ECT "Lordship 'Salvation'"-perverting the gospel of Christ

[Nihilo]

Believe what you want.

Done! Sabellian/modalist.

 

[Derf]

Done! Sabellian/modalist.

Looks like I owe john w an apology for insinuating he was being childish.

 

[Derf]

You tell me. 1 Jn 1:9 cannot be true without contradicting Rom 8:1 and Col 2:13, and vice versa.

So the bible is not consistent? That appears to be what you're saying.

I guess I don't see the inconsistency. We are not saved by our works, but we are saved unto good works. We have the ability to sin after we are saved, and we need to confess those sins. Those sins don't condemn us now, but they aren't how we are to live. Paul makes that abundantly clear in Rom 6.

He also makes it clear in Col 2. Check out Col 2:6, just 7 verses prior to the one you pointed out. We're supposed to walk "in Him" and Col 2:8, where Paul says we're not to be spoiled "through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world". How is it possible that we could be "spoiled" through anything, if there is now no condemnation, if nothing is forbidden? Is it even possible for us not to walk in Him? If it's not possible to not walk in Him, why does Paul have to tell us to do it?

But if it's possible that we can walk in the flesh sometimes, then don't we need to confess it, as John tells us? Not that we lose our salvation, but we may lose something in our relation with God.

 

[God's Truth]

So the bible is not consistent? That appears to be what you're saying.

I guess I don't see the inconsistency. We are not saved by our works, but we are saved unto good works. We have the ability to sin after we are saved, and we need to confess those sins. Those sins don't condemn us now, but they aren't how we are to live. Paul makes that abundantly clear in Rom 6.

He also makes it clear in Col 2. Check out Col 2:6, just 7 verses prior to the one you pointed out. We're supposed to walk "in Him" and Col 2:8, where Paul says we're not to be spoiled "through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world". How is it possible that we could be "spoiled" through anything, if there is now no condemnation, if nothing is forbidden? Is it even possible for us not to walk in Him? If it's not possible to not walk in Him, why does Paul have to tell us to do it?

But if it's possible that we can walk in the flesh sometimes, then don't we need to confess it, as John tells us? Not that we lose our salvation, but we may lose something in our relation with God.

Jesus saves us all on his own, and he chooses those he saves.

Jesus chooses to save those who obey.

No where are we told we do not have to obey Jesus to be saved.

 

[andyc]

@ Derf

You'll need a quick crash course to understand the kind of people you're dealing with here. People like john w, stp, musterion, heir, and nickm, are hyper dispensationalists, or to be exact - "Mid Acts Dispensationalists" - MAD (appropriate acronym).
Until you understand the angle they are coming from, you'll be scratching your head wondering why you seem to be talking past each other when discussing various theological topics. This is what cults do. They like to confuse, in order to feel as though they have the upper hand. Then if you flat out reject something they say, they throw their toys out of the pram, as you've seen already with W particularly.

Think of madists as modern day gnostics. Everything they teach is basically from an assumption that man doesn't have an eternal spirit. While on earth, man is physical, and that's it. The evangelical understanding of the need to be born again, is absent from their thinking. Evangelicals teach the need to be born of the Spirit, but madists have no idea what this means. They think that being born again simply means being resurrected with a new body. The significance of this error, means that their understanding of how justification works becomes very controversial. The transition from Romans 7 to Romans 8, from walking in the flesh to walking in the Spirit, is totally confusing from their perspective.
How can a person feel justified while walking in the flesh? You can't, because those who walk in the flesh are condemned in their conscience. So how can this condemnation be removed?
Instead of realizing the need to walk in the Spirit, they remove the moral law completely. It's a little bit like going back to Adam in the garden before he sinned, the only difference is that sin no longer matters because it has all been judged on the cross.

And so, if people have no moral restrictions placed on them, the flesh has nothing to rebel against. Therefore the madists have to accept that they are totally free to do anything they want to do, live any way they want to live, and it will not affect their relationship with God in the slightest. If it is impossible to sin, then there cannot be a commandment to violate. If there are no commandments to break, there can be no sin to commit. This leaves the carnal madists to feel justified in their natural selves, with absolutely no
sense of duty to be holy. This is the reason why they only ever talk about justification, and dispensational issues.

