ECT Nang's Boastful Lie

[SaulToPaul 2]

As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. It's all about ontology.

How long did it take you to move from hope to faith?

 

[heir]

She once again asserts that Christ did not die for our sins, and forgive us of all tresspasses.

Perverter, for all to observe.

Yep!

 

[Nang]

Why do you keep denying that the Lord ALREADY paid for every single sin that could ever be committed (2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV) with your unbelieving Catholic confession of sins? Is there one sin that the Lord Jesus Christ did not die for 2000 years before you ever took a breath?

Jesus Christ paid for all my sins, but that that does not preclude the fact that I still fall into sin. I do not claim to be perfect, even though I strive to be. No matter what Doom accuses me of doing.

Seems I am in trouble for supposedly wanting to be holy for God is holy, but then also in trouble for admitting I remain a sinner.

MADists are not consistent in their finding fault with others, at all.

 

[Doom]

2. She once again asserts that Christ did not die for our sins, and forgive us of all tresspasses.

That is the crux of all of this. Not only did Jesus not die for all our sins (according to Nang), He did not die for the sins of all men.

 

[Doom]

Jesus Christ paid for all my sins, but that that does not preclude the fact that I still fall into sin. I do not claim to be perfect, even though I strive to be. No matter what Doom accuses me of doing.

You accused everyone who does not "act holy as Christ is holy" of not being saved. I only reported what you said by quoting you exactly as you said it.

 

[Nang]

Antinomian Arminianism, has been around for a long time, and MAD is just the latest version of the error.

The original Arminians could at least formulate a theological stance, but I have not seen one from a MAD dispensationalist, yet . . . well, since Hilston.

 

[Doom]

Antinomian Arminianism, has been around for a long time, and MAD is just the latest version of the error.

God is an antinomian

 

[Nang]

That is the crux of all of this. Not only did Jesus not die for all our sins (according to Nang), He did not die for the sins of all men.

To believe He did die for all sins of all men, is Universalism.

Are you a Universalist?

 

[Nang]

God is an antinomian

Now that is just plain dumb . . .

 

[heir]

Jesus Christ paid for all my sins, but that that does not preclude the fact that I still fall into sin. I do not claim to be perfect, even though I strive to be. No matter what Doom accuses me of doing.

Religion always has a "but". Your hijacking of 1 John 1:9/confessing your sins is a testimony of unbelief that Christ has paid it all.

Seems I am in trouble for supposedly wanting to be holy for God is holy, but then also in trouble for admitting I remain a sinner.

Those in the Body of Christ are not sinners, but a new creature. 2 Corinthians 5:17 KJV

 

[heir]

To believe He did die for all sins of all men, is Universalism.

2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV, 1 Timothy 2:4-6 KJV

 

[musterion]

That is the crux of all of this. Not only did Jesus not die for all our sins (according to Nang), He did not die for the sins of all men.

She's a staunch Calvinist so that's a given.

 

[Doom]

To believe He did die for all sins of all men, is Universalism.

No it's not, only someone who doesn't believe the gospel, would say that. You don't know what salvation is.

Are you a Universalist?

No, it is as abhorrent as Calvinism.

Until you understand that men are not saved by His death, but by receiving His life, you will forever be stuck in darkness (lost).

 

[Nick M]

But I've never met a MAD who just read scripture and came to their conclusions. MAD is a structured doctrine and it's taught.

I would say you are 180 degrees out on this one. In my experience, the opposite is true. I picked up the Bible and realized the AOG was just of big of liars as the RCC. I never heard of the term before here.

But I sure read Romans 5 and believe it.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Really? Let's see. What is the word of truth?

First of all, truth is aletheia. The unveiled reality lying at the basis of, and agreeing with, an appearance; the manifest or veritable essence of matter.

(That's lexicography from the preeminent first-language Greek scholar Spiros Zodhiates. But I'm sure you think your vague personal concept of your mind (device) is preferable to a Spirit-filled lifetime scholar, who spent his entire life devoted to the exacting presentation of the Greek text in English. He even did it from Erasmus' text exclusively. You know... the basis for the KJV.)

The above indicates that truth is the prosopon unveiling the reality of the hypostasis, which underlies the ousia (essence) of God.

