[godrulz]

Originally Posted by elohiym

The bitter irony is that neither do you.

YOU are as lost as them, so I wouldn't be casting stones if I were you.

Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16; Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; Rom. 1:16; Rom. 10:9-10; Eph. 2:8-10; Titus 3:5; I Jn. 5:11-13

I have faith in the true Christ alone and affirm His Deity, resurrection, finished work on the cross.

False cults and religions embrace none of this and I embrace none of their lies. You are making your articulations the gospel and excluding the rest of evangelical believers who do not say things just like you do. You have sozoitis.

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by elohiym

Is forgiveness and salvation conditional on blood atonement? Yes or no.

The basis for a holy God redeeming sinful man was providing a substitute for the penalty of sin (death). He is the Lamb of God who shed His blood. Apart from this, God could not uphold His holiness and extend loving mercy without compromising His moral government. The cross is the basis for redemption. Jesus did not die for the fun of it.

[elohiym]

Originally Posted by godrulz

Repentance has a range of meaning. In relation to salvation, it does include a turning from Self and false gods to the true God, the Lord Jesus Christ. You cannot serve two masters.

But elsewhere you have claimed:

Originally Posted by godrulz

At any given moment, one is either a believer or an unbeliever.

That is a claim that you can serve two masters!

If you still sin ever, how are you not serving two masters?

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

If you still sin in any way, shape, or form, have you really repented in the way that relates to salvation? Yes or no.

[elohiym]

Originally Posted by godrulz

I have faith in the true Christ alone and affirm His Deity, resurrection, finished work on the cross.

Then why do you still sin?

1Jo 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Originally Posted by godrulz

False cults and religions embrace none of this and I embrace none of their lies.

No. You do indeed embrace the same lies through the filter of your own charismatic cult.

Originally Posted by godrulz

You are making your articulations the gospel and excluding the rest of evangelical believers who do not say things just like you do.

No. I am making straight the Way of Lord, and tearing down all the obstacles that perverse men like you have laid in the path to righteousness.

[elohiym]

Originally Posted by godrulz

The basis for a holy God redeeming sinful man was providing a substitute for the penalty of sin (death).

Did your old man die for something or not?

If so, why was your old man crucified (executed)? Why did he die?

Stripe had the correct answer, but then equivocated. Care to pick up where he left off?

[elohiym]

Originally Posted by godrulz

The basis for a holy God redeeming sinful man was providing a substitute for the penalty of sin (death). He is the Lamb of God who shed His blood. Apart from this, God could not uphold His holiness and extend loving mercy without compromising His moral government.

If that was true, then God compromised His moral government when he forgave David for adultery without requiring the death penalty.

Try again.

[elohiym]

And I'm asking the easy questions.

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by elohiym

Whatever is not of faith.

This is one of many truths about sin. It is one of the more generic ones in a specific context. More general principles of sin include lawlessness, rebellion, selfishness, disobedience, falling short of the mark, etc.

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by elohiym

Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

What you have shown by your statement is that you don't have a clue what the gospel is. You have no idea what the messianic expectation of the Jews was, and how intimately tied to the gift of the Holy Spirit that expectation was.

As a Pentecostal, I do understand the Lukan perpective (in Luke/Acts) of the person and work of the Spirit. I also understand Paul's great truths of justification by grace through faith in Christ and transformation by the Holy Spirit.

Can you remind us of your unorthodox doctrine of God that does not seem to be the biblical, historical, orthodox trinitarian view?

[SaulToPaul]

Originally Posted by godrulz

the Lukan perpective (in Luke/Acts)

[elohiym]

Originally Posted by godrulz

This is one of many truths about sin. It is one of the more generic ones in a specific context. More general principles of sin include lawlessness, rebellion, selfishness, disobedience, falling short of the mark, etc.

See how you take the straight Way and turn it into the broad way that leads to destruction?

[elohiym]

Originally Posted by godrulz

Can you remind us of your unorthodox doctrine of God that does not seem to be the biblical, historical, orthodox trinitarian view?

Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. All three are one.

Now, can you stop obfuscating and address my points and the direct questions I asked you?

[elohiym]

Originally Posted by godrulz

The basis for a holy God redeeming sinful man was providing a substitute for the penalty of sin (death).

Therefore, you believe that forgiveness and salvation is conditional on blood atonement.

Is my assessment correct? Yes or no.

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by elohiym

If that was true, then God compromised His moral government when he forgave David for adultery without requiring the death penalty.

Try again.

In any government, there are times to extend mercy and other times to retain justice. No mercy makes the government harsh, while no justice let's killers continue to kill with impunity. It would not be wise to forgive David without confession and repentance, and even in Judaism, the substitute of animal sacrifices pointing to Christ's sacrifice showed the awefulness of sin and upheld His holy law.

These issues are dealt with in detail here:

http://www.gospeltruth.net/Barnes_at...arnesindex.htm

You are right that I have only read a bit of Comfort. I know enough, in agreement with many others, that he is a brother in Christ who is above average in his commitment to effective evangelism in a pluralistic, relativistic society. He calls people to Christ alone whether you like everything he says or not.

The only book I read:http://www.amazon.com/Hells-Best-Kep.../dp/0883682060

I imagine I agreed with some vs all things he said. Mature believers can weigh other's opinions without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Go equip the saints for evangelism and hit the streets like he is, then you will have more credibility to natter.

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by elohiym

See how you take the straight Way and turn it into the broad way that leads to destruction?

These principles can be defended with proof texts. I do not deny the essence of sinful man nor the need for a sinless Savior.

The narrow vs broad way is JESUS, the gate vs Buddha, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, etc. It is NOT subscribing to your life time of personal opinion and musings. To reject your ideas (or to never hear of you or them) is not tantamount to rejecting God, Christ, gospel, Scripture.

A dose of humility in the face of your popish, ex cathedra, arrogant sozoitis is needed, I see.