- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@divegeester
No I do not promise a certain order or procedure in responding -
yes or no before anything else.
I may or I may not use that order.
I do not promise you that I will always proceed in that particular order.
I may qualify and analyze your question AFTER or BEFORE I give a binary yes or
no.
Nothing in my OP promised you what method I may use to respond.
But I wager that you are not going to ask anything because you see
you cannot jury rig the procedure.
When you have a game of chess do you insist that your opponent promise
- Not castle before the eighth move
or
Not bring out your queen before the twelfth move
or
Always make your first move king's pawn fourth square position?
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 27445
@divegeester saidWhat's it like to have such a mind?
What’s it like to be less interesting than sonship?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Are you still interested in a yes/no question challenge or not sonship?
Show me in the OP that interest.
I wrote:
Give me your scariest GOTCHA! WITH THE VERY WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH toughies.
You may put on a scary mask which I will rip away first (if I choose) to show the real face behind the holloween costume.
@sonship saidFinally straight answer, and it only took about 4 weeks!
@divegeester
No I do not promise a certain order or procedure in responding -yes or no before anything else.
Well the challenge is there whenever you feel like facing up to my “checkmate” questions Sonship, just let me know.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@divegeester
That's four more weeks of bluffing excuses on your part when the OP made my intentions clear.
You see the difference between us is I want to get to the truth of my belief more.
You want to more just score points.
@sonship saidNo one is bluffing except you!
@divegeester
That's four more weeks of bluffing excuses on your part when the OP made my intentions clear.
You see the difference between us is I want to get to the truth of my belief more.
You want to more just score points.
I’ve got a bunch of checkmate questions which I’ve been asking you and you’ve been repeatedly dodging for years.
These questions required yes or no responses, not the usual hemming and hawing flip flam you usually respond with… if you respond at all. Just let me know when your courage is topped up and we can begin.
I’ll ask you a question then you ask me a question (or the other way around). Each of us promises to answer with one word, a YES or a NO.
Let me know when you’re ready,
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@divegeester
Go ahead and keep asking "When are you ready?" for the next ten years if you want.
You were notified that I was ready weeks ago in the OP. And I told you that I will reply in the manner in which I will reply.
And that you HAVE not been answered in the past, I reject totally.
This thread was invitation to re-hash replies which you used some excuse to say they were too long.
Trinity questions - answered.
Requirement for trinity belief - answered.
Is Jesus a sadistic torturer type questions - answered.
Choice words used by YOU to ignore my replies are "hairdryer" "waffle" or something else signaling you're not going to even read with comprehension what I say.
I can't think of any "gotcha!" question I have not answered in the past.
Maybe some ridiculously irrelevant ones I ignored.
Such as "Are you a leader?" or "who is checking your posts from headquarters?" and crap like that which is irrelevant to the teaching of the Gospel.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
I’ll ask you a question then you ask me a question (or the other way around). Each of us promises to answer with one word, a YES or a NO.
Let me know when you’re ready,
You can pull out one of your old questions and ask it in any manner you wish.
I will reply to get to the truth of the issue asked about in any manner I wish.
That is:
Yes or No first with explanation maybe or
explanation followed by Yes or No.
And if Yes AND No with qualifying explanation is my choice, THAT I will also reserve the right to do.
Getting at the truth is what I am interested in.
Procedural methodology is secondary.
Ok I’m just gonna shut you up sonship because you’re full of crap. Here’s your question, let’s see if you can give a yes or no answer … or if we get a load of your usual furtive waffle…
Your church’s website states that in order to be saved a person’s belief must include that God is triune, the trinity. Do you agree with this specific statement of salvation? Yes or no?
In order to be saved, one must have a living faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Every genuinely saved one has what the Bible calls the “common faith” (Titus 1:4), which includes what we must believe in order to be saved: we must believe that the Bible is the complete divine revelation wholly inspired by God; that there is a unique Triune God, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit; that Jesus Christ is the Son of God incarnated to be a man; that Christ died on the cross for our sins, shedding His blood for our redemption; that on the third day He was bodily raised from the dead; that He has been exalted to the right hand of God and made the Lord of all; and that He is coming again for His own and to set up His kingdom on earth.
https://www.localchurches.org/beliefs/salvation/
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@divegeester
In the past when you have pointed me to this paragraph I have responded by pointing out to you something ELSE in the same publication.
