06 Jun 16
Originally posted by divegeesterYou do not understand. Your doctrine is that following Christ is optional because whether or not the professed Christ follows Christ or not, they will still get eternal life. That makes Christ an option rather than a requirement.
Once again; no one here is arguing against following the teachings of Christ, you are preaching to the choir.
Where you are wrong is in justification by works. I.e. Salvation is dependent on works.
06 Jun 16
Originally posted by Rajk999This is how you behave, you do not respond to questions, but you ask them.
You do not understand. Your doctrine is that following Christ is optional because whether or not the professed Christ follows Christ or not, they will still get eternal life. That makes Christ an option rather than a requirement.
You do not know what others think yet you can tell them.
You pick and choose what verses in scripture matter.
You do not treat every word that the Holy Spirit inspires as equal.
Even your complaints are not due to my words, but what you think I'm saying which is
as I pointed out to you that you are wrong there too.
I imagine very soon you will be all offended and spout something about me not being
worthy and run and avoid another simple question and answer to clear up any
misunderstanding we might have with one another.
It was and still is a simple question if you handle that, I don't think you can to tell you the
truth.
06 Jun 16
Originally posted by Rajk999No, that is no what I believe. You'd like to think that's what I believe, but I don't.
Your doctrine is that following Christ is optional because whether or not the professed Christ follows Christ or not, they will still get eternal life. That makes Christ an option rather than a requirement.
06 Jun 16
Originally posted by KellyJayI am neither complaining to you or about you
This is how you behave, you do not respond to questions, but you ask them.
You do not know what others think yet you can tell them.
You pick and choose what verses in scripture matter.
You do not treat every word that the Holy Spirit inspires as equal.
Even your complaints are not due to my words, but what you think I'm saying which is
as I pointed out ...[text shortened]... and still is a simple question if you handle that, I don't think you can to tell you the
truth.
Neither am I asking you any questions.
If you want to comment then by all means do so. Thanks
07 Jun 16
Originally posted by FMFDo let us know when you have a question that you actually want to know the answer to, rather than eagerly expecting to land a blow on a topic you really can't be arsed to give a good God-damn about.
Putting aside your personal and discourse-suffocating dislike of Rajk999 for a moment, is he right about the "Lake of Fire" and not inheriting the Kingdom of God, yes or no? If a Christian gains "eternal salvation" through faith, can that Christian's failure to obey the teachings of Christ result in the eternal loss of their "salvation"?
Originally posted by SuzianneThis one: Do you consider yourself to be a 'Once Saved Always Saved' Christian?
Do let us know when you have a question that you actually want to know the answer to, rather than eagerly expecting to land a blow on a topic you really can't be arsed to give a good God-damn about.
Originally posted by divegeesterI believe that good news of Jesus Christ is based on salvation by faith; Rajk999 believes in justification and salvation based on works. That is the fundamental difference. No one can be justified by works no matter how that belief is expressed; THAT (not shouting; just emphasising) IS the "good news" and that is why it is unworkable. It is not unworkable because obeying the teachings of Christ is unworkable, it is unworkable because justification is by faith.
I believe that good news of Jesus Christ is based on salvation by faith; Rajk999 believes in justification and salvation based on works. That is the fundamental difference. No one can be justified by works no matter how that belief is expressed; THAT (not shouting; just emphasising) IS the "good news" and that is why it is unworkable. It is not unworkabl ...[text shortened]... ntation of the gospel (good news) and unworkable because he fails epically in living it himself.
Originally you wrote, "your version of the gospel is ...unworkable". Now it seems that it isn't his "version of the gospel" that you find "unworkable", but that you find it incompatible with YOUR "version of the gospel". Seriously? If you haven't figured it out, YOUR "version of the gospel" is similarly incompatible with his.
Furthermore Rajk999 makes big claims and does not live up to them himself, even in the way he speaks to people in this forum. They way he speaks to people is no worse than how I have spoken to people; in not condemning him, I'm pointing out that he makes incorrect doctrinal claims and fails to live up to them. These claims are unworkable because they are an incomplete representation of the gospel (good news) and unworkable because he fails epically in living it himself.
Once again, how exactly does rajk999 fail "to live up to it"?
Once again, the thrust of rajk999's posts has been "This is what Jesus says. This is what the apostles say. Follow what Jesus and the apostles say. God will judge."
Insofar as I can tell, he is perfectly willing to allow God to judge. He is perfectly willing to "live up to" that.
Insofar as I can tell, you believe in salvation through faith alone while he believes in salvation through faith AND works AND will be judged by God. If anyone's "representation of the gospel (good news)" is "incomplete" it is yours as yours omits works and his includes faith.
07 Jun 16
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI've already explained this to you at least twice in recent weeks and one of those times this week. I explained it in detail and with my rational. You are free to disagree with me, of course.
[b]I believe that good news of Jesus Christ is based on salvation by faith; Rajk999 believes in justification and salvation based on works. That is the fundamental difference. No one can be justified by works no matter how that belief is expressed; THAT (not shouting; just emphasising) IS the "good news" and that is why it is unworkable. It is not unworka ...[text shortened]... the gospel (good news)" is "incomplete" it is yours as yours omits works and his includes faith.
07 Jun 16
Originally posted by divegeesterAnd I showed how your rationale was not rational. I imagine that if you were able to refute what I wrote, you would have instead of answering back with such a vacuous statement.
I've already explained this to you at least twice in recent weeks and one of those times this week. I explained it in detail and with my rational. You are free to disagree with me, of course.
Just like on the "Doctrine of Christ" thread where you falsely accused rajk999 of "misrepresenting" you and "being deliberately dishonest", you've once again become unhinged in your zeal to attack someone for daring to post things contrary to your dogma.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/the-doctrine-of-christ.168716
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneConsidering you are an atheist, you seem to be quite upset that I attack Rajk999's statements and posts for some reason. Why is that?
And I showed how your rationale was not rational. I imagine that if you were able to refute what I wrote, you would have instead of answering back with such a vacuous statement.
Just like on the "Doctrine of Christ" thread where you falsely accused rajk999 of "misrepresenting" you and "being deliberately dishonest", you've once again become unhinged in ...[text shortened]... ary to your dogma.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/the-doctrine-of-christ.168716
Meanwhile, you have not in any way demonstrated that the rational I gave you supporting my position on justification through faith and why Rajk999's position was "irrational". Perhaps you should consider that we are discussing theistic beliefs here and that "rational" is not necessarily the best platform for discussing precepts which are derived from faith. On the other hand you could decide to employ scripture to defend your position; please, feel free to state your position and use scripture to defend it.
Originally posted by divegeesterJust like in the " "Doctrine of Christ" thread, where you made false accusations and went into denial mode, you've done so here. You're not unlike RC in that respect. And like RC, you deserve to get called on it.
Considering you are an atheist, you seem to be quite upset that I attack Rajk999's statements and posts for some reason. Why is that?
Meanwhile, you have not in any way demonstrated that the rational I gave you supporting my position on justification through faith and why Rajk999's position was "irrational". Perhaps you should consider that we are d ...[text shortened]... o defend your position; please, feel free to state your position and use scripture to defend it.
BTW, the word is "rationale" when used as a noun.