An Honest Question For ATS Preachers

reply to post by jmdewey60


1 John

5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

Pay special attention to verse 8.

Originally posted by autowrench

As an Internet Preacher, we are aware your mission is to gain converts, that much is a given. What I want to ask is, how many of the ATS membership have you been able to "Save?" How many have recanted their ways and old religions, and fully embraced Christianity because of you?

Please feel free to crow here.

The only one crowing here seems to be you Mr autowrench.
Sadly people who preach your message at Christians are as silly and sad as those Christians who accept it as fact.
Christians dont sway others to Christianity, Christians dont gain converts. The Christian mission is not to "Save" souls.
Your whole premise is wrong, false and not a reasonable comprehension of Christianity at all.

The bible tells the Christian to proclaim the good news of Jesus, not save souls.
Christians are to tell others of Jesus not win people over. Nobody recants because a Christian wins them over, the bible states clearly the holy Spirit convicts those called to Christ and salvation.
The biblical message is to preach the Gospel of Jesus and God will work in the hearts of those He has called.

How can you get it so wrong Mr autowrench, do you have any real understanding of Christianity or are you just winging it to garner a little attention

reply to post by NOTurTypical


well... do you realize that a eunuch was also a male concubine of a man?...so according to that story... even castrated men who are butt raped, gay people, and shemales can be "saved"...

reply to post by NOTurTypical


deleted...due to internet error, double post

reply to post by studythem1


And don't forget hermaphrodites which we know for a fact that they were born that way...

If they do not Love The Truth, they'll make up excuses to criticize people for being who they are and justify their hatred.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Christians are his believers who follow what he teaches.

That's what I've been saying.
sigh

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Christians are his believers who follow what he teaches.

That's what I've been saying.
sigh

You said people not believers. Even some buddhists read what he taught, but that doesn't mean they believe who he is. The way it appeared to me was that you were saying people who follow his teachings are christians, but that isn't enough, you have to believe in him. It's the belief that makes you a christian.

Originally posted by studythem1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

well... do you realize that a eunuch was also a male concubine of a man?...so according to that story... even castrated men who are butt raped, gay people, and shemales can be "saved"...

Some were made Eunuch's to work for the king in their harem. There were those born that way and others did so for honorable service to the king.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by studythem1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

well... do you realize that a eunuch was also a male concubine of a man?...so according to that story... even castrated men who are butt raped, gay people, and shemales can be "saved"...

Some were made Eunuch's to work for the king in their harem. There were those born that way and others did so for honorable service to the king.

well if you want to believe that the ancient world was an idyllic place where nobody abused anyone else sexually or otherwise, and that "god' was always there to punish such behavior, then i guess that is your prerogative...

i still dont get what is so honorable about having your frank or beans cut off...or what is so honorable or rewarding about being a male sex toy for a noble or king...

not knocking some peoples preferences, but i personally dont see mutilation as a reward...it is a tool to enslave someone into the role another wanted them in...

of course there are certain places still like India, and then there is the whole transsexual culture that deliberately alter their bodies to feel normal, but those are not the same exactly...that is voluntary and eunuchs were more often than not involuntary victims...some adapted to their roles and some no doubt wished they did not have to live that way...

but i digress, the original comment was to point out that the creator accepts anyone, regardless of their gender or lack of it, or whether they were willingly used or unwillingly...

reply to post by studythem1


Perhaps I should clarify. The "honorable service" was not sexual service. The eunuchs in charge of the king's harem were in charge of the whores. They were made Eunuchs so they wouldn't have their fingers in the king's cookie jars. And in kingdoms the highest honor is to serve the king.

Originally posted by autowrench

I was baptised once, but felt nothing, in fact, never felt anything from church except fear and self loathing.

There is a good chance that you were baptized incorrectly. Most baptize in the name of three gods instead of one God. A lot even do not immerse the person in the water.

Originally posted by autowrench

I can remember Oral Roberts telling "poor sinners" to just lay their hand on the TV screen and be saved. Was he lying?

Yes. Oral Roberts is a false preacher.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No it's not. Baptism is what saved people do, not what people do to be saved.

Yes it is. Peter said we must be baptized to be saved.

"Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:37-38 KJV)

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No it's not. Baptism is what saved people do, not what people do to be saved.

Yes it is. Peter said we must be baptized to be saved.

Are you suggesting Jesus was a liar when he told the thief on the cross he would be in paradise with Him. (Luke 23:43)
That criminal on the cross was not baptised so obviously could not have been saved...according to your logic Jesus lied.

You turn Christianity into a religion with your doctrines and laws, you are like a Pharisee. Jesus chooses and excuses, we as Christians are under grace not rules.
Gods grace covers those not baptised. Its not about us as Christians or anything we do, its all about what Jesus has done for us. You cant earn salvation.
People like Pharisees become self righteous and boastful. Baptism is importand but Christ death satisfied the whole of the law.

Originally posted by borntowatch
Are you suggesting Jesus was a liar when he told the thief on the cross he would be in paradise with Him. (Luke 23:43)
That criminal on the cross was not baptised so obviously could not have been saved...according to your logic Jesus lied.

No, Jesus did not lie. The theif died before baptism was necessary for salvation.

Originally posted by borntowatch
You turn Christianity into a religion with your doctrines and laws, you are like a Pharisee.

No, I am teaching a religion of true salvation by grace through faith. Are you teaching a religion of no repentance?