Obviously there is much written in the new testament showing us that we are accountable to live godly lives, and so how do madists deal with it? Well they simply remove about two thirds of the new testament as applying directly to them. Only a few letters of Paul are understood to have direct application to believers today.
They have invented three separate gospels. The gospel of the kingdom, where people have to obey the law and believe in Jesus (a contradiction). This wipes out the gospels, Acts, and letters by Peter, James, John, and Hebrews and Revelation, as having application today. There was also an intermediate gospel (Gospel of Christ) where new converts accepted Jesus as the Son of God. And then there's the gospel of the grace of God, which madists believe is a unique revelation given to Paul for the gentiles. This gospel was supposedly revealed to Paul after some of his earlier letters were written, and so letters like 1st Corinthians, most of Romans, and a few others can be chalked off as well.
With this mystery gospel, it's kind of like a winner takes all gospel. There's no repentance necessary, no water baptism, no sin can be committed, no tribulation, and heaven as reward, unlike those who get the second class kingdom gospel. Most madists here feel so free of obligation, they don't even go to church.

Taking this into consideration, when you confidently present your verses to the madsters, they'll simply disregard them if they suppose the verses were not written with them in mind.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Why you vile child of the devil, quoting your daddy, the devil, as you assert, like him, that "pride/being proud," is Godly. You, demon, referencing "the Lord?" Good one! And stuff your "stop sinning/repentance" satanic dung, wolfie. I have the righteousness of God in Christ, as the Lord Jesus Christ died for my sins, and was raised again, for my justification, and need not repent of anything-NADA. You hate that, wolfie, and are grinding your wolf teeth, as you read this.

Devil talk.

 

[Cross Reference]

@ Derf

You'll need a quick crash course to understand the kind of people you're dealing with here. People like john w, stp, musterion, heir, and nickm, are hyper dispensationalists, or to be exact - "Mid Acts Dispensationalists" - MAD (appropriate acronym).
Until you understand the angle they are coming from, you'll be scratching your head wondering why you seem to be talking past each other when discussing various theological topics. This is what cults do. They like to confuse, in order to feel as though they have the upper hand. Then if you flat out reject something they say, they throw their toys out of the pram, as you've seen already with W particularly.

Think of madists as modern day gnostics. Everything they teach is basically from an assumption that man doesn't have an eternal spirit. While on earth, man is physical, and that's it. The evangelical understanding of the need to be born again, is absent from their thinking. Evangelicals teach the need to be born of the Spirit, but madists have no idea what this means. They think that being born again simply means being resurrected with a new body. The significance of this error, means that their understanding of how justification works becomes very controversial. The transition from Romans 7 to Romans 8, from walking in the flesh to walking in the Spirit, is totally confusing from their perspective.
How can a person feel justified while walking in the flesh? You can't, because those who walk in the flesh are condemned in their conscience. So how can this condemnation be removed?
Instead of realizing the need to walk in the Spirit, they remove the moral law completely. It's a little bit like going back to Adam in the garden before he sinned, the only difference is that sin no longer matters because it has all been judged on the cross.

And so, if people have no moral restrictions placed on them, the flesh has nothing to rebel against. Therefore the madists have to accept that they are totally free to do anything they want to do, live any way they want to live, and it will not affect their relationship with God in the slightest. If it is impossible to sin, then there cannot be a commandment to violate. If there are no commandments to break, there can be no sin to commit. This leaves the carnal madists to feel justified in their natural selves, with absolutely no
sense of duty to be holy. This is the reason why they only ever talk about justification, and dispensational issues.

