I'd search for any mention of the "day of redemption". If the teaching is in the book, it could not be presented without mentioning that phrase.
Is MAD ethics and or morals void? Is MAD ethics even Christian?
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
The Plot only mentions "day of redemption" twice and both cases are to contrast being sealed unto the day of redemption with "enduring to the end". (i.e., law vs grace, dispensational distinctions).
I figured. I've read the book a few times. Chances are good that I'd remember it if this teaching was in there.
It's going to for sure be in the Bible Studies. Likely in the set of studies on Ephesians.
way 2 go
Well-known member
so you're saying God mistakenly takes people to heaven
and then they have a choice ,only on judgement day , not based on faith
determined before judgement day
(II Corinthians 5:8) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord
your faith determines your destination
your will doesn't determine your destination after death but it can only if God mistakenly takes you to heaven do you get a choice
seems more of an open theism belief not biblical , Modus operandi
your faith determines your destination before judgement day
(Luke 16:22-23) [22] And it came to pass for the poor man to die and be carried by the agents to Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died and was buried. [23] And having lifted up his eyes in Hades, being in torments, he sees Abraham from afar and Lazarus by his bosom.
do you think satan knew about the lake of fire & that it would be his eternal punishment before he fell ?
I know the demons know now Mat 8:29
Stupidity.
I didn't read the rest. When you decide you want to engage the discussion honestly. I'll pick it back up. Until then, you're a waste of time.
way 2 go
Well-known member
"The actual point I am making is simply that the Holy Spirit has been given as a guarantee of our deliverance to the day of redemption, not the coercion of the will. That is, no one will be forced to go to heaven if they do not want to be there!"
so an open theism belief and not biblically supported
so an open theism belief and not biblically supported
Except for all the biblical (and rational) support that has been shown and that still exists for the entire world to read on this very thread!
People seem to have such a desire to reject my doctrine to the point of deluding themselves into thinking that the argument doesn't exist beyond the most recent post.
To this point, my doctrine hasn't been touched.
Idolater
Popetard
Yes.
Might be an unfair charge. Afterall where is Clavinism's tenets taught clearly and openly and plainly? Well in the Westminster canons.
I am used to this. I am used to being able, when I can't really understand what people mean or believe, to access and examine standards, canons, authoritative sources. Acts 9erism doesn't have that. Bob Enyart (of happy memory) wrote a book, and Grace Ambassadors operates a website, but there is nothing like the Westminster canons for Clavinism or the Catechism of the Catholic Church for Catholicism; for Acts 9erism.
That's undoubtedly more typical for the variety of different schools of Christian theology which exist today. Even Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't have such a source available, it cashes out basically with what their patriarchs say. The authority to judge between tenets is vested in their patriarchates.
Death death. Death penalty. Spiritually anyway. Committing a grave win with full knowledge and deliberate consent would be fatal to your soul. This is the idea with grave sin. It's not the same as mortal or fatal sin, that is like the difference between a self-defense and a murder. You only murder when it's with full knowledge and deliberate consent. Otherwise it's closer to self-defense, which is not a death penalty.
Spiritually, your soul is. You take your own life, when you commit grave sin with full knowledge and deliberate consent.
OK.
What?
In Heaven, right?
Hades could be purgatory.
Does it really go that hard against your grain to simply trust God's word? Have you ever tried just simply reading the bible and taking it to mean what it seems to be saying? Just read the book of Romans or Galatians and see if the plain meaning of the words on the page square with your doctrine. Have you ever tried that before?
Idolater
Popetard
Not at all.
Multiple times.
Yes. And I am confident the same holds for you and for Acts 9ers generally too. I just want to understand Acts 9erism better.
You understand that doing what you claim to have done here is against your own doctrine, right?
I genuinely cannot fathom how it is possible for a person to be so internally conflicted that such a flagrant contradiction can exist within their mind while being so invisible to them that they are both capable and willing to utter claims such as you have just made.
If you want to understand Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, understanding the rule of reason in one's doctrine is a central point from which to start. You simply cannot hold self-contradictory ideas and think that it's alright or unavoidable to do so and have any chance at all of seeing through Mid-Acts Dispensational eyes.
Idolater
Popetard
This is from another thread. It made me think of this thread.
All Acts 9ers believe a husband has a grave duty to be faithful to his wife and family, and that all men, whether married or unmarried, have a grave duty to honor marriage. Acts 9erism believes King David wasn't "being righteous" when he was breaking the Sixth Commandment. Under no circumstances would any Acts 9er say that an adulterous husband was "being righteous." But they also wouldn't accuse him of "following the law" ("a work of the flesh"). A philandering husband is not "following the law," so is adultery "a work of the flesh?" If "following the law" (avoiding adultery) is "a work of the flesh," isn't adultery itself also "a work of the flesh?"
Not an attempt at a gotcha question. I just don't understand Acts 9erism. I'm trying to learn.
All Acts 9ers believe a husband has a grave duty to be faithful to his wife and family, and that all men, whether married or unmarried, have a grave duty to honor marriage. Acts 9erism believes King David wasn't "being righteous" when he was breaking the Sixth Commandment. Under no circumstances would any Acts 9er say that an adulterous husband was "being righteous." But they also wouldn't accuse him of "following the law" ("a work of the flesh"). A philandering husband is not "following the law," so is adultery "a work of the flesh?" If "following the law" (avoiding adultery) is "a work of the flesh," isn't adultery itself also "a work of the flesh?"
Not an attempt at a gotcha question. I just don't understand Acts 9erism. I'm trying to learn.
Right Divider
Body part
Let me start by saying that you have a strange view of many things.
The law says DO NOT... it does not specify "good behavior" (in this case).
An idiotic question.
Anything that is not "of the Spirit" is "of the flesh".
You're coming at it from a completely wrong angle.
Last edited:
I don't trust the implications of what a Catholic might mean by "grave" duty, however...
Mid-Acts Dispensationalists, like all genuine Christians, place a great deal of importance on the moral nature of marriage and it's importance not merely to the family unit but also, and by extension, to the entire civilization.
True.
Quite so.
Why not? David was under the law and his adultery was a break of that law. Is that what you meant?
Pay attention - I'm fixing to spill the whole jar of beans here...
If you refuse to cheat on your spouse because there is a list of rules on the wall that forbids it, then your act of fidelity is not an act of love.
All sin is a work of the flesh, not all acts of righteousness are.
I appreciate honest questions.
If your confusion on this issue was born from a correct understanding, why would Paul have spent his entire ministry telling his followers not to place themselves under the law?
Indeed, where would have been the need for Paul's ministry to exist at all? Jesus already had Twelve, Holy Spirit filled apostles who He had Personally trained and commissioned to preach all the things He had taught them throughout the world, which included following the Law of Moses, by the way. So, where's the need for Paul? And if what Paul's gospel was the same as that of the Twelve, why did God send him, by revelation, to Jerusalem in order to explain to the Twelve the gospel he was preaching?
Galatians 5:4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.
Last edited: