom is not of this world. If you want "worldly" things than continue in them.

Seek ye first the kingdom. Follow HIS rules, not the churches (Babylon)

[keypurr]

Godruzl, for the record I m not tolerant of any religion that does not teach truth.

Are you blinded by tradition?

[keypurr]

correction

Man will be judged by the law. Salvation comes by grace. but justification come by faith and the deeds of the law.

[godrulz]

What is your distinction between salvation and justification?

The Word of God is the standard to judge whether a belief system is true or false. It must be translated and interpreted correctly.

Evangelical, Bible believing churches are not of 'Babylon'. This is a red herring used by exclusivistic groups.

[Dave Miller]

If the point of going to church is worship, then any church will do.

If the point of going to church is to find some kind of perfect fit,
perfect agreement in interpretation of scripture, etc, then no
church will do.

No church has it right, just as no person has it right. All we can
do is accept the gift of salvation and use our gifts to praise God
in gratitude. Worship is a sacrifice, which, if offerred in
gratitude, will be accepted. If offered as a "proof of our
righteousness and holiness" will be rejected, for no one is
righteous, and no work, no offering, can make anyone righteous.

djm

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by keypurr

Man will be judged by the law. Salvation comes by grace. but justification come by faith and the deeds of the law. You're right, I guess, since all things are lawful for believers.

All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

[godrulz]

The Corinthians made the false statement "all things are lawful". Paul was challenging their thinking.

[keypurr]

Dave Miller Quote

No church has it right, just as no person has it right. All we can
do is accept the gift of salvation and use our gifts to praise God
in gratitude. Worship is a sacrifice, which, if offerred in
gratitude, will be accepted. If offered as a "proof of our
righteousness and holiness" will be rejected, for no one is
righteous, and no work, no offering, can make anyone righteous.

AMEN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Aimiel]

I wonder is Servent ever found a church to join?

[Aimiel]

I guess Servent grew tired of not being allowed to join in the reindeer games.

[Rusha]

I am looking for a church, a place to fellowship. I thought I would say what my leanings are and see if you there at TOL would know of a church I would be at home in... a place of similar values and beliefs.

Though I no longer do the "church thing", the best churches and congregations I have run across were from SDA and Lutheran.

Baptist churches are often legalistic and many find different interpretations of the Bible and salvation.

[Aimiel]

Seeing as how Servent101's last post was October 4th, 2006, at 11:34 AM, I don't think your advice will reach him, but I'm sure your heart was in the right place. :thumb:

[Rusha]

Seeing as how Servent101's last post was October 4th, 2006, at 11:34 AM, I don't think your advice will reach him, but I'm sure your heart was in the right place. :thumb:

Oops, my bad! I sometimes will go back to the original post so I that I am referring to the topic at hand. I didn't even look at the date.

[godrulz]

Though I no longer do the "church thing", the best churches and congregations I have run across were from SDA and Lutheran.

Baptist churches are often legalistic and many find different interpretations of the Bible and salvation.


?! SDAists are infamous for their legalism. They also have various splinter groups with different interpretations.

Lutherans can be too liberal. Which is worse?

Any given church or denomination or religion can have many or few problems. Man is the weak link in the chain.

There is no such thing as a 'Lone Ranger' Christian. You are compromising biblical principles to not be associated with a local church for worship, instruction, fellowship, evangelism, service/mission.

[Aimiel]

What compromise, he's a Satanist. :duh:

[godrulz]

What compromise, he's a Satanist. :duh:

Well (flustered), then he should be going to the church of Satan?!

There is such a thing as a lone ranger Satanist.

Then, he needs to be part of the universal church through faith in Christ. Then become part of a local church, make a movie of your testimony, get rich and retire.

[Mystery]

The Corinthians made the false statement "all things are lawful". Paul was challenging their thinking.

The evidence against godrulz being a Christian is everywhere!

[godrulz]

The evidence against godrulz being a Christian is everywhere!


You fail to grasp that Corinthians is issue literature. There are several places (some translations recognize this by adding "......") where the Corinthians made a statement that was incorrect, with Paul using it as a springboard to correct teaching.

Inspiration does not mean all verses are true. Job's friends said things that were not true, as does Satan, but they are accurately recorded. Revelation is truth from God and it is also accurately recorded.

Doing sound exegesis in context is not proof I am not a Christian. Regardless of who you think said the phrase (I can make a stronger case for my view, but other scholars also assume your view), it is not a denial of Christ. It is a peripheral issue.

It is clear from God's holy nature and the rest of Scripture that all things are NOT lawful! To say they are is further proof that you are a lawless antinomian, a loose cannon. It is a fleshly lie of the Corinthians that all things are lawful. Paul corrected them. It is not lawful to be immoral, to murder, to worship idols, etc.

Your turn, peanut gallery...

[Adambassador]

You fail to grasp that Corinthians is issue literature. There are several places (some translations recognize this by adding "......") where the Corinthians made a statement that was incorrect, with Paul using it as a springboard to correct teaching.

Inspiration does not mean all verses are true. Job's friends said things that were not true, as does Satan, but they are accurately recorded. Revelation is truth from God and it is also accurately recorded.

Doing sound exegesis in context is not proof I am not a Christian. Regardless of who you think said the phrase (I can make a stronger case for my view, but other scholars also assume your view), it is not a denial of Christ. It is a peripheral issue.

It is clear from God's holy nature and the rest of Scripture that all things are NOT lawful! To say they are is further proof that you are a lawless antinomian, a loose cannon. It is a fleshly lie of the Corinthians that all things are lawful. Paul corrected them. It is not lawful to be immoral, to murder, to worship idols, etc.

Your turn, peanut gallery...If someone is not under the law, then how can they be judged by the law?

[godrulz]

If someone is not under the law, then how can they be judged by the law?


What does it mean to not be under the law? It does not mean lawlessness (antinomianism). We are still under God's unchanging moral law, as Jesus and Paul were (they did not murder, worship idols, steal, bear false witness, hate parents, curse God, covet, commit adultery, etc.).

