It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Hypocritical Christian

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Wonders
 


In each of those instance their faith was accounted to them for righteousness. There is no contradiction. People can be righteous, it's their faith in God and trust in Him that God considers righteousness. But also Paul is correct in quoting the OT prophet. We have all failed, we are all born unrighteous. Christ is the only perfect on with His own righteousness.




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Wonders
 


In each of those instance their faith was accounted to them for righteousness. There is no contradiction. People can be righteous, it's their faith in God and trust in Him that God considers righteousness. But also Paul is correct in quoting the OT prophet. We have all failed, we are all born unrighteous. Christ is the only perfect on with His own righteousness.


I see, that you still haven't got the knack of the difference between faith and facts.

Ignoring this difference is one expression of hypocricy.
edit on 14-9-2011 by bogomil because: typos



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Wonders
 


In each of those instance their faith was accounted to them for righteousness. There is no contradiction. People can be righteous, it's their faith in God and trust in Him that God considers righteousness. But also Paul is correct in quoting the OT prophet. We have all failed, we are all born unrighteous. Christ is the only perfect on with His own righteousness.


I see, that you still haven't got the knack of the difference between faith and facts.

Ignoring this difference is one expression of hypocricy.
edit on 14-9-2011 by bogomil because: typos


"The just shall live by faith."



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Wonders
 


In each of those instance their faith was accounted to them for righteousness. There is no contradiction. People can be righteous, it's their faith in God and trust in Him that God considers righteousness. But also Paul is correct in quoting the OT prophet. We have all failed, we are all born unrighteous. Christ is the only perfect on with His own righteousness.


I see, that you still haven't got the knack of the difference between faith and facts.

Ignoring this difference is one expression of hypocricy.
edit on 14-9-2011 by bogomil because: typos


"The just shall live by faith."


I wish the 'just' all the best and only ask them to perform justification apart from those not having asked for it.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Sounds good, take care.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

. . .In each of those instance their faith was accounted to them for righteousness. . .
In each of those cases, the people being examined did things that they got, from one form of inspiration or another, from God but not from the Law, since the Law was not given yet by Moses. So they were not considered righteous by the law, but by what Paul was explaining is what has now replaced that old law, which is being called, faith.
Paul was not talking about a mere intellectual assent to something being told to them, but a guiding influence that they were obedient to.
edit on 14-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Wonders
 

. . .Noah was a righteous man. . .
Thanks for collecting those verses.
NOTurTYPICAL has this thing about people not trying to be righteous.
He seems to think that we will go to heaven or somewhere to get fixed up but meanwhile are not to be concerned about trying to be righteous. Though I have numerously pointed out the fallacy of this philosophy, he dogmatically sticks to it.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Wonders
 

. . .Noah was a righteous man. . .
Thanks for collecting those verses.
NOTurTYPICAL has this thing about people not trying to be righteous.
He seems to think that we will go to heaven or somewhere to get fixed up but meanwhile are not to be concerned about trying to be righteous. Though I have numerously pointed out the fallacy of this philosophy, he dogmatically sticks to it.


"Sticks to it"?

I've corrected you no less than a dozen times that I neither feel that way nor encourage people not to do the best they can to live for Christ here and now.

I used to think words meant something, not so much anymore.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

. . .In each of those instance their faith was accounted to them for righteousness. . .
In each of those cases, the people being examined did things that they got, from one form of inspiration or another, from God but not from the Law, since the Law was not given yet by Moses. So they were not considered righteous by the law, but by what Paul was explaining is what has now replaced that old law, which is being called, faith.
Paul was not talking about a mere intellectual assent to something being told to them, but a guiding influence that they were obedient to.


In a Biblical sense, "faith" means "trust". They trusted what God had told them would come to pass, they trusted that God would be faithful to His words and promises. Likewise, in the new covenant, when I say I have "faith' in Christ I mean to assert that I have my "trust" in Christ and His atonement for my sins.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

In a Biblical sense, "faith" means "trust".
You are narrowly defining it to suite yourself, while ignoring all the other meanings to it.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

I've corrected you. . .
No. You never have.
If you have, and know how to do it, how about doing it right now?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

In a Biblical sense, "faith" means "trust".
You are narrowly defining it to suite yourself, while ignoring all the other meanings to it.


If faith isn't trust then it's just an intellectual affirmation. Christ wants us to trust in Him, trust in His sacrifice, trust in His resurrection. Not to just believe it happened, or have better than 50% faith that it happened. That's not Biblical "faith".