Jesus Christ is the prosopon of the hypostasis of God, and God's hypostasis underlies His ousia. This is not only exegetical at a tremendous depth, but it's historical from Patristic writings of the same thing.

"Thy Word (Logos) is truth." That's because the Logos was God's divinity made flesh in the person (prosopon) of Christ. The prosopon unveiled the reality (hypostasis) of God, which underlies His essence.

Truth is the word that is founded upon God's very substance and essence as God. His Logos IS truth.


But you'll probably have some falsely over-simplified concept to administer as a test of faith, just you do with every scripture you post.

It's your gauntlet of works that you force everyone to run or you demean their faith as non-existent and them as unsaved.

You're always putting hoops out there for people to jump through, and then if someone puts out a hoop for you, you cry "works" at them.

His Logos is truth. Period. There is none other. Not yours or anyone else's. So to the extent that one speaks His Logos with their own logos, then and only then is there the word of truth.

 

[musterion]

Originally Posted by Nang
To believe He did die for all sins of all men, is Universalism.

Another lie, or ignorance. Universalism is not the belief Christ died for the sins of all - that's what Paul taught. Universalism is the belief that all will eventually be saved regardless of what they believe about Christ. If any MADs here believe that (I know a few who do but they're not here), it's news to me.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

But I've never met a MAD who just read scripture and came to their conclusions. MAD is a structured doctrine and it's taught.

If someone wasn't indoctrinated into MAD and other stuff, they'd be getting it straight from scripture by the Spirit. The problem is replacing scripture with formulated doctrines.

Someone alone apart from all indoctrination is not going to be taught all these organized systems of theology, including MAD.



This is using an exception to address the majority. I'm referring to those who have spent years studying organized dogma according to their indoctrination, but have never bothered to find out what the words means instead of what they think they mean in their shallow understanding of their own language.



No. And wouldn't it be great to actually define grace rather than just referring to it without understanding of its depth of meaning?



No. But man obscures it with doctrines and definitions of his own. That's why I had to scrape off of and out of me to find the truth from scripture in the Greek text.

We weren't meant to go it alone. We were meant to be taught by the Holy Spirit and the thirdly-set-in-the Church Didaskalos (Teacher). The Church-at-large has scuttled that and made "teacher" a role for whomever they can get to take a class in their system of Christian education.



No. But MADers have gone a long way down a road based on a foundation of completely faulty definitions and their applications, just like most others.

At some point, getting back to the basics of the words themselves is what's vital.

Language is the problem, and it's what Satan uses to instill and install his devices (noema - concepts of the mind) in mankind. That's how he came to Eve, and he hasn't change his tactics. He challenged what God meant by the words He said, and presented another meaning as a false dialectic to replace God's didactic Word.

Language does that, and it's passive at the core of the sub-cognitive. It's in the heart. All the wrong meanings and definitions are in the heart.

As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. It's all about ontology.

It's a good thing this post is merely, one man's opinion! Therefore,
we have the right to ignore it, forget about it, and waste no more
time with it!

 

[Nang]

Religion always has a "but". Your hijacking of 1 John 1:9/confessing your sins is a testimony of unbelief that Christ has paid it all.

Those in the Body of Christ are not sinners, but a new creature. 2 Corinthians 5:17 KJV

So you never sin? You are sinless? You are perfect? Just like Jesus Christ?

(This post will go unanswered.)

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I would say you are 180 degrees out on this one. In my experience, the opposite is true. I picked up the Bible and realized the AOG was just of big of liars as the RCC. I never heard of the term before here.

But you seem to think every non-MAD is a liar and unsaved.

But I sure read Romans 5 and believe it.

No you don't. You believe sin passed upon all men, when Romans 5 clearly says death passed upon all men.

The sting of death is sin, not vice versa.

 

[musterion]

I've heard that Les Feldick came to a knowledge of the mystery totally on his own study, then discovered there were others. I've heard of others like him.

I confess I had to be shown the mystery, per Eph 3:9, but I believe that was God's working it out for me because very little of His Word made sense to me. I could not fathom how it all fit together as I was told it was supposed to. Now I see that it really doesn't all fit together in the sense they meant, nor was it all meant to.