It is a law of love for God and others, not 613 legalisms or laws for theocratic Israel that have nothing to do with salvation. We love and obey Him because we are saved and it is the highest glory of God and good for self and others (immorality destroys, not blesses), not in order to try to earn salvation.

The law has more than one purpose. Condemning us a lawbreakers being a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ is one aspect; Psalm 119 and the life of Jesus is the more positive aspect. Paul says the law is good; the Psalmist says we should delight in it. The problem is our lack of power to keep the law due to sin and selfishness. In Christ, He fulfilled the law, not negated it. In Christ, we walk in the light and Spirit leading to conformity to the law, not breaking of it.

Grace and legalistic laws (Pharisee misinterpretation/misapplication of the law) is the problem, not grace and the law of love that Christ demonstrated (love and obedience flows from grace and faith).

[Mystery]

You are digging yourself a hole, godrulz, that you cannot escape from.

Soon, everyone will know what Jesus and I both know, that you do not know Him.

[godrulz]

You are digging yourself a hole, godrulz, that you cannot escape from.

Soon, everyone will know what Jesus and I both know, that you do not know Him.


Using the Lord's name in vain is not just cursing it, but saying God agrees with you when He does not. Jesus tells me otherwise. You are the liar, not Him and His Word (Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16; Rom. 10:9-10).

Was the Psalmist wrong (119)? Was Jesus wrong to summarize the law as love? Was Paul wrong to say the law is good and holy (Rom. 7:12-14; the law is not the problem; the sinfulness of man and weakness of the flesh is the problem).

[Adambassador]

What does it mean to not be under the law? It does not mean lawlessness (antinomianism). We are still under God's unchanging moral law, as Jesus and Paul were (they did not murder, worship idols, steal, bear false witness, hate parents, curse God, covet, commit adultery, etc.).

It is a law of love for God and others, not 613 legalisms or laws for theocratic Israel that have nothing to do with salvation. We love and obey Him because we are saved and it is the highest glory of God and good for self and others (immorality destroys, not blesses), not in order to try to earn salvation.

The law has more than one purpose. Condemning us a lawbreakers being a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ is one aspect; Psalm 119 and the life of Jesus is the more positive aspect. Paul says the law is good; the Psalmist says we should delight in it. The problem is our lack of power to keep the law due to sin and selfishness. In Christ, He fulfilled the law, not negated it. In Christ, we walk in the light and Spirit leading to conformity to the law, not breaking of it.

Grace and legalistic laws (Pharisee misinterpretation/misapplication of the law) is the problem, not grace and the law of love that Christ demonstrated (love and obedience flows from grace and faith).If I were to steal a candy bar tomorrow, what would be my non-physical punishment?

[godrulz]

If I were to steal a candy bar tomorrow, what would be my non-physical punishment?


Tooth decay and fat belly or fine for shop lifting would be a physical punishment.

Loss of salvation would NOT be the spiritual punishment.

The point is that it is still wrong to steal even though not stealing will not lead to eternal life or stealing will not lead to damnation.

Only godless, persistent unbelief against great life is a salvific issue since it is the antithesis of saving faith (I am not OSAS, but I am secure as a believer).

[SaulToPaul]

Only godless, persistent unbelief against great life is a salvific issue since it is the antithesis of saving faith

Unbelief of what?

I want to know if the Spirit unbaptizes this person out of the Body of Christ when they cross the threshold of "persistent unbelief of great life"? Scripture, please.

[godrulz]

Unbelief of what?

I want to know if the Spirit unbaptizes this person out of the Body of Christ when they cross the threshold of "persistent unbelief of great life"? Scripture, please.

I Jn. 5:11-13

Unbelief vs belief in Christ and His finished work. You understand what an unbeliever is, but you refuse to accept the possibility of apostasy or falling away. Unbelievers cannot apostasize since they never had the truth. Faith vs unbelief are conditions relating to salvation. One cannot be an unbelieving believer and have eternal life. One cannot be a Christian Atheist since this is a logical contradiction.

Heb. 6:4-6

If you get divorced and remarried, are you still married to the first wife?
If you have a fight with your wife and make up, are you divorced?

Salvation is relational, not metaphysical. The stern warnings in Scripture show that eternal life or faith is not irrevocable or irreversible. It is conditioned and remaining in the Son, not renouncing Him.

[Lastoneislefty]

Servant101, Hell is a real place. Revelation 20:14-15. Pentecostal church is where you need to go (Acts 2:38). Church of Christ pleases the Lord.

[SaulToPaul]

I Jn. 5:11-13

Unbelief vs belief in Christ and His finished work. You understand what an unbeliever is, but you refuse to accept the possibility of apostasy or falling away. Unbelievers cannot apostasize since they never had the truth. Faith vs unbelief are conditions relating to salvation. One cannot be an unbelieving believer and have eternal life. One cannot be a Christian Atheist since this is a logical contradiction.

Heb. 6:4-6

If you get divorced and remarried, are you still married to the first wife?
If you have a fight with your wife and make up, are you divorced?

Salvation is relational, not metaphysical. The stern warnings in Scripture show that eternal life or faith is not irrevocable or irreversible. It is conditioned and remaining in the Son, not renouncing Him.

I want to know if the Spirit unbaptizes this person out of the Body of Christ when they cross the threshold of "persistent unbelief of great life"? Scripture, please.

Salvation is spiritual.

[godrulz]

I want to know if the Spirit unbaptizes this person out of the Body of Christ when they cross the threshold of "persistent unbelief of great life"? Scripture, please.

Salvation is spiritual.


Without a vital connection to the Head, one is not part of the Body. One can be placed among the people of God (Israel or Church), and one can be removed from the people of God. One can be connected to God through faith or separated from God through unbelief. Baptism refers to a specific thing, not an irrevocable issue or impossibility of rejecting truth. Unbaptize is barking up the wrong tree (only one concept related to salvation, so must be understand in light of other concepts).

