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

[meshak]

Not at all.
Apparently not.

What does it mean to be a "follower" of Christ? Does it mean that you literally go everywhere He does?

Why do you ask such silly question?

Follow means do what He teaches and commands.

Christians are Jesus' followers, meaning they do what He teaches and commands because they accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

 

[Danoh]

Why do you ask such silly question?

Follow means do what He teaches and commands.

Christians are Jesus' followers, meaning they do what He teaches and commands because they accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Maybe its just me, but I never was able to accept that He is Lord, first.

Only after I accepted He was my Saviour was I then able to accept that He is Lord.

But, like I said, maybe that's just me.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Absolute NONSENSE that you have NEVER even REMOTELY attempted to PROVE.

The LAW of MOSES is always a WHOLE. It cannot be broken.

Yes indeed RD, it was always a unit.

 

[meshak]

Maybe its just me, but I never was able to accept Him as Lord, first.

Only after I accepted He was my Saviour was I then able to accept Him as Lord.

But, like I said, maybe that's just me.

I did not understand what it means to be a Christian.

but I understood fully that Jesus' teachings and commands are such wonderful teachings after reading His word, that no one else can teach such pure, holy and righteous things.

So when I realize that, I understood what it means to be His follower.

When He says to obey Him meaning accept Him as the Lord.

 

[Derf]

He falsely accused me of being a perverse person.

Actually, all I did was ask which one you would be. You apparently applied it more directly than it was intended. That would make you "easily provoked" (see 1 Cor 13:5 KJV--see the whole verse while you're at it). And though 1 Cor 13 is not a direct commandment, it would have to apply to "Love your neighbor as yourself", which was another of Jesus' commands.

See, this obeying every one of Jesus' commands is pretty difficult. It's a good thing God is merciful.

 

[meshak]

See, this obeying every one of Jesus' commands is pretty difficult. It's a good thing God is merciful.

yes. that's why we should not boast to be saved or sinless.

Most of us fails but God is merciful; if we do our best to obey Him, He will fill our imperfection part.

 

[Derf]

Why do you ask such silly question?

Follow means do what He teaches and commands.

Christians are Jesus' followers, meaning they do what He teaches and commands because they accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Rhetorical questions are often silly ones. And you'll see that I answered it immediately afterward, in a manner not too different from yours. But as silly as it is, I'm not sure everybody here agrees with your definition (thus the thread title).

 

[Derf]

For over 1,600 years the Jews used to have to clean themselves.


Leviticus 15:32 These are the regulations for a man with a discharge, for anyone made unclean by an emission of semen, for a woman in her monthly period, for a man or a woman with a discharge, and for a man who has sexual relations with a woman who is ceremonially unclean.


Anyone who even SAT where an unclean person sat was also unclean.

What did a unclean person have to do?

They had to sacrifice animals.

Those are the works Paul was speaking about that we do not have to do because faith in Jesus' blood cleans us.

They were also supposed to "clean themselves" by actual washing. Still not a bad thing to do.

"Anyone who even SAT where an unclean person sat was also unclean." This is why we have toilet seat gaskets today.

 

[meshak]

Rhetorical questions are often silly ones. And you'll see that I answered it immediately afterward, in a manner not too different from yours. But as silly as it is, I'm not sure everybody here agrees with your definition (thus the thread title).

Actually, many understand that being Christian means accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

I believe MAD is relatively new religion like new agers.

 

[Derf]

Are you trying to pick a fight? Or stir up strife? Would that make you then a perverse person (Proverbs 16:28) or just hot-tempered (Prov 15:18)?

We are in a debate group, false accuser.

Yes, but I wrote something to someone else that you jumped in on and acted like it was trying to refute what you said, when it wasn't. It doesn't make sense to debate against something you agree with, does it? No matter what kind of group we are in. That's being contentious, or "stirring up strife". And I'm not trying to accuse you--as I said before, your words accuse you pretty handily. I'd just like you to be aware of it and show you that you invite much of the scorn you seem to dislike so much.

Are you calling Apostle Paul a perverse person?

I wasn't even calling you a perverse person. How did Paul get in the way of the non-accusation?

We are to debate, even in public debate. We are to argue, vigorously refute, sharply dispute, persuade, oppose, defend, confirm, command, preach, teach, instruct, rebuke, encourage, and contend.

I never tried to say we don't have to obey. What I've tried to say is that our obedience doesn't save us--it can't unless we are perfectly obedient from the time we are born (and then there's some question about inherited guilt, or at least inherited penalty, from Adam's sin). That's why we need Christ's sacrifice.

How do you jump from sinning while saved to sinning when born?

I thought we were talking about salvation. And unless we are without sin, from birth, we need to be saved.

But our disobedience does kill us. That's why we need Christ's advocacy.

But why would Christ want to advocate for someone that has no desire or intention to obey Him? (before you argue, just know that I'm agreeing with you in large part).

Where do you get that I would argue about that?

I'll let you answer that:

We are to debate, even in public debate. We are to argue, vigorously refute, sharply dispute, persuade, oppose, defend, confirm, command, preach, teach, instruct, rebuke, encourage, and contend.

Apparently even when we largely agree with each other.

 

[Danoh]

Actually, many understand that being Christian means accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

I believe MAD is relatively new religion like new agers.

First off, Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is not a religion; it is a way of studying the Bible.

Second, that you would say it is a religion shows how clueless you are about the various ways of studying the Bible.