Originally posted by autowrench
Wiccans also reject the "Doctrine of the Trinity," or the Three Headed God of Christianity. I know, I know, scripture supports this, it's in the bible....I know it is. but!

The trinity, which is the same as three gods, is not taught in the Bible.

Originally posted by autowrench
So Christians have invented the Trinity to explain Christ's divinity.

The trinity was invented by Romans, not Christians. However, Christ is still divine.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by borntowatch
Are you suggesting Jesus was a liar when he told the thief on the cross he would be in paradise with Him. (Luke 23:43)
That criminal on the cross was not baptised so obviously could not have been saved...according to your logic Jesus lied.

No, Jesus did not lie. The theif died before baptism was necessary for salvation.

Originally posted by borntowatch
You turn Christianity into a religion with your doctrines and laws, you are like a Pharisee.

No, I am teaching a religion of true salvation by grace through faith. Are you teaching a religion of no repentance?

Starting to see your point

Christians are justified by ceremony, by our actions then.
meaning Christs sacrifice and our faith in Christ has no value unless we are ceremonialy cleansed by dunking ourselves in water. Again that sounds a little religious to me.
Sound like a law, sounds pharacitical to me. I am not a Jew I am a Christian living under Gods grace, not your laws.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

God didnt offer me a contract, He offered me a covenant. You would do well to understand the difference.

Your theology is a perversion of Christianity and demands works, Jesus has completed all the works. When Christ on the cross said "It is finished" He meant it. Jesus didnt lie, Jesus completed everything we needed.
We as humanity can do nothing. Jesus completed everything.
Baptism is important but Jesus completed everything, He doesnt need us to be baptised to bring His chosen into the Kingdom.

You infer water washes away sin and thats silly, just silly.
We wouldnt need Jesus if water was sufficient

reply to post by AQuestion

Pay special attention to verse 8.

Yes, I am very much aware of this verse (1 John 1:8).
In fact I have a book coming in the mail that does a complete exegesis of the Greek text, coming probably today or Monday, that I hope to be able to quote to back me up on this, but you need to keep in mind the context of the letter, that was to a church, so all the "us" and "we" in the passage are referring to the collective, and not to a particular individual. So, yes, the church needs to recognize that there are individual sins being committed, and the perpetrators, instead of hiding their faults, should participate in some group reconciliation, to put those controversies to rest. The problems in the church were most likely of a political nature where there were factions forming as to who to hold as being the rightful leadership, or if there even should be a leadership. An aggravating factor in those days were persecutions, where the known prominent leaders often had to go into temporary exile, and upon their return after the episode would blow over, found themselves replaced by upstarts who wanted to hold their new positions. In this case, the letter writer would claim the priority based on the fact that he was a witness first hand to Jesus the man, and had the legitimate claim to apostleship in the church.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

No, I never said or implied Jesus was a sinner.

You said there is no post-fall perfection or sinlessness in the Bible. Jesus lived after the fall at Eden, born from a daughter of Eve. So this, to me, shows a fatal flaw in your argument. Also you refuse to address the subject I have brought up twice already, which is Paul's "second Adam" teaching of how we are saved, that as sin and death entered by one man, righteousness and life entered by another man, Jesus, who did not sin. Salvation, according to Paul comes through righteousness. If there is some other way to be saved, please inform me of by what mechanism does the Bible tell us it is brought about.

And I have never said or implied that people should strive for holiness.

I am hoping this is a typo, and you meant, ". . . people should not . . .", kind of tricky with the double negatives. I know that you have said, and others of your cult have chimed in with agreement, that righteous living is of no concern to believers because they are already saved. Now you seem to have lately made a slight modification to that teaching of your cult, to where you think probably that God "gifts" you Jesus' righteousness somehow, as if you don't actually do anything righteous yourself, but magically appear to be righteous, by a glamour effect that blinds God momentarily enough to pass judgment on you, that since it is God's word, has to stand, even though it is later revealed that you were in fact still a wretched sinner as always.

Be led and directed by the Spirit, not the flesh. There is however a difference between Legalism and Holiness. I'm completely for the latter, completely against the former.

Can you give me an example of legalism on my part? Or is legalism to you the idea that one must be righteous? That it does not matter how, or by what way one is considered to be righteous but just being righteous period to you is being legalistic?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Lol.. you literally did just type that "works are anathema" to me?? I've told you probably no less than 30 times that works don't save/justify us. But works/fruit follow genuine faith (James), and are the "why" of God's choice to redeem us. (Ephesians 2:8-10). You can't seem to grasp the difference between being against something completely and being against a dysfunctional motive for doing a good thing.

"Works" follow faith, ok, so how does that tie in with being saved?
Your citation from Ephesians, is that supposed to be your "proof" for your statement "works don't save/justify us"? You are probably posting from your cell phone. I don't edit my posts until after I post them because I have to see the entire post in one view to do it, I would not want to try it on a tiny screen. Anyway, you repeatedly use this as a proof text, without ever addressing my objection that you are taking the verse out of context and misapplying the word "saved" to mean something never intended by the writer. He is saying you (as a church) were saved from a life of sin, to live a life of righteousness to the Lord. There is nothing in the passage to suggest your usage, as an individual's admission into heaven at the end of their life.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Yes a typo, and no I was not referring to Jesus. We're talking about us sheep, not the Sheppard.