[SaulToPaul]

Without a vital connection to the Head, one is not part of the Body. One can be placed among the people of God (Israel or Church), and one can be removed from the people of God. One can be connected to God through faith or separated from God through unbelief. Baptism refers to a specific thing, not an irrevocable issue or impossibility of rejecting truth. Unbaptize is barking up the wrong tree (only one concept related to salvation, so must be understand in light of other concepts).

If it requires the power of the Spirit to baptize or place someone into the
Body of Christ, it would require something equally as powerful to remove that person from the Body.

Writing it off as a metaphor doesn't work. It's about a spiritual realm and reality.

[godrulz]

If it requires the power of the Spirit to baptize or place someone into the
Body of Christ, it would require something equally as powerful to remove that person from the Body.

Writing it off as a metaphor doesn't work. It's about a spiritual realm and reality.

So, God can spew/spit us out of His mouth for being lukewarm and eventually godless. He has the power. His faithfulness does not preclude the possibility of us becoming faithless (unless you are a determinist) leading to forfeiture of the promises and privileges that only apply to believers. Unbelievers have consequences, whether they once believed or not.

Remember, salvation and perseverance have conditions or universalism would be true. Also consider that physical birth is analagous to, not identical with, spiritual rebirth. Illustrations about salvation cannot be pressed on all literal details or we end up with contradiction and nonsense.

[Mystery]

Without a vital connection to the Head, one is not part of the Body. One can be placed among the people of God (Israel or Church), and one can be removed from the people of God. One can be connected to God through faith or separated from God through unbelief. Baptism refers to a specific thing, not an irrevocable issue or impossibility of rejecting truth. Unbaptize is barking up the wrong tree (only one concept related to salvation, so must be understand in light of other concepts).:rolleyes: What a bunch of made-up garbage. You have absolutely ZERO biblical support for any of that nonsense. Just like the Devil you will arrogantly hold on to your pride-filled heart, instead of admitting that you are wrong.

You are a pathetic, godless, fraud.

[SaulToPaul]

So, God can spew/spit us out of His mouth for being lukewarm and eventually godless. He has the power. His faithfulness does not preclude the possibility of us becoming faithless (unless you are a determinist) leading to forfeiture of the promises and privileges that only apply to believers. Unbelievers have consequences, whether they once believed or not.

Either Paul or John the Revelator is lying to you, or there are some dispensations
in your Bible that you refuse to acknowledge!

[godrulz]

:rolleyes: What a bunch of made-up garbage. You have absolutely ZERO biblical support for any of that nonsense. Just like the Devil you will arrogantly hold on to your pride-filled heart, instead of admitting that you are wrong.

You are a pathetic, godless, fraud.


There are big books full of biblical support for non-Calvinistic views on the perseverance of the saints.

[godrulz]

Either Paul or John the Revelator is lying to you, or there are some dispensations
in your Bible that you refuse to acknowledge!

If you would read Shank, you would see the Pauline basis (that does not contradict John or Peter) for conditional eternal security. Take off your MAD glasses and accept the passages at face value rather than rationalizing them away dispensationally.

[Mystery]

There are big books full of biblical support for non-Calvinistic views on the perseverance of the saints.
There is NO biblical support for your post, which is what YOU said, not some inept false teaching "theologian" that YOU worship.

YOU, William, are WRONG, and you have NO biblical support for YOUR post, you pathetic fraud.

[SaulToPaul]

If you would read Shank, you would see the Pauline basis (that does not contradict John or Peter) for conditional eternal security. Take off your MAD glasses and accept the passages at face value rather than rationalizing them away dispensationally.

ShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShank ShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShank ShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShank ShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShank ShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShank ShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShank ShankShankShank.

:nono:

[Mystery]

If you would read Shank, you would see the Pauline basis (that does not contradict John or Peter) for conditional eternal security.

If you would read the bible, instead of Shank, you would see that Paul and Jesus call false teachers like you children of the devil.

[godrulz]

There is NO biblical support for your post, which is what YOU said, not some inept false teaching "theologian" that YOU worship.

YOU, William, are WRONG, and you have NO biblical support for YOUR post, you pathetic fraud.

Shank makes it easier to identify the verses in question claimed by both views. Since you are so superspiritual, here is my real answer: read Genesis to Revelation, including Paul. It supports conditional vs unconditional eternal security.

The grace of God and His power and perfect provision can be rejected before salvation since all are not saved. Likewise, the keeping power and grace and love of God can be rejected after salvation (unless you are a robot or sock puppet...I knew there was something different about you...what was your production number and country of manufacture? Are your kids also mechanical clones?).

[godrulz]

ShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShank ShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShank ShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShank ShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShank ShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShank ShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShankShank ShankShankShank.

:nono:

As I said to mystery, he systematizes the verses claimed by both groups.

My real answer is Bible, Bible, Bible, etc. which supports my view, including Paul's teachings. I just thought it would take less time to read the relevant verses about Trinity, Deity, Heaven, perseverance of the saints, etc. than to always read Genesis to Revelation everytime you want to review one doctrine.

[godrulz]

If you would read the bible, instead of Shank, you would see that Paul and Jesus call false teachers like you children of the devil.

Shank quotes and exegetes Scripture. I just started his book and am 1/3 done. I had my ideas long before I heard of him. He is confirmatory, not the basis for my beliefs (Bible is the only authority).

Thx for changing your signature (demon), even if you were forced to.

[Mystery]

Shank makes it easier to identify the verses in question claimed by both views. Since you are so superspiritual, here is my real answer: read Genesis to Revelation, including Paul. It supports conditional vs unconditional eternal security.

The grace of God and His power and perfect provision can be rejected before salvation since all are not saved. Likewise, the keeping power and grace and love of God can be rejected after salvation (unless you are a robot or sock puppet...I knew there was something different about you...what was your production number and country of manufacture? Are your kids also mechanical clones?).Everytime you are backed in a corner, you make it personal, because you are demon possessed. You leave my kids out of this, you Christless pervert. You can go straight to hell.

I can hardly wait till the day Jesus tosses your worthless life in the lake of fire.