Obviously there is much written in the new testament showing us that we are accountable to live godly lives, and so how do madists deal with it? Well they simply remove about two thirds of the new testament as applying directly to them. Only a few letters of Paul are understood to have direct application to believers today.
They have invented three separate gospels. The gospel of the kingdom, where people have to obey the law and believe in Jesus (a contradiction). This wipes out the gospels, Acts, and letters by Peter, James, John, and Hebrews and Revelation, as having application today. There was also an intermediate gospel (Gospel of Christ) where new converts accepted Jesus as the Son of God. And then there's the gospel of the grace of God, which madists believe is a unique revelation given to Paul for the gentiles. This gospel was supposedly revealed to Paul after some of his earlier letters were written, and so letters like 1st Corinthians, most of Romans, and a few others can be chalked off as well.
With this mystery gospel, it's kind of like a winner takes all gospel. There's no repentance necessary, no water baptism, no sin can be committed, no tribulation, and heaven as reward, unlike those who get the second class kingdom gospel. Most madists here feel so free of obligation, they don't even go to church.

Taking this into consideration, when you confidently present your verses to the madsters, they'll simply disregard them if they suppose the verses were not written with them in mind.

Great post though you left out a few like GM and glorydazed. B57 is simply a lapsarian [hyper Calvinist]

So, good, andyc. Now, where does that leave me in your opinion?

 

[musterion]

So the bible is not consistent? That appears to be what you're saying.

Like I said, you tell me.

I guess I don't see the inconsistency...We have the ability to sin after we are saved, and we need to confess those sins. Those sins don't condemn us now, but...

Stop right there. You are contradicting yourself in the space of one sentence.

John said sins are forgiven IF they're confessed. That's conditional forgiveness. Unforgiven sin = condemnation.

But what John taught re: conditional forgiveness cannot be true in the same time and place as what Paul said is true re: plenary forgiveness (that ALL sins HAVE been forgiven, Col 2:13).

So you have three choices.

1) John or Paul was wrong and the other was correct -- throwing the whole Bible into doubt.

2) Both John and Paul were wrong -- again throwing the whole Bible into doubt.

3) There's a third option you've not considered, one which allows both of them to be 100% correct.

But you can't say both 1 Jn 1:9 and Col 2:13 are true for you and also say you're not confused, because you are.

 

[Interplanner]

Like I said, you tell me.



Stop right there. You are contradicting yourself in the space of one sentence.

John said sins are forgiven IF they're confessed. That's conditional forgiveness. Unforgiven sin = condemnation.

But what John taught re: conditional forgiveness cannot be true in the same time and place as what Paul said is true re: plenary forgiveness (that ALL sins HAVE been forgiven, Col 2:13).

So you have three choices.

1) John or Paul was wrong and the other was correct -- throwing the whole Bible into doubt.

2) Both John and Paul were wrong -- again throwing the whole Bible into doubt.

3) There's a third option you've not considered, one which allows both of them to be 100% correct.

But you can't say both 1 Jn 1:9 and Col 2:13 are true for you and also say you're not confused, because you are.

There are other options. Justification from our sins moves through time with us because it is a living, dynamic thing. God does not justify those who do not think they need it. So we must always be believing it and what it means about our past. Such believers don't want to sin, but they might and must believe again, each moment, that it is necessary for what just became past.

 

[musterion]

There are other options.

No there are not.

Justification from our sins moves through time with us because it is a living, dynamic thing.

Translation: "Salvation is not a settled act by virtue of the completed work of Christ. It is a process influenced and ultimately determined by my human works." Your gospel is false and you are damned, lest you repent [change your mind] and believe the Gospel of grace. Otherwise you're without hope.

Now back to our subject: one cannot be forgiven ALL trespasses and, at the same time, need to confess each sin else it won't be forgiven.

 

[Interplanner]

No there are not.



Translation: "Salvation is not a settled act by virtue of the completed work of Christ. It is a process influenced and ultimately determined by my human works." Your gospel is false and you are damned, lest you repent [change your mind] and believe the Gospel of grace. Otherwise you're without hope.

Now back to our subject: one cannot be forgiven ALL trespasses and, at the same time, need to confess each sin else it won't be forgiven.

