Zeke
Well-known member
Whoes the in house Morman you have a live one right here!
Is elohiym an idiot?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
elected4ever
New member
yes! To bad you don't.
Uh..... wow.... errrr Ok, all righty then!yes! To bad you don't.
Gee, you really got me that time e4e! What an incredible asset you are to TOL! :up:
So... tell me e4e....
Knowing that liberty is freedom.
What is it you are free to do in-Christ that you aren't free to do out of Christ?
elohiym
Well-known member
Quit acting like a child, PK. I have been doing other things most of the day.
As for your alleged "sound Biblical refutation," even a monkey can quote the same scripture from several Bible versions and grunt to signal that he made an argument. Regardless, even if we accept those as an accurate interpretation, it would still mean that God creates "calamity" in opposition to peace. I'm sure you are not going to blame God for creating the Global war on terror (calamity), but that is what your interpretation implies.
All you are doing is trying to water down the truth, because, in the words of Jack, "you can't handle the truth!"
elohiym
Well-known member
It is not what I am free to do in Christ, but what I am free from in Chirst. I am free from bondage--free from sin.
Let's use the verse you provided earlier...
Gal 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
Now I will quote from Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words regarding the interpretation of the word translated to liberty in that verse:
The phraseology is that of manumission from slavery, which among the Greeks was effected by a legal fiction, according to which the manumitted slave was purchased by a god; as the salve could not provide the money, the master paid it into the temple treasury in the presence of the slave, a document being drawn up containing the words "for freedom." No one could enslave him again, and he was the property of the god.
Using that liberty (freedom from slavery) as an occasion to the flesh (resulting in sin) is to reject God's ownership of you and put yourself back into bondage (Gal 2:17-18). If you sin, you are servant of sin (John 8:34), rejecting Jesus' payment for, and His Father's ownership of, you.
Your interpretation that you have liberty to sin (license) is unbiblical, unrighteous, and sophomoric.
elohiym
Well-known member
You are a false accuser.
Read posts #206 and #207. Knight was crystal clear that he believes that he has a license to sin. Whether he uses the license frequently or occasionally is irrelevant.
Maybe you should correct Knight since you seem so outraged I would claim that he said what he actually said. Can you stop being a lackey long enough to pretend to be his friend?
elohiym
Well-known member
I am in the dispensation called the new covenant, and in that dispensation no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. You are in a fictional dispensation where abortionists and serial killers have eternal life and salvation while they continue to murder people. Ironically, that is what the BTK killer believed, too.
Mr. 5020
New member
I am confused. Say that somebody was a Christian, and then they commit murder...what happens under your theology? Did they lose their salvation? Were they never saved? Can they then be saved?
I am being sincere.
elohiym
Well-known member
They were never saved, but only called themselves Christian...
Mat 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
He NEVER knew them, so they were never really Christians.
Salvation cannot be lost.
Someone who is a murderer can be saved, but he must be born of God. That conversion will crucify his "old man," (the murderer), and he will be a new creature in Christ.
2Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
His new nature in Christ is not a murderer. He will NEVER murder, or sin in any way, again.
elected4ever
New member
Live righteously without sin. I could never do that before I was saved.
As a GRACE BELIEVER, they have ALREADY BEEN forgiven when they trusted in Christ, ALL SINS, past, present and future are forgiven. The believer is SEALED in the Holy Spirit and has eternal security because of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. One does not need to continually as for forgiveness as they have been ALREADY forgiven.
Elohiym -
All you "short accounts" people really need to RIGHTLY DIVIDE or you will end up in complete confusion, as clearly can be seen here by your silly posts.
It is interesting to observe that the "short accounts" people, they invariably rush to 1 John 1:9 for a major proof-text. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." I would like to suggest some things that we MUST note if we are to UNDERSTAND this important verse as God meant it to be understood when He placed it in His Word.
First, John is an apostle of the Circumcision writing to Jews as Jews and not to the Body of Christ. This is plain from Galatians Two, where, having just come to recognize the new and unique apostleship of Paul and Paul's new and different message of Grace, he, with Peter and James, agrees to confine his ministry to the Jews while the new apostle, Paul, undertakes a new and unprophesied worldwide ministry to Gentiles.
Second, these Jews that John was addressing would know exactly what John was talking about when he conditioned forgiveness and cleansing on the confession (acknowledgment) of sins. They had a purification rite--the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins--and by the act of submitting to this "washing" ritual, they were admitting their sinnership, acknowledging their sins. Without speaking a word, they were confessing their unworthiness to enter Messiah's Kingdom of Righteousness...the frequently predicted and long awaited reign of Heaven on earth.