Unlike you, I'm not going to whine to the moderators and report your post, you big :baby:

[Mystery]

Thx for changing your signature (demon), even if you were forced to.I changed my signature because you whined and cried to Knight about it, but don't you or anyone else think for one second that you are not demon possessed, because there is no doubt whatsoever that you are.

[godrulz]

Everytime you are backed in a corner, you make it personal, because you are demon possessed. You leave my kids out of this, you Christless pervert. You can go straight to hell.

I can hardly wait till the day Jesus tosses your worthless life in the lake of fire.

Unlike you, I'm not going to whine to the moderators and report your post, you big :baby:


My point was to make a point. If you are not a robot, then your kids are not. We all know that people are in the image of God, not robots. Since you are not a robot, you should see the truth in my view.

This is in no way a slam on your kids (how quickly you forget your slams on my wife and kids). It was hyperbole to show how illogical your position is.

No one is a sock puppet literally, either. Another reason to reject OSAS.

[Mystery]

Go to hell, William.

[godrulz]

I changed my signature because you whine and cried to Knight about it, but don't you or anyone else think for one second that you are not demon possessed, because there is no doubt whatsoever that you are.

If it was true, keep it. If it is false, you are grieving the Holy Spirit, mocking the work of Christ in a believer, etc. Your judgment is false. I may be wrong theologically on peripheral points, but that does not mean I am wrong on essential truths or that I am possessed by a demon.

My concern was for the Spirit and Word, not my personal reputation. Most people think you are missing a screw for saying such stupid things about fellow believers. You lack credibility and integrity, but I will not be offended or have God offended by your idiotic signature.

Stand up to bullies..it is the only way to minimize their damage.

Note my grace in asking him to ask you to remove it and urging him to not ban you. When you get banned again, it will be your own doing.

[godrulz]

Go to hell, William.


See you in heaven, Dave.:cheers: :angel:

[Mystery]

If it was true, keep it. It is true, and I ONLY removed it because I was asked to.

YOU ARE DEMON POSSESSED, and I am as convinced of that TRUTH, as I am that Jesus is Lord.

[Mystery]

See you in heaven, Dave.:cheers: :angel:No, YOU won't. Jesus does not know you, nor have you ever come to know Him. You are a fraud, and a deceiver.

[godrulz]

And you are a half-baked wingnut.

Out of curiosity, my father was an alcoholic (sober 15 years now) and I was from a broken home. And you? What was your family of origin like? Birth order? I am an only child.

[Mystery]

And you are a half-baked wingnut.

Out of curiosity, my father was an alcoholic (sober 15 years now) and I was from a broken home. And you? What was your family of origin like? Birth order? I am an only child.

I could care less about you William. You are an enemy of the gospel, an enemy of Christ, and therefore an enemy of all men, including YOUR family.

Just like Paul, all I care about, concerning false teachers like you, is that you accursed.

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Shank quotes and exegetes Scripture. I just started his book and am 1/3 done. I had my ideas long before I heard of him. He is confirmatory, not the basis for my beliefs (Bible is the only authority).

Thx for changing your signature (demon), even if you were forced to.Anytime you are ready to discuss Shank (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1619097&postcount=5702)'s eisegesis in painful detail, I am.

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Note my grace in asking him to ask you to remove it and urging him to not ban you."Note my grace" :bang:

[Adambassador]

See you in heaven, Dave.:cheers: :angel:You contradict yourself. You believe people can lose their salvation, but in the same thread, you assure someone that you'll see them in heaven.

[Mystery]

"Note my grace" :bang:Can you believe he said that? I can.

After all, he is the god, who rulz.

[Lighthouse]

It is true, and I ONLY removed it because I was asked to.

YOU ARE DEMON POSSESSED, and I am as convinced of that TRUTH, as I am that Jesus is Lord.
The problem here is that William doesn't know what it means to be possessed with a demon. He's thinking you mean in the way "Legion" was possessed.

[godrulz]

Anytime you are ready to discuss Shank (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1619097&postcount=5702)'s eisegesis in painful detail, I am.


I am 1/3 the way through his book and do not agree with everything. This is not an online course in Shank, Lewis, Sanders, etc. Those serious about the debate can interact with him. He is dead. I am not here to commend or defend him in particular, but his exegesis has merit for consideration. The problem is that you will dissect and spit out any author that does not tow a Calvinistic-Reformed partly line. I used to be on a mailing list for a Reformed publishing house. It was anti this and that and pro party line.

We disagree about Heb. 6:4-6 and will continue to do so until the cows come home. If we spent weeks on this project, it would be largely ignored. Your hard work on 50 OT Enyart questions is a case in point.

Why would I defend Shank if I have not even read most of his writings? Let his book stand or fall on its own merits in your own mind. Judging how you deal with OT or Arminian texts, you will simply assume your Calvinistic assumptions are correct and argue from that bias.

[godrulz]

You contradict yourself. You believe people can lose their salvation, but in the same thread, you assure someone that you'll see them in heaven.

I see no reason why mystery or myself would fall away. I have full expectation we will both be there, but there is a possibility (not a probability) that anyone can fall away. We have not had an inclination to do so for decades, so why think it will be likely?

Just because most remain in the faith does not mean it is impossible for some to remove themselves from the grace of God in Christ through godless, persistent unbelief (sinning against great light).

[godrulz]

The problem here is that William doesn't know what it means to be possessed with a demon. He's thinking you mean in the way "Legion" was possessed.

What does he mean? Demon possession is understood by most to mean what it says. Some also distinguish oppression, etc.

A Christian cannot be possessed (Col. 1:13).

[Ask Mr. Religion]

A Christian cannot be possessedMust...resist...just...too...easy....:rol leyes:

[godrulz]

Must...resist...just...too...easy....:rolleyes:


Since I am a Christian (there are Charismatic and Open Theist Reformed Christians apparently...who is a Reformed Open Theist? Some author said there are some), I cannot be possessed, so mystery is wrong.