Third, here on TOL there are some five different Mid-Acts camps represented; each differing in our understanding of some things, at the same time, in agreement on other things.

Just as those on here who hold to the Partial Preterist system of study and interpretation do not all see things in exactly the same way.

Get your understanding about terminology straight before voicing your fool opinions.

You and GT both hold to a system of Bible study one might call "its all the same thing."

And yet, your confusion differs from hers, just as hers differs from yours.

You are both all about works I am sure you fail at as much as any other works based fool.

YOURS is Religion - do something the Cross failed.

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Now read all that forty times. You're a grown woman; you have no excuse for "well all that went right past me."

Quit being so lazy, or quit posting your half baked conclusions; your laziness only makes you look foolish.

:doh:

 

[Derf]

Actually, many understand that being Christian means accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

I believe MAD is relatively new religion like new agers.

Ohhhhh! if I knew john w was MAD when he wrote that OP, I wouldn't have bothered. I thought he was sane.

 

[Cross Reference]

ing the

First off, Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is not a religion; it is a way of studying the Bible.

It is a religious doctrine, :doh:. It is, at best, incomplete in its understanding of the savior-Lordship of Jesus Christ and His purpose while on Earth.

Dispensation = period time alloted someone or something. In this by Paul was it a period of time alloted him to preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Nothing more. Reading more into that is stupid and unproductive for the understanding of Redemption and Salvation AND the letters of John namely 1 John 1 and 2 pertaining to son-ship and fatherhood in God as purposed by Him in the afterwards of our Salvation given in his gospel chap 17:3.

 

[God's Truth]

Absolute NONSENSE that you have NEVER even REMOTELY attempted to PROVE.

The LAW of MOSES is always a WHOLE. It cannot be broken.

That is why Jesus gave us a whole NEW Covenant with some of the old law, but without the ceremonial/purification works.

There was a change to that old law, see Hebrews 7:12.

That changed old law is our new law.

 

[God's Truth]

Actually, all I did was ask which one you would be. You apparently applied it more directly than it was intended. That would make you "easily provoked" (see 1 Cor 13:5 KJV--see the whole verse while you're at it). And though 1 Cor 13 is not a direct commandment, it would have to apply to "Love your neighbor as yourself", which was another of Jesus' commands.

See, this obeying every one of Jesus' commands is pretty difficult. It's a good thing God is merciful.

Start obeying by stop judging me.

 

[meshak]

Quit being so lazy, or quit posting your half baked conclusions; your laziness only makes you look foolish.

:doh:

sorry, No religion is worth studying. Jesus' word is clear and simple. I dont have to study man-made religion to follow Jesus.

 

[Danoh]

ing the

It is a religious doctrine, :doh:. It is, at best, incomplete in its understanding of the savior-Lordship of Jesus Christ and His purpose while on Earth.

Dispensation = period time alloted someone or something. In this by Paul was it a period of time alloted him to preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Nothing more. Reading more into that is stupid and unproductive for the understanding of Redemption and Salvation AND the letters of John namely 1 John 1 and 2 pertaining to son-ship and fatherhood in God as purposed by Him in the afterwards of our Salvation given in his gospel chap 17:3.

No, fool. Mid-Acts does not even see Christianity as a religion.

The only religion in Scripture is "the Law for righteousness."

Christianity is about the work of Another for righteousnes.

As usual, you are stuck in your tradition.

Fool; you know nothing of the finished work of Christ, and even less about Mid-Acts - you are just one more worker bee - go back to the hive that is your religion.

 

[God's Truth]

They were also supposed to "clean themselves" by actual washing. Still not a bad thing to do.

"Anyone who even SAT where an unclean person sat was also unclean." This is why we have toilet seat gaskets today.

How do you get mocking God is a defense to your beliefs?

Is that your life with chair, toilet, couch, and bed protectors; and, how about make sure you do not touch your spouse; oh but wait, you touch each other when intimate and that is what made each other unclean for worshiping God. So offer some animals to sacrifice and be atoned for with the animal blood.

Why do you think God's Word is something to be mocked?

 

[God's Truth]

Yes, but I wrote something to someone else that you jumped in on and acted like it was trying to refute what you said, when it wasn't. It doesn't make sense to debate against something you agree with, does it? No matter what kind of group we are in. That's being contentious, or "stirring up strife". And I'm not trying to accuse you--as I said before, your words accuse you pretty handily. I'd just like you to be aware of it and show you that you invite much of the scorn you seem to dislike so much.
I wasn't even calling you a perverse person. How did Paul get in the way of the non-accusation?


I thought we were talking about salvation. And unless we are without sin, from birth, we need to be saved.
I'll let you answer that:

Apparently even when we largely agree with each other.

You say you largely agree with me, but I have no part in your dishonesty.

 

[God's Truth]

No, fool. Mid-Acts does not even see Christianity as a religion.

The only religion in Scripture is "the Law for righteousness."

Christianity is about the work of Another for righteousnes.

As usual, you are stuck in your tradition.

Fool; you know nothing of the finished work of Christ, and even less about Mid-Acts - you are just one more worker bee - go back to the hive that is your religion.

So you find nothing wrong with degrading what Jesus 'used to teach', and what God in the Old Testament 'used to teach'? Used to teach ACCORDING TO YOU. If it is no more, how do you EVER get that you can pass judgment on what you think God USED to mean?