Third, every Scripture has a context, and 1 John 1:9 is no exception. "A verse without a context is a pretext." It is widely conceded that the book as a whole, and chapter one in particular, is a refutation of incipient gnosticism with its denial of the existence of the sin nature and the reality of personal sins and their consequent need of forgiveness. But the immediate context of verse 9 is the section incorporating verses 7 through 10. In verse seven, the Jewish believer commits sins but continues to walk in the light because he continues to be cleansed by the blood of God's Son. This believer, though he continues to sin, does not walk in darkness, nor is his fellowship broken. A good concordance will reveal that darkness is always associated with the unsaved, never the saved. A believer cannot walk in darkness, nor can his access to the Father be interrupted becuase he has his access on the grounds of God's Grace and not human merit (Romans 5:1-2). Also, the contrast in this passage is not between a believer who names his sins mentally or orally in "confession" to God and one who does not. The contrast is between the unbeliever who denies having sin (singular, the sin nature) and committing sins (plural, individual acts resulting from the fallen Adamic nature) and the Jewish believer who, by submitting to the Jewish purification ritual--water baptism--has acknowledged (confessed) his sinnership with its resulting sins.
Fourth, no one could possibly cite ALL of his sins to God...no one ever has. Even the earnest attempt to do so would leave you and me without time to sleep, eat, or brush our teeth. And even if it were possible to enumerate ALL of them, we would still have our sinful natures militantly opposed to God and His Word (Romans 8:7).What would confession do for that? Romans shows us that the REAL problem is Sin, the nature, not sin, the act. Monks hid under their beds rather than take a turn hearing Martin Luther's confession, for, while they finished reciting their own sins in five minutes--or thought they did!--this sensitive monk kept on for an hour and a half and then was back in twenty minutes with more that he had forgotten. Most "short accounters" admit the inability to confess all and then resort to shameless evasion instead of sound exposition to cover the obvious. There are sins of omission, sins that we forget that we committed, sins of ignorance, and sins of stubbornness...sins that we go to our graves refusing to admit are sins. The problems with this view are legion, and they are immense!
Fifth, if John really taught short accounts in this passage, and if this Circumcision apostle had the Body of Christ in mind, why aren't the Pauline Epistles full of instruction about "confessing" one's sins in order to procure forgiveness and "restore fellowship"? Instead, we read, "...having forgiven you all offenses" (Colossians 2:13 lit.). Tomorrow's sins are included for they, along with our past sins, were still future when our Lord died for them and, hence, are no harder for God to forgive.
Now, the CRUNCHER! This is what Elohiym spouts. Won't teaching TOTAL FORGIVENESS instead of short accounts encourage sin on the part of the believer? On the contrary! The divine principle is that the one who has been forgiven much, LOVES MUCH (Luke 7:36-50). And the question that needs to be asked is, are you and I, as believers, such ingrates that the infinite love and total Grace of God displayed at Calvary cannot move us to love our Savior deeply and serve Him faithfully? Now that I have a new nature, am indwelt by the very Holy Spirit of God, and have the divine dynamic of the Word of God to energize me: AM I SO POORLY EQUIPPED THAT I CANNOT PRESENT MYSELF TO GOD AS ALIVE FROM THE DEAD, but must continue to present my members as instruments of unrighteousness to Sin? (Romans 6:13) HEAVEN FORBID! The Pauline Epistles call each of us to a higher life than that!
But if we shouldn't invite God into our spiritual laundromats by naming our sins to Him in prayer, WHAT SHOULD WE DO when we are conscious of having sinned? The answer is there in every one of the Epistles of God and Paul. They begin with a foundation of the great Positional Truths that teach us our perfectly secure status beyond the reach of Sin and of Law. THEN comes the appeal to build my life upon this foundation in a God-honoring manner. What God has done for me is always the motivation for what I am to do for Him. "If Jesus Christ be God, and died for me, then no sacrifice can be too great for me to make for Him!"
elohiym, you raise a great point about free will.
(and no... I don't think elohiym is an idiot. He's identifying the nonsensical illogic in the Bible.)
(and no... I don't think elohiym is an idiot. He's identifying the nonsensical illogic in the Bible.)
elected4ever
New member
It is not the Bible that is illogical but those who pretend to to know what it says that are illogical in there interpretations.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Yes, he is. He believes the gospel 1 Cor 15:1-4 KJV.
elected4ever
New member
E4E's SPOTD :first:
I agree, excellent post Pettrix. :up:
e4e I hope you realize that other than wording I agree with you on this.
That's why I went ahead and asked you the question, so I could highlight the difference between you and elohiym.
e4e believes... (please correct me if I am wrong) that a Christian is no longer under the law and therefore cannot sin because there is no law to transgress. When a Christian does something that would normally be called sinful it must be called something else because sin cannot happen without a transgression of the law.
elohiym believes.... (correct me if I am wrong) that when a person becomes a Christian they receive a new nature and because of that new nature they will live perfectly the rest of their life. If they do sin, they were never a Christian to begin with.
e4e, the only real difference I have with you and Sozo is I believe you view the word "sin" too narrowly. In practical terms I agree with most of what you are saying, our only real difference is how we view the word "sin". Yet with elohiym I couldn't disagree more, our disagreement is not semantical.