[Adambassador]

I have full expectation we will both be there, but there is a possibility (not a probability) that anyone can fall away. We have not had an inclination to do so for decades, so why think it will be likely?Can you explain this statement to me? Especially the bolded part.

[Mystery]

A Christian cannot be possessed (Col. 1:13).

I couldn't agree more!

[godrulz]

Can you explain this statement to me? Especially the bolded part.

In our many years of claiming to be followers of Christ, we have not had serious doubts about our faith nor a desire or tendency to renounce it and forsake our first love. He has saved and kept us. Our confidance is in Him, not our own weakness (Jude 24-25).

Others do abandon the faith they once embraced for various reasons. Most believers remain faithful through God's faithfulness. This does not preclude the possibility (Scripture sternly warns about it) of some falling away or apostasizing (some do).

My experience is that if I have come this far, I would have to be a moron for rejecting what I know is true. I have had opportunity to do so, but have not. I see no reason to think that I would do so in the future until I die.

Charles Templeton was a successful evangelist alongside Billy Graham. By the end of his life, he was a functional atheist writing against the faith he once loved and preached. His experience is different than mine and based on years of negative decline that God would have put up road blocks to.

The bottom line is that we are not robots and can receive or reject Truth/God.

[godrulz]

I couldn't agree more!


Proving I am not possessed since I am a Christian.

Can a Christian be oppressed externally (Paul's thorn, a messenger of Satan)?

I am glad to see you are reaching out for help with nouthetic counselling. I just got my certificate/training from a cereal box. For $100/hour, I will be glad to help you work through your problems.:cloud9:

Let's start with your anger, bitterness, and unforgiveness, rooted in hurt and pride. We will also fit you with a new prescription for different theological glasses. They are not Oakley's, but Rulz, a clearer lens for theological acuity.

[Mystery]

Proving I am not possessed since I am a Christian.

You are not a Christian, and you do have a familiar demon spirit.

The demonic spirit you have will not leave unto you are willing to give it up.

Can a Christian be oppressed externally (Paul's thorn, a messenger of Satan)?Admitting that you are a messenger of Satan is the first step to ridding yourself of your demon. :thumb:

I am glad to see you are reaching out for help with nouthetic counselling.
I'm not.

I just got my certificate/training from a cereal box.Are you mocking nouthetic counseling?

[godrulz]

No, I am making fun of myself (and you), not biblical counselling.

Jesus cast out demons from those who were helpless to help themselves. Maybe you should revisit your charismatic roots so you can help those in bondage and darkness like myself instead of mocking them.

Wait, too late, the Truth set me free in 1978...I have decided to follow Jesus, no turning back (picture campfire and marshmallows and long hair/sandals).

I have found streaming radio/internet classical music helpful when dealing with yourself. You may want to try it to calm your nerves so you can deal with me objectively rather than with lunacy.

If I received Jesus according to Jn. 1:12, Rom. 10:9-10, Jn. 3:16, Eph. 2:8-10, etc., why do you think a demon entered me, not the Holy Spirit as promised?

[Adambassador]

In our many years of claiming to be followers of Christ, we have not had serious doubts about our faith nor a desire or tendency to renounce it and forsake our first love. He has saved and kept us. Our confidance is in Him, not our own weakness (Jude 24-25).

Others do abandon the faith they once embraced for various reasons. Most believers remain faithful through God's faithfulness. This does not preclude the possibility (Scripture sternly warns about it) of some falling away or apostasizing (some do).

My experience is that if I have come this far, I would have to be a moron for rejecting what I know is true. I have had opportunity to do so, but have not. I see no reason to think that I would do so in the future until I die.

Charles Templeton was a successful evangelist alongside Billy Graham. By the end of his life, he was a functional atheist writing against the faith he once loved and preached. His experience is different than mine and based on years of negative decline that God would have put up road blocks to.

The bottom line is that we are not robots and can receive or reject Truth/God.Because of your bias towards the circumcision epistles, you have clearly missed II Timothy 2:13 which clearly states that if we stop believing, He remains faithful. We are hid in Him, we are His Body, and have His identity, and He will not deny Himself.

On top of that powerful statement, we also learn that the Holy Spirit has sealed us.

No man can break the seal of the Holy Spirit.

[godrulz]

Because of your bias towards the circumcision epistles, you have clearly missed II Timothy 2:13 which clearly states that if we stop believing, He remains faithful. We are hid in Him, we are His Body, and have His identity, and He will not deny Himself.

On top of that powerful statement, we also learn that the Holy Spirit has sealed us.

No man can break the seal of the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim. 2:12-13

And you conveniently left out v. 12 from the context that shows that His faithfulness does not preclude our becoming godless or faithless. It is not just your uncirc. letters that teach the possibility of apostasy or falling away. It is a Pauline principle also. The security of the believer texts do not negate the warning of apostasy texts. Calvinists do mental gymnastics to try to make them say something they do not to retain their preconceived theology. You simply hyper-dispensationalize them away.

I contrast Old vs New and have a full NT theology, not one based on a specious circ vs uncirc (TM) post-cross gospels theory.

[Lighthouse]

2 Tim. 2:12-13

And you conveniently left out v. 12 from the context that shows that His faithfulness does not preclude our becoming godless or faithless. It is not just your uncirc. letters that teach the possibility of apostasy or falling away. It is a Pauline principle also. The security of the believer texts do not negate the warning of apostasy texts. Calvinists do mental gymnastics to try to make them say something they do not to retain their preconceived theology. You simply hyper-dispensationalize them away.

I contrast Old vs New and have a full NT theology, not one based on a specious circ vs uncirc (TM) post-cross gospels theory.
You obviously have no clue what it means to deny Him. No one who has accepted Him can deny Him, ever.

[godrulz]

You obviously have no clue what it means to deny Him. No one who has accepted Him can deny Him, ever.


Judas denied Christ and died as an apostate, a son of perdition/hell. Denying Him is the opposite of receiving, loving, knowing, obeying Him.

Your last statement is a big assumption without basis (unless we are robots).

People deny things they once believed as true all of the time. Do you think that no atheist has ever believed in God? Some kids used to believe in Santa and Tooth Fairy, but no longer do so.