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

I've corrected you. . .
No. You never have.
If you have, and know how to do it, how about doing it right now?


I did a few posts ago. But if you won't read it there, or in the other numerous places in this forum then why bother saying it another time?? How does that make any sense?


He seems to think that we will go to heaven or somewhere to get fixed up but meanwhile are not to be concerned about trying to be righteous.



1. I have never said we are "going to heaven to be fixed up".
2. I never said we as Christians should not try being righteous.
3. I've never said we can live in unrepentant sin.
4. I've never said someone should try and live contrary to the teachings and example of Jesus Christ

Yet you continue to claim that I do. Which is lies, and in the other dozens of instances I've called you out on lying about me in regards to these things you've failed/refused to provide evidence of me claiming any of these.

You're a liar and a slanderer. I'll keep labeling you as such as long as you refuse to reflect what I actually have to say in these threads.



Though I have numerously pointed out the fallacy of this philosophy, he dogmatically sticks to it.


I've never ONCE defended those things, nor suggested someone do them. The only thing I've been "dogmatic" about is your refusal to truthfully acknowledge what I claim in these threads and your burning desire to straw man virtually every opponent you discuss matters with.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You wrote:

["If faith isn't trust then it's just an intellectual affirmation."]

Maybe you sort this out with yourself in a way, which is communicable and accetable for people not sharing your premises. I have seen a lot of skipping around from position to position, according to the circumstances.

And once again I must emphasize, that 'faith' is nothing I reject.

(PS Any answer from me may take a few days. I'll be probably be busy with my new house).



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You wrote:

["If faith isn't trust then it's just an intellectual affirmation."]

Maybe you sort this out with yourself in a way, which is communicable and accetable for people not sharing your premises. I have seen a lot of skipping around from position to position, according to the circumstances.

And once again I must emphasize, that 'faith' is nothing I reject.

(PS Any answer from me may take a few days. I'll be probably be busy with my new house).




The context here is the Biblical understanding/concept of faith in general, saving faith in particular.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You wrote:

["If faith isn't trust then it's just an intellectual affirmation."]

Maybe you sort this out with yourself in a way, which is communicable and accetable for people not sharing your premises. I have seen a lot of skipping around from position to position, according to the circumstances.

And once again I must emphasize, that 'faith' is nothing I reject.

(PS Any answer from me may take a few days. I'll be probably be busy with my new house).




The context here is the Biblical understanding/concept of faith in general, saving faith in particular.


That's YOUR context.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagoSA
If I had time, I'd reorganize a church to simply focus on Jesus' words and actions.


I'm with you 100%


Originally posted by MagoSAIts a shame that the most damning part of being a modern Christian came from Gandhi, of all people.

"“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”


That could be read and written as an insult to Christians, but I actually agree. If humanity was Christ like we wouldn't have needed salvation from Christ...we would all be the righteous.

All we can do is measure our actions against our belief and try to do better. If it takes someone calling me a hypocrite that may be a blessing because I would actually think about my life and see if it were true some of the time.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

If faith isn't trust then it's just an intellectual affirmation. Christ wants us to trust in Him, trust in His sacrifice, trust in His resurrection. Not to just believe it happened, or have better than 50% faith that it happened. That's not Biblical "faith".
You are doing your red herring switch again, as usual.
You are making a narrow definition of faith, acknowledging the parts that suit your philosophy while ignoring the central core understanding of the operation of what is being called by Paul, faith.
When it comes to Trust, when Paul is referring to Faith, he is talking about the trustworthiness of God and Jesus.
You are making up an artificial exclusion rule, again to suite your philosophy, to where if it does not mean one thing, it must mean another.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

. . .when I say I have "faith' in Christ I mean to assert that I have my "trust" in Christ and His atonement for my sins.
That's your personal understanding but it does not make it truth for anyone other than yourself.
And what "atonement for your sins" are you talking about?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

. . .I did a few posts ago. But if you won't read it there, or in the other numerous places in this forum then why bother saying it another time?
I should point out that your correction is not of my theology so much as your personal position. Let me quote what you are referring to.

. . .nor encourage people not to do the best they can to live for Christ here and now.
Nice, if pushed. But you don't say things like that unprompted and you feel people will be saved even if they do not do "their best", but can freely sin as much as they want.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join