I don't think we differ. 'the work of God is to believe on him whom He sent.' = we must continue to believe that each moment. There is no concept in the NT that there is pre-forgiveness so that we may sin as we please. While we are very intent on trying to honor Christ in all we do, it is also necessary to believe that we need his justification at all times for whatever the past is at all times.

 

[God's Truth]

Like I said, you tell me.



Stop right there. You are contradicting yourself in the space of one sentence.

John said sins are forgiven IF they're confessed. That's conditional forgiveness. Unforgiven sin = condemnation.

But what John taught re: conditional forgiveness cannot be true in the same time and place as what Paul said is true re: plenary forgiveness (that ALL sins HAVE been forgiven, Col 2:13).

So you have three choices.

1) John or Paul was wrong and the other was correct -- throwing the whole Bible into doubt.

2) Both John and Paul were wrong -- again throwing the whole Bible into doubt.

3) There's a third option you've not considered, one which allows both of them to be 100% correct.

But you can't say both 1 Jn 1:9 and Col 2:13 are true for you and also say you're not confused, because you are.

You can say both those scriptures are true.

You misunderstand Paul.

Colossians 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,


Did you read that scripture about the GENTILES that were NOT circumcised in the flesh?

The Gentiles were dead in their sins because they did not do the regulations/ceremonial works to clean themselves.

Paul is explaining that Jesus did not make the Gentiles get circumcised first before he would save them.

 

[God's Truth]

No there are not.



Translation: "Salvation is not a settled act by virtue of the completed work of Christ. It is a process influenced and ultimately determined by my human works." Your gospel is false and you are damned, lest you repent [change your mind] and believe the Gospel of grace. Otherwise you're without hope.

Just listen to yourself, you preach against obedience to Christ.

 

[God's Truth]

Colossians 3:23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.

 

[Nihilo]

Looks like I owe john w an apology for insinuating he was being childish.

Oh!

 

[john w]

You're getting repetitious. Obviously you've run out of anything intelligent to say. I guess you don't include 1 John in the canon. Is that how it works? You leave out scriptures you don't agree with, ascribe them to Satan, and call it "Christian Theology"?

Kids learn through repetition. And you are beginning to bore me.


Translated: I, Dirty Derf, assert that all scripture is about me, written to me, specifically, and is for my obedience.


The devil taught you that-the LORD God never did.


"You leave out scriptures you don't agree with,"-DD

No, demon, I consider things that differ, study the details of the book, in the context of 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV, recognizing what preceded it, and follows, to whom it was written, and under what dispensation, and whether the context is the prophetic program, or mystery program.

That, perverter, is reasonable, intelligent, bible study.

Contrasts, between you, a "blender," and me.

I like 'em, Mikey.

You leave out scriptures you don't agree with, ascribe them to Satan, and call it "Christian Theology"?

Sell all you have.


I thought so. Fraud.

Next up, part of "the trifecta?:

2. You bible ripper, John W....

3 You cherry picker, John W....


Take a seat.

 

[musterion]

I don't think we differ.

Yes we do. Make no mistake.

There is no concept in the NT that there is pre-forgiveness

Colossians 2:13.

The carnal, sinning Corinthians were all considered saints ("sanctified ones") by the apostle Paul.

You are dismissed, unless you can explain why a completely forgiven and reckoned dead to sin believer must also confess sins in order for them to be forgiven. Square that circle or be silent.

 

[Cross Reference]

Salvation is by continuing relationship with Christ Jesus.

 

[john w]

Devil talk.

Thanks, stand up comic, i.e., a child of the devil, disagreeing with his papa! Tisk, tisk, LALaw....Your daddy the devil may take you to the woodshed, for such words of disrespect, towards him. And thanks for the compliment-again, i.e., a child of the devil, a wolfie, disapproving of a saint, and grinding his teeth.

 

[andyc]

Great post though you left out a few like GM and glorydazed. B57 is simply a lapsarian [hyper Calvinist]

So, good, andyc. Now, where does that leave me in your opinion?

Shouldn't matter what people think
We simply need to be able to defend what we believe.