Could your idea of the circumcision deny Him? If so, you must qualify your absolute, indefensible statement.

[SaulToPaul]

Judas was NEVER in the Body of Christ. You mix dispensations and cause
confusion.

[Mystery]

Judas denied Christ and died as an apostate, a son of perdition/hell. Denying Him is the opposite of receiving, loving, knowing, obeying Him.

godless, you are a moron. I have already proved to you that Judas was never a believer by giving you the biblical evidence out of the mouth of Jesus, and you keep lying to everyone anyway.

Here is the proof AGAIN...

"But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father." As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew, and were not walking with Him anymore. Jesus said therefore to the twelve, "You do not want to go away also, do you?" Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. "And we have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God." Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?" Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him."

I know that godrulz will not repent of his false teaching, but Jesus clearly said that Judas was never a believer. Jesus knew the heart of Judas when He chose him. He knew that Judas was not a believer and that he would betray Him. Jesus referred to Judas as a "devil" in John 6, long before Jesus was betrayed, and Jesus knew that Judas would betray Him from the beginning.

[godrulz]

Are you a Calvinist? Jesus knew Judas was a betrayer from early on. However, he was chosen to be part of Christ's inner circle after praying to the Father. He was called an apostle alongside the others. The Bible is accurate. It did not say he was a false apostle until later. Judas became a betrayer. He was not chosen in that state. He became possessed. He was not always possessed. You are misreading your proof texts. Jesus did not chose a loser. He became one. You hold your view because it fits your preconceived theology. If you trace the chronology and look at every statement about Judas, you will not disagree with me.

Your statements are true at the time they were made. Before Jesus made these statements, other verses show that he was an apostle/disciple/believer. Soon after, his heart changed and Jesus was able to make these statements. Relatively speaking, it was from the beginning of his ministry, but God did not chose him in that state. That would be a lack of wisdom and an error to enumerate him as an apostle wisely chosen by God. Open Theism vs determinism makes sense of this.

Judas was not a Christian in the Body, but God is God, a believer is a believer, man is man, sin is sin, etc. One should not dispensationalize away fundamental principles, STP.

[Mystery]

The bible proves that you are a false teacher. You are once again calling Jesus a liar. That is what demon possessed perverts do, and that is what you are.

[godrulz]

The bible proves that you are a false teacher. You are once again calling Jesus a liar. That is what demon possessed perverts do, and that is what you are.

Jesus did not lie and his statements are true when Judas degenerated into this state. Jesus did not say this about him the day he chose him as an apostle. Your chronology is flawed. Jesus did not lie, but your understanding of his statements is inaccurate. This does not make you a demon possessed liar, just wrong on one point. Will you never learn that omniscience is not a condition of child-like faith and love for Jesus?

[Adambassador]

2 Tim. 2:12-13

And you conveniently left out v. 12 from the context that shows that His faithfulness does not preclude our becoming godless or faithless. It is not just your uncirc. letters that teach the possibility of apostasy or falling away. It is a Pauline principle also. The security of the believer texts do not negate the warning of apostasy texts. Calvinists do mental gymnastics to try to make them say something they do not to retain their preconceived theology. You simply hyper-dispensationalize them away.

I contrast Old vs New and have a full NT theology, not one based on a specious circ vs uncirc (TM) post-cross gospels theory.yourrulz,

You conveniently state that I conveniently left out the other verses from that passage. I did so on purpose, as those verses have no bearing on our eternal salvation.

Since you haven't spent much time in Paul's letters, I shall examine them for you and give proper and truthful exegesis here.

II Timothy 2:11, [It is] a faithful saying: For if we be dead with [him], we shall also live with [him]:This verse is relating to our salvation, and corresponds with Galatians 2:20, where Paul clearly states that our old man has died, and it is Christ who lives in us.

Now, moving on toII Timothy 2:12a, If we suffer, we shall also reign with [him]:This means that those who already have Christ living in them, if they suffer for Him during this Christian life, the same will also reign with Him in Heaven (not earth where the 12 original Apostles will reign). Did you read that? Those of us who suffer will also reign with our risen Lord in Heaven! What a blessing!!!

Now, II Timothy 2:12b corresponds directly with 2:12aif we deny [him], he also will deny us:This means that if we deny our risen Lord before men on earth (similar to what Peter did), then He will deny us our reign in Heaven. What does this mean? It means that those who deny our risen Lord and do not suffer for Him here, will not reign in Heaven. They will be there, but without reward. Frightful!

Then, II Timothy 2:13If we believe not, [yet] he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself. tells us that God will not deny us our salvation, even if we stop believing! What a great God! He will not forsake us!

Also, as stated before, Ephesians 1:13 and Ephesians 4:30 both guarantee that the Holy Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit of promise, seals us from the point of salvation and forward. That seal will never be broken!

If your good works didn't save you, then what makes you think that your good works can keep you saved???

[Mystery]

If your good works didn't save you, then what makes you think that your good works can keep you saved???:up:

[amosman]

II Timothy 2:12a, If we suffer, we shall also reign with [him]:
This means that those who already have Christ living in them, if they suffer for Him during this Christian life, the same will also reign with Him in Heaven (not earth where the 12 original Apostles will reign). Did you read that? Those of us who suffer will also reign with our risen Lord in Heaven! What a blessing!!!

Do you think there are people that think they have Messiah living in them but don't? Do you think there are people that believe they are saved and because of false teachers are propped up until the day a judgement just to find out otherwise?

If the saints reign with Messiah in heaven who are they reigning over?

If Israel is on earth reigning at the same time as Christians are in heaven reigning where is Messiah? Both places?

What is heaven like? Is it like the new Jerusalem? Who are the 12 original Apostles?

[Mystery]

Here are the words of Jesus concerning Judas...

"But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father." As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew, and were not walking with Him anymore. Jesus said therefore to the twelve, "You do not want to go away also, do you?" Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. "And we have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God." Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?" Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him."


Here is what the demon possessed godrulz says...

Jesus did not say this about him the day he chose him as an apostle.

