An Honest Question For ATS Preachers

reply to post by truejew


That's how the game is played. Bury your answer amid a bunch of scripture and superficial details, then neatly dodge the next question and ask one of your own. The other guy mirrors the strategy and the whole process repeats.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Im saying he inherited no sinful nature from Adam.

Jesus, being a human, would have had a human nature, regardless of what he may or may not have inherited.

He was without spot or blemish, He was God incarnate.

Jesus did not have to be "God" to be without spot or blemish. Now you do not agree but you are going against the clear word of the New Testament that said he was fully tempted, as we all are. You believe Jesus could not have fallen, so where was the temptation if that was true? Your goal (it seems like to me) is to provide yourself a ready-made excuse for your own failings and to pretend that Jesus was never meant to be our example to follow, to overcome evil in our own lives. You suppose that being cleansed of unrighteousness is just metaphorical and not something God can do in reality.

1 John 1:9 is an absurd verse to have in the Bible if we can never sin.

The word here, homologeo, translated as confess, means to come to an agreement, where I believe this is different terminology by John from that used by Paul to mean the same thing as when he says justification, which is to come to an accord, meaning an alignment of your behavior, to the standard of acceptable behavior to the Lord.

We still make mistakes even as Spirit-filled Christians. Sanctification is not a snap of the fingers process. I know you're going to read that as a free pass to live like Hitler, but i'm not implying that. Admitting mistakes happen from time to time is not sanctioning that we can live as we used to live. We are called to bear fruit.

Bearing fruit is not just a suggestion, it is actually demanded. That may be the difference between our views, where you think you have to show some buds, then after that any actual fruit is irrelevant since all you had to do is show that at any point you indicated an intention of bearing fruit.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Here.. let me address Legalism.

1. Do you eat shrimp, lobster, clams, scallops, or mollusks?
2. Do you wear blended clothing?
3. Do you cut the hair on your sideburns?

Things like you mentioned would be things that, if you based your righteousness on them, would make you a legalist.
I think you are making a smoke screen to hide your true opinion, that no code is applicable for salvation and is only based on ones desire.

reply to post by truejew


No, the Son manifested as Jesus. The Holy Spirit is basically the wind/breath of God. The Hebrew word is "Ruach" and means wind/ breath. And of course repentance is necessary for salvation, unless a person is born a believer.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Sure he was fully tempted. But being tempted isnt a sin, acting on that temptation is a sin.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Here.. let me address Legalism.

1. Do you eat shrimp, lobster, clams, scallops, or mollusks?
2. Do you wear blended clothing?
3. Do you cut the hair on your sideburns?

Things like you mentioned would be things that, if you based your righteousness on them, would make you a legalist.
I think you are making a smoke screen to hide your true opinion, that no code is applicable for salvation and is only based on ones desire.

No, you made a snide comment about tattoos so I was trying to see if you were either a Legalist or a follower of the Levitical law. Which is it? You can't pick and choose which Levitical laws you follow, if you wanna follow it you gotta follow the whole thing.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by truejew

 

That's how the game is played. Bury your answer amid a bunch of scripture and superficial details, then neatly dodge the next question and ask one of your own. The other guy mirrors the strategy and the whole process repeats.

No. Its not a game. This is a discussion not an interrogation. If another member refuses to answer my questions I pass. I'm not on trial.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You can't pick and choose which Levitical laws you follow, if you wanna follow it you gotta follow the whole thing.

It's just an assumption on your part to think I follow any Levitical laws.
Maybe you are thinking about Seventh Day Adventists where they follow some of the old dietary laws from the OT.
SDA's don't think those are to do with salvation just being smart, not eating things with may be unhealthy.
And there is no rules about haircuts as far as I know, so that part is way off and has only to do with Hasidic Jews.
All I am talking about is being godly in a general sense, including the Christian law to love others.
The "snideness" of my tattoo remark is in your imagination. You already said you were opting out of the Rapture so you could stay on earth, so I was guessing as to why you would do that, and I thought of your investment in tattoos as a possible reason, so you could keep them, rather than the adornment of a glorified body with Jesus.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Sure he was fully tempted. But being tempted isnt a sin, acting on that temptation is a sin.

I am very happy to see you have come over to the salvation by works alone side.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Sure he was fully tempted. But being tempted isnt a sin, acting on that temptation is a sin.

I am very happy to see you have come over to the salvation by works alone side.

No, I have not. We are saved by grace through faith. Im still in the sola fide camp.

Originally posted by truejew
borntowatch,

Why are you afraid of answering if repentance is necessary for salvation? Is pride the reason? Or are you afraid of what your friends and family will think? Shouldn't your soul be more important than both?

edit on 21-7-2012 by truejew because: (no reason given)

Of course repentance is necessary for salvation, the only way a person can be lead to salvation is if the Holy Spirit leads the individual in to repentance.
Your faith in the power of baptism is a faith in human works. Baptism did not die on the cross for humanity.
Your belief in works is religious and poisonous. it relies on our actions not Christs.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by borntowatch

Jews must keep the law...duh, Christians are covered by grace not the law.

Paul disagrees in the following Scriptures...

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Romans 2:28-29 KJV)

Romans 2-17 sets the verse you quoted up

17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God 18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; 19 and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law dishonour God by breaking the law. 24 For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”


Simply put it says any sin you commit under the law as a Jew will negate everything you have done that is righteous under the law. Humanity is evil and people can not save themselves.
You infer baptism saves, its a perversion as Christ alone saves. You preach a works doctrine same as Catholicism.
You are self focused not Christ focused, idol worship of your own works

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Sure he was fully tempted. But being tempted isnt a sin, acting on that temptation is a sin.

I am very happy to see you have come over to the salvation by works alone side.

What the heck is the "salvation by works alone" side? Judaism, I guess, though I'd be hard pressed to call that a "side".

reply to post by adjensen

What the heck is the "salvation by works alone" side? . . .

It's the opposite side from the Free Grace advocates.
"Works" is the idea that God wants the earth populated with good people.
"Free Grace" believes the state of the world is irrelevant, and all that matters is going to heaven, even if you are still bad.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

What the heck is the "salvation by works alone" side? . . .

It's the opposite side from the Free Grace advocates.
"Works" is the idea that God wants the earth populated with good people.
"Free Grace" believes the state of the world is irrelevant, and all that matters is going to heaven, even if you are still bad.

edit on 21-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

There is no such thing as "free grace". That's an oxymoron, its like saying "flame fire" or "liquid fluid".

reply to post by NOTurTypical

There is no such thing as "free grace".

I find it dishonist of you to persist in this flawed argument since I have pointed out to you before that "Free Grace" is a recognized philosophy.

Free Grace theology is a soteriological view within Protestantism teaching that everyone receives eternal life the moment they believe in Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and Lord.

Wikipedia

reply to post by jmdewey60


I have several books on systematic theology and not one uses the term "free grace". Grace is unmerited favor. It a person receives something they work or labor for it by default isn't grace. A synonym for grace would be gift or present.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

What the heck is the "salvation by works alone" side? . . .

It's the opposