[graceandpeace]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

That wasn't a response to my answer at all, just another blanket condemnation by you. You claimed:


Let me make this clear and easy: set out the teaching you allege in ANY denomination's creed and/or teaching with a citation to it.

The only 'works' they allow are those which go through their 'elders' or board of leaders and determined as Godly works by men. They do not trust that Jesus can and will work in every believer how HE works in them.


Via love.

Let me give you an example..if you are not a 'member', you do not have authority in their church to even speak....even IF it is something that the holy Spirit wants to speak....it must go through the 'filter' of men, first.

Nuff said, if you cannot see that this is what is going on, I do not know what to say.


I attend a baptist church, but refuse their membership, because to do so would make me go against my own conscience, that has been perfected by the HOLY Spirit Himself....and, because I refuse to uphold their traditions, which are all manmade, they claim I am not really in the BOC, because their view of BOC, is just like yours...whatever man you embrace as your teacher.

Jesus is MY teacher, and HE LIVES and works in me, and HE does NOT need the permission of men, to do so.


Denominationalism is the work of the devil....not God.

Paul said Jesus Christ was NOT divided, because the spirit of God is not divided, but, denominationalism makes it so.

Likewise, the trinity is not even understood by those whom uphold it, it is a doctrine of men, that seeks to define God,. but has failed.

No doctrine of man will win....ever. We are to hear HIS voice, and follow HIM, or hear men..choose.

[zippy2006]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Perhaps. And perhaps mostly to the ears of the prodigal son's brother.

Actually that doesn't make any sense. Folks running away from sin and pretending they are saved are not at all like the parable. If you read the Bible, especially Matthew, or James, or Revelation, you will see that response does not fall short of action. Paul is actually quite clear on it as well when he distinguishes works of the law from salvation and morality.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by zippy2006

Actually that doesn't make any sense. Folks running away from sin and pretending they are saved are not at all like the parable.

The comparison inferred was the hostility in your remark to the prodigal son's brother in his response to the father's gifts.

If you read the Bible, especially Matthew, or James, or Revelation, you will see that response does not fall short of action.

Paul is actually quite clear on it as well when he distinguishes works of the law from salvation and morality.

I'm not arguing over whether a man in love will act like one.

[IP Man]

Originally Posted by Mike C.

If a police officer brings in a gang leader and its rival gang starts a gang war over it, is it the police officer's fault?


At the time I believe a strong argument was being made that pulling out would lead to immediate chaos as rival factions attempt to grab power. You seem to think they would have spontaneously formed a democratic and peaceful government?

I am willing to admit we may have handled things poorly over there (but I honestly don't know if it was feasible to do better, and opinionated ramblings don't influence me either way). Although, since we can't just set up our own form of government and rule there until it stabilizes (imagine the scandal that would cause among the world community) we are working with our hands tied behind our back, at its not at all clear the best way to go about such a thing as "nation building". Since we couldn't directly implement a new government, policing the nation until it becomes stable is a reasonable alternative. It's not a very easy thing to do, however.

Look, go back to why we started this war. 1) 9-11 2) Extremists doing the celebration watusi over America's suffering over (1)
3) Bush gives his 'Axis of evil' speech 4) Hussein makes the wrong choice of not allowing nuclear inspectors in his country, after shining them on consistently.

Okay, now you are saying we are not clear about 'how to go about things????'

What? JUST TAKE SADDAM OUT. And maybe Uday and SH's right hand men. Then go home. That's it. That's all. The next one in line better know better.

We are not going to start our brand of government there. They are all Muslim. Let's get real. How many times have I said it.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by graceandpeace

The only 'works' they allow are those which go through their 'elders' or board of leaders and determined as Godly works by men. They do not trust that Jesus can and will work in every believer how HE works in them.

Same challenge: sustain your charge by citing to the actual creeds and teachings of the various major denominations or retract the declaration.

...they claim I am not really in the BOC, because their view of BOC, is just like yours...whatever man you embrace as your teacher.