More proof, that godrulz calls Jesus a liar.

Jesus knew from the beginning the hearts of those who did not believe, and yet he chose Judas to accomplish God's purpose. God did not make Judas betray Jesus, but He knew his heart, and knew that he would.

gordulz will call Jesus a liar long before he will admit that he is wrong. He has the heart of Satan, and like Judas, godrulz betrays Jesus.

[Lighthouse]

Judas denied Christ and died as an apostate, a son of perdition/hell. Denying Him is the opposite of receiving, loving, knowing, obeying Him.

Your last statement is a big assumption without basis (unless we are robots).

People deny things they once believed as true all of the time. Do you think that no atheist has ever believed in God? Some kids used to believe in Santa and Tooth Fairy, but no longer do so.

Could your idea of the circumcision deny Him? If so, you must qualify your absolute, indefensible statement.
How many times do we have to go through this? Mystery and I aren't even the only ones arguing with you about this. Numerous people have, time and again, shown you that Judas was never saved, and yet you continue to use him as an illustration. What's next, are you going to use Adam's fall as "proof" that we can fall away?

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Jesus did not lie and his statements are true when Judas degenerated into this state. Jesus did not say this about him the day he chose him as an apostle. Your chronology is flawed.So what do you see as the unflawed chronology?

This?
1. Jesus incarnated = God in the flesh.
2. Jesus chooses Judas to be a disciple.
3. Jesus is ignorant of Judas' spiritual state.
4. Judas was initially a saved disciple, walking with Christ.
5. Judas changes his mind.
6. Jesus detects Judas' change of mind.
7. Jesus, having learned new information, declares Judas the son of perdition.

Do you agree with the above chronology? If not, what corrections would you make? No long-winded statements, just make the edits you feel I have gotten incorrect.

How does one become a "son" of anything without being "born" into sonship? Do we change into 'sons'? No, we are born by our mothers or re-born (adopted) through Christ's atoning sacrifice.

'Perdition' means 'wasteful' and Judas exemplified the term when he complains to Mary when she annointed Christ (John 12:4-5). This pernicious 'son of perdition' could not grasp the reason anyone would bestow anything of worth on our Savior.

As early as John 6:70, Christ tells us:
"Have not I chosen you, yet one of you is a devil?"

It is clear from the Scriptures that Judas was never saved. That is why he was not kept (John 17:12).

[godrulz]

:up:

Faith and continuance in the faith is not a work.

The rest of you assume Judas could not have been a believer because it contradicts your theology.

The Timothy passage 'reigning' loophole is another assumption and eisegesis, again to retain a preconceived theology.

We base our doctrinal understanding on all of Scripture, not just a proof text or one person.

[Adambassador]

Faith and continuance in the faith is not a work.

The rest of you assume Judas could not have been a believer because it contradicts your theology.

The Timothy passage 'reigning' loophole is another assumption and eisegesis, again to retain a preconceived theology.

We base our doctrinal understanding on all of Scripture, not just a proof text or one person.That's why I didn't just mention the Timothy passage, but also 2 statements in Ephesians.

[godrulz]

That's why I didn't just mention the Timothy passage, but also 2 statements in Ephesians.

I know the proof texts for the security of the believer and do not dispute them. In the larger context and with the warning passages, it does not mean that salvation is unconditional and irrevocable.

We would have to look at all the relevant verses and offer possible interpretations. This has been done on many other threads already.

Are you a Calvinist?

[Mystery]

Faith and continuance in the faith is not a work.

The rest of you assume Judas could not have been a believer because it contradicts your theology.

The Timothy passage 'reigning' loophole is another assumption and eisegesis, again to retain a preconceived theology.

We base our doctrinal understanding on all of Scripture, not just a proof text or one person.The evidence that you are not a Christian is Here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1638515&postcount=250)

[godrulz]

The evidence that you are not a Christian is Here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1638515&postcount=250)


The evidence that you are a quack is here....

Why don't you write an infallible commentary on the whole Bible, so people who disagree with your verse by verse exposition will know what they have to parrot in order to not go to hell?

[Adambassador]

Are you a Calvinist?Absolutely not. I consider it a perversion.

I'm as Open Theist as they come.

[godrulz]

Absolutely not. I consider it a perversion.

I'm as Open Theist as they come.


Are you Mid-Acts/Plot?

Who is your favorite OT author? What were you before that?

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Are you Mid-Acts/Plot?

Who is your favorite OT author? What were you before that?Can you answer the questions in this (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1638244&postcount=142) post above?

[Adambassador]

Are you Mid-Acts/Plot?Yes.Who is your favorite OT author?Bob Hill. I won't name Boyd, Sanders, Pinnock or any of ther other guys because they get other doctrines wrong.What were you before that?I grew up Arminian, but hated it every step of the way. The night I found the Open View and saw the Biblical defense of it, I changed my views immediately.

[Delmar]

Yes.Bob Hill. I won't name Boyd, Sanders, Pinnock or any of ther other guys because they get other doctrines wrong.I grew up Arminian, but hated it every step of the way. The night I found the Open View and saw the Biblical defense of it, I changed my views immediately.

If I remember correctly you accepted mid acts before you became OV, is that correct?

[godrulz]

So what do you see as the unflawed chronology?

This?
1. Jesus incarnated = God in the flesh.
2. Jesus chooses Judas to be a disciple.
3. Jesus is ignorant of Judas' spiritual state.
4. Judas was initially a saved disciple, walking with Christ.
5. Judas changes his mind.
6. Jesus detects Judas' change of mind.
7. Jesus, having learned new information, declares Judas the son of perdition.



Sonship is adoptive, not physical, so the parallels are analogous, not identical (cf. physical birth vs spiritual rebirth).

The Jesus Christ Superstar view of Judas is too Calvinistic, not biblical.

1. Jn. 1:1-14; Phillipians 2:5-11

2. He was chosen after prayer to the Father. Judas was an apostle, not a betrayer or son of perdition at this early point in ministry. Jesus does not chose devils for His holy ministry and inner circle.