The something ELSE in the same publication that I referred you to (I felt) made it difficult for me to believe that the writers of that article IGNORED the explicit intructions of Paul on who can be saved. Directions which only refer to confession with the mouth - Jesus as Lord and belief in the heart that God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead.
So I will again, as before, include the OTHER statement in that very same document which I feel balances out what YOU point to, I feel it completes the entire attitude of the writers.
And here is the other portion of the same booklet under Concerning Salvation
In order to be saved, one must have a living contact with Jesus Christ. Therefore, in bringing unbelievers to salvation, we emphasize prayer and calling on the name of the Lord. According to Romans 10:9 and 10, if a man is to be saved, he must believe in his heart and confess with his mouth.
If you notice it says "We EMPHASIZE . . . prayer and calling on the name of the Lord."
It did not say "We EMPHASIZE one be familar and conversant on one or more presentations of the doctrine of the Trinity."
The EMPHASIS is on contacting the living Lord according to what Paul taught about confession with the mouth "Lord Jesus" and belief in the heart that "God raised Him from the dead."
https://www.localchurches.org/beliefs/salvation/
If you wish to insist - [i] "No, I do not believe this emphasis they speak of. Rather I believe that their emphasis in leading people to salvation is a person's adherance to a doctrine of the Trinity according to the sentence above which told me -
"In order to be saved, one must have a living faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Every genuinely saved one has what the Bible calls the “common faith” (Titus 1:4), which includes what we must believe in order to be saved: we must believe that the Bible is the complete divine revelation wholly inspired by God; that there is a unique Triune God, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit; etc. etc. "
I suppose that you have that right to think " They mean you have to be able to
talk about the Trinity or mention Trinity."
If you ask me, I reserve the right to include WITH that sentence their sentence about the emphasis in how they bring men to salvation. Namely -
In order to be saved, one must have a living contact with Jesus Christ. Therefore, in bringing unbelievers to salvation, we emphasize prayer and calling on the name of the Lord. [b] According to Romans 10:9 and 10, if a man is to be saved, he must believe in his heart and confess with his mouth. [/b]
I reserve the right to consider BOTH statements for a more complete representation of the writers intention, position, and procedure concerning Gospel preaching.
In another way of putting this I would say -
IF not believing in "a unique Triune God" means that one cannot confess Jesus as Lord and believe in his heart that God raised Him from the dead, then not believing in a unique Triune God keeps him from receiving salvation.
IF not believing in "a unique Triune God" yet one CAN confess Jesus as Lord and believe in his heart that God raised Him from the dead, then not "believe in a unique Triune God" may not interfere with one receiving salvation.
That is the way I think I would understand that entire portion under the heading of "Concerning Salvation
You can have a different opinion about that if you want.
That remains how I understand the whole intent of the writers expressed there.
@sonship saidYep, just as expected.
@divegeester
In the past when you have pointed me to this paragraph I have responded by pointing out to you something ELSE in the same publication.
The something ELSE in the same publication that I referred you to (I felt) made it difficult for me to believe that the writers of that article IGNORED the explicit intructions of Paul on who can be saved ...[text shortened]... hat if you want.
That remains how I understand the whole intent of the writers expressed there.
Blah blah blah
@divegeester saidYes or no sonship.
Here’s another way of asking the same question..
If I agree with all of your church’s stated essential beliefs EXCEPT the one about the trinity, can I still be saved?
YES of NO?
Your church seems pretty exploding, how come you can’t be huh?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@divegeester
As expected from me - you cavalierly dismiss a careful enunciation of my position.
It is too long to read or too boring or blah, blah, blah.
My reply stands as I gave it.
And if it means nothing to you, I am confident that some readers will see a valid response.