I have never remarked on either your commitment or relation to Christ or the Body. I've simply stood ready to reasonably address what I feel is your error. I also haven't accused you of blindly following anyone. So it appears we are methodologically different as well and shame on you for the unfounded charge. Convict me with my own words, cite a single instance of my saying you are outside of the faith or retract that foolishness. And I'm unaffiliated with any church or denomination.

Jesus is MY teacher, and HE LIVES and works in me, and HE does NOT need the permission of men, to do so.

I don't know many Christians who would declare otherwise. That isn't the point of contention here. It's the flag you consistently attempt to fly, but has nothing at all to do with my objections.

Denominationalism is the work of the devil....not God.

Until you examine what denominations really are: groups of people with a shared understanding/exegesis and an earnest desire to serve and more fully comprehend the God who saved them. It's always easy to blanket condemn, until you meet people like a certain retired Methodist minister I know. His life and work among the faithful was a thing of beauty and grace. An amazing witness that only grew stronger as his body failed him.

Paul said Jesus Christ was NOT divided, because the spirit of God is not divided, but, denominationalism makes it so.

No. Denominations recognize the actual divisions in understanding that divide the thinking on some particulars. They don't create them in anyone. But we are unified in the cross, in the salvific, whatever our particular differences on wine or music or even the day of worship.

Likewise, the trinity is not even understood by those whom uphold it, it is a doctrine of men, that seeks to define God,. but has failed.

God isn't fully understood by those who love Him. We approach as best we can the Almighty. And the trinity is a rational inference of a series of statements found in scripture. Just because you don't hold to it it doesn't follow that it's either a failure or an ungodly doctrine.

No doctrine of man will win....ever. We are to hear HIS voice, and follow HIM, or hear men..choose.

Are you saying that you came to your beliefs having never read or heard anyone else's understanding? And is it that you trust the singularly devoted man but suspect two or more of them gathered together?

[graceandpeace]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Same challenge: sustain your charge by citing to the actual creeds and teachings of the various major denominations or retract the declaration.


I have never remarked on either your commitment or relation to Christ or the Body. I've simply stood ready to reasonably address what I feel is your error. I also haven't accused you of blindly following anyone. So it appears we are methodologically different as well and shame on you for the unfounded charge. Convict me with my own words, cite a single instance of my saying you are outside of the faith or retract that foolishness. And I'm unaffiliated with any church or denomination.


I don't know many Christians who would declare otherwise. That isn't the point of contention here. It's the flag you consistently attempt to fly, but has nothing at all to do with my objections.


Until you examine what denominations really are: groups of people with a shared understanding/exegesis and an earnest desire to serve and more fully comprehend the God who saved them. It's always easy to blanket condemn, until you meet people like a certain retired Methodist minister I know. His life and work among the faithful was a thing of beauty and grace. An amazing witness that only grew stronger as his body failed him.


No. Denominations recognize the actual divisions in understanding that divide the thinking on some particulars. They don't create them in anyone. But we are unified in the cross, in the salvific, whatever our particular differences on wine or music or even the day of worship.


God isn't fully understood by those who love Him. We approach as best we can the Almighty. And the trinity is a rational inference of a series of statements found in scripture. Just because you don't hold to it it doesn't follow that it's either a failure or an ungodly doctrine.


Are you saying that you came to your beliefs having never read or heard anyone else's understanding? And is it that you trust the singularly devoted man but suspect two or more of them gathered together?

I will have to answer this tomorrow, gotta go for now.

[Mike C.]

Originally Posted by IP Man

Look, go back to why we started this war. 1) 9-11 2) Extremists doing the celebration watusi over America's suffering over (1)
3) Bush gives his 'Axis of evil' speech 4) Hussein makes the wrong choice of not allowing nuclear inspectors in his country, after shining them on consistently.

Okay, now you are saying we are not clear about 'how to go about things????'

What? JUST TAKE SADDAM OUT. And maybe Uday and SH's right hand men. Then go home. That's it. That's all. The next one in line better know better.

That's a terrible plan. It would have left the country in shambles and ambitious ne'er-do-wells would have risen immediately to power, possible after a bloody civil war. The least we could do is help secure the country's safety as they struggle to establish a new brand of government.