3. Jesus fully knows his spiritual state which changed over time. Jesus' knowledge of man is perfect (Lk. 2:52, not omniscient, but Spirit revelation) and changed as contingencies changed.

4. Judas was not a post-cross 'Christian', but he was a true vs counterfeit disciple when he was called.

5. Judas may have had seeds of rebellion and weakness when he was chosen, but so did Peter (hence Sanders: "The God who risks"). The future is partially open, not tightly controlled. This is consistent with a providential understanding of sovereignty.

6. Jesus knows the hearts as they change, not before there was a heart to know (eternity past).

7. Judas was not predestined before birth to betray, be possessed, kill himself. Judas freely did these things and became a betrayer, became possessed, became dead in hell. God did not desire nor intend this, nor was it pivotal in redemption. Someone else or no one else could have fulfilled/illustrated Scripture (cf. Jesus/Egypt).

Rate responsiveness vs assertion 1-10?

[Adambassador]

If I remember correctly you accepted mid acts before you became OV, is that correct?Delmar, thank you.

godrulz, I was wrong.

My testimony above was about the mid-acts view. TOL user 'duel' introduced me to mid-acts dispensationalism and open theism both in one night back in 1997. I changed to the mid-acts view almost immediately.

However, it took me almost a year to really wrap my head aroun open theism.

[Mystery]

Jesus does not chose devils for His holy ministry and inner circle.

" For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father."

Once again, the Bible proves that you are a false teacher.

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Sonship is adoptive, not physical, so the parallels are analogous, not identical (cf. physical birth vs spiritual rebirth).Unresponsive. No matter if sonship is adoptive, are you saying you can get yourself unadopted?

3. Jesus fully knows his spiritual state which changed over time. Jesus' knowledge of man is perfect (Lk. 2:52, not omniscient, but Spirit revelation) and changed as contingencies changed.You use Luke 2:52 to support this view? I am sure you know that the verse speaks to the Son of Man's humanity and not the Son of God's divinity.

[godrulz]

" For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father."

Once again, the Bible proves that you are a false teacher.

From the beginning or early in his ministry, not from eternity past or Gen. 1:1. The chronology must be carefully mapped lest you proof text out of context.

[godrulz]

Unresponsive. No matter if sonship is adoptive, are you saying you can get yourself unadopted?

You use Luke 2:52 to support this view? I am sure you know that the verse speaks to the Son of Man's humanity and not the Son of God's divinity.

Lk. 2 was not the best verse, but still valid. Sonship is a concept that is not identical to our modern legal system.

Sonship is not irrevocable. Godless unbelief leads to forfeiture of eternal life which is in the Son (an apostate is not in the Son, but rejected their first love). I Jn. 5:11-13.

[Mystery]

From the beginning or early in his ministry, not from eternity past or Gen. 1:1. The chronology must be carefully mapped lest you proof text out of context.You blithering pile of feces!

I NEVER once stated ANYTHING about knowing Judas from the the time of creation.

The Bible CLEARLY says that Jesus knew that Judas was going to betray Him from the moment he chose him.

You godless pervert.

[godrulz]

You blithering pile of feces!

I NEVER once stated ANYTHING about knowing Judas from the the time of creation.

The Bible CLEARLY says that Jesus knew that Judas was going to betray Him from the moment he chose him.

You godless pervert.


Why would a holy, wise God chose a godless pervert to share in His inner ministry of the gospel? Are you saying that a night of prayer led to a foolish decision or are you being Calvinistic or fatalistic about Judas' destiny? Try OT on for size.

[Mystery]

Why would a holy, wise God chose a godless pervert to share in His inner ministry of the gospel? Are you saying that a night of prayer led to a foolish decision or are you being Calvinistic or fatalistic about Judas' destiny? Try OT on for size.

Jesus knowing the heart of Judas, and knowing that he would betray Him, does not negate OT in the least. It is no different than Jesus knowing that Peter would deny Him, from knowing the heart of Peter and then causing the rooster to crow.

Judas was chosen because Jesus knew his heart. In order for the prophecy to be fulfilled, Jesus had to choose someone who would betray Him.

Instead of being a hard-hearted pride-filled jerk, why don't you just admit that you have little biblical knowledge about this subject?

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Lk. 2 was not the best verse, but still valid. Sonship is a concept that is not identical to our modern legal system.

Sonship is not irrevocable. Then why does Scripture use the sonship semantics at all? The Scripture is not using the term "son", "sons", etc., loosely as you would hand wave it away. You are not making sense here. Where is the support for your loose view of sonship? Have you conducted a word study or something?

[Ask Mr. Religion]

From the beginning or early in his ministry, not from eternity past or Gen. 1:1. The chronology must be carefully mapped lest you proof text out of context.This does not have to be an example of eternal foreknowledge. Jesus knew from the beginning of His ministry, thus He knew Judas was a betrayer and never saved. You have no Scriptural warrant to claim "or early in his ministry".

[godrulz]

Then why does Scripture use the sonship semantics at all? The Scripture is not using the term "son", "sons", etc., loosely as you would hand wave it away. You are not making sense here. Where is the support for your loose view of sonship? Have you conducted a word study or something?

Believers and Sonship are legit truths. They do not negate apostasy truths though. Shank deals with the nature of sonship and seals from a different perspective than you. We must look into historical background, all relevant verses, etc. (sorry for mentioning Shank; you can go ahead and say Sproul's teaching on sonship is more correct...I will not object...perhaps Sproul would explain it better than you or I...same with Shank).

What does it matter? You are closer to mystery's view, but not the same. We are both doomed to hell by Judge Sozo for not parroting his view perfectly. Woe is us! (Thankfully, mystery is wrong and Rom. 7:24-25 is correct)

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Believers and Sonship are legit truths. They do not negate apostasy truths though. Shank deals with the nature of sonship and seals from a different perspective than you. We must look into historical background, all relevant verses, etc. (sorry for mentioning Shank; you can go ahead and say Sproul's teaching on sonship is more correct...I will not object...perhaps Sproul would expl