We are not going to start our brand of government there. They are all Muslim. Let's get real. How many times have I said it.

That could be found true in the end. But we don't know unless we try.

[IP Man]

That's a terrible plan. It would have left the country in shambles and ambitious ne'er-do-wells would have risen immediately to power, possible after a bloody civil war. The least we could do is help secure the country's safety as they struggle to establish a new brand of government.

The country IS in shambles. What are you talking about? It is a walled camp. Are you sure you were over there? Or were you asleep the whole time?

That could be found true in the end. But we don't know unless we try.

You sound just like an average uninformed American with his or her head in the sand. Wake up. My plan would have saved the U.S. three quarters of a TRILLION dollars.
That is, 750,000,000,000.00.

We all are going down the drain. We fight the war that broke the USSR's economic back and think we can do better. Better than what? Bankruptcy? Wow.

Ignorance is bliss, soldier.

[Nick M]

Originally Posted by IP Man

You sound just like an average uninformed American with his or her head in the sand. Wake up. My plan would have saved the U.S. three quarters of a TRILLION dollars.
That is, 750,000,000,000.00.

So less than Obama's payment to Wall Street (stimulus) for financing his campaign. By the way....


d1.bmp

Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.

Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.

Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.

The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).

[IP Man]

Originally Posted by Nick M

So less that Obama's payment to Wall Street (stimulus) for financing his campaign. By the way....


Attachment 16951

You financial geniuses know what added debt does to us and yet say the war is alright. It is just like a normal family with a
50,000.00 credit card debt, mortgage and two cars. Can't work it out with one person working. Not only do both have to work, they both have to be making 50,000.00 per year.

High risk. High chance of bankruptcy.

I am against Obama's spending. I am against war spending.
We are leveraging ourselves beyond our capacity.

Look to the Chinese. They have a cash surplus. They are the next superpower. They are not leveraged up to their eyeballs.

You think this economy is stable? It is tied to the world's. Europe is in the same bind. We are all going down. It was because of our political system. And our leveraging. Just like Russia.

[zippy2006]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

The comparison inferred was the hostility in your remark to the prodigal son's brother in his response to the father's gifts.

I understand that, but the barrenness of your claim persists:

zip: An unrepentant sinner claiming salvation is suffering from psychosis.
TH: You sound like the prodigal son's brother

Your statement does not make any sense. Maybe you misunderstood the point of my post, or did not take enough care in reading it, or took one sentence out of context. Whatever the reason, we end at the same conclusion.

I'm not arguing over whether a man in love will act like one.

And yet it would seem that you view someone such as ghost as a lover who does not act like one. There are many on TOL who preach "freedom from the law" (by which they mean, unlike Paul, sin or concupiscence) and therefore sin without repentance. (2 Peter 2:19, Gal 5:13) They seem to think that faith without love will lead to salvation, contrary to Scripture:

1 Cor 13:1,2 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. […]and if I have all faith, so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

Jas 2:24-26 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. [..] For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

Gal 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.

For Paul such love is expressed in following Christ's commandments and living a moral life: 1 Cor 7:19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.


As for the OSAS that Paul's words are often twisted to support:

Gal 5:16 I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Gal 6:9 And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

1 Cor 3:15, 16, 17 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

1 John 3:10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

1 John 5:16 If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that.

Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance


It is curious to wonder whether the writers could have been any more clear that OSAS is false

[graceandpeace]

Originally Posted by zippy2006

I understand that, but the barrenness of your claim persists:

zip: An unrepentant sinner claiming salvation is suffering from psychosis.
TH: You sound like the prodigal son's brother

Your statement does not make any sense. Maybe you misunderstood the point of my post, or did not take enough care in reading it, or took one sentence out of context. Whatever the reason, we end at the same conclusion.




And yet it would seem that you view someone such as ghost as a lover who does not act like one. There are many on TOL who preach "freedom from the law" (by which they mean, unlike Paul, sin or concupiscence) and therefore sin without repentance. (2 Peter 2:19, Gal 5:13) They seem to think that faith without love will lead to salvation, contrary to Scripture:

1 Cor 13:1,2 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. […]and if I have all faith, so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

Jas 2:24-26 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. [..] For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

Gal 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.

For Paul such love is expressed in following Christ's commandments and living a moral life: 1 Cor 7:19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.


As for the OSAS that Paul's words are often twisted to support:

Gal 5:16 I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Gal 6:9 And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

1 Cor 3:15, 16, 17 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

1 John 3:10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

1 John 5:16 If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that.

Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance


It is curious to wonder whether the writers could have been any more clear that OSAS is false

Amen zippy, faith must work or it is not biblical faith...it works by love....love fulfilled the law, and it is not that we are free from all law, only that law that did not have love contained therein to work by.


The letter kills, the spirit/love gives life.

False gospels do not save, and when you speak the truth of that, to those whom are in the false gospels, you get flack....but, carry on, keep speaking the truth; no matter what.

Jesus must work, it is HIS way.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by zippy2006

I understand that, but the barrenness of your claim persists:

zip: An unrepentant sinner

Which isn't who we're talking about, since OSAS or not repent.

claiming salvation

Accepting salvation.

is suffering from psychosis.

Says every ant-theist of every Christian. Not the best of company to keep on that point.

TH: You sound like the prodigal son's brother

Who was resentful of his brother receiving an unmerited gift, the prodigal son having done little more than recognize his error. That is, the prodigal son has arrived, sole fide. That he is willing to serve and will inarguably serve his father thereafter is an expression of his heart and not a condition of his father's gift.

Your statement does not make any sense.

Horsefeathers. That's just your habit of framing any part where we differ as an insufficiency of some sort on my part. That used to bother me a bit. Ah, well.

Maybe you misunderstood the point of my post,

Nothing in your subsequent comments is giving me that impression.

or did not take enough care in reading it,

Well, at least you didn't lead with this between the two.

or took one sentence out of context. Whatever the reason, we end at the same conclusion.

So you're saying neither of us makes sense? We've already had our difference on the notion of obligation or expression and so sure, the difference in action, the notion of ongoing declarations of repentance aside, is attitudinal and not found in the application of that motivation among others. That is, we agree on what we should see in those saved/working toward salvation, respectively.

And yet it would seem that you view someone such as ghost as a lover who does not act like one.

I'd have to have a conversation with Dave about whether or not he feels those who are in Christ are, in observation, unchanged in the living of their lives. I suspect that he doesn't, however strongly he feels about sole fide.

As for the OSAS that Paul's words are often twisted to support:

See, this is precisely the sort of address and tone I objected to in my initial.

None of the scripture you offered is prima facie evidence against anything I believe. As always, where you see: do this and this and I will count it love for me I see if you love me here are some of the ways it will manifest.

It is curious to wonder whether the writers could have been any more clear that OSAS is false

Only the Hebrews line offers much purchase and even there you presume to fall away from the expression of that love is to be removed from salvation. I don't.

[zippy2006]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Which isn't who we're talking about, since OSAS or not repent.

If you read my initial post, it is precisely what I was talking about. Why you seem ever unable to respond to a point I make rather than one I do not make is a mystery that I pray is sorted out someday.

None of the scripture you offered is prima facie evidence against anything I believe. As always, where you see: do this and this and I will count it love for me I see if you love me here are some of the ways it will manifest.

I pointed out Scripture demonstrating the possibility of a Christian falling away, which is something you deny. Easy peasy.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by zippy2006

If you read my initial post, it is precisely what I was talking about. Why you seem ever unable to respond to a point I make rather than one I do not make is a mystery that I pray is sorted out someday.

My comments were aimed at the post I quoted, which is a rather standard methodology. If you meant to qualify them or felt they required it then you should have done that, zip. I don't typically sift back through hundreds of posts on the off chance of an altering context.

I pointed out Scripture demonstrating the possibility of a Christian falling away, which is something you deny. Easy peasy.

No. I deny your interpretation of it, among other similar objections and take exception to your approach in expressing the difference via insult, given your prior complaints on the subject when it suited you as a means of aiming an outward criticism. Or, if you're going to give others grief on that sort of thing you might begin by extracting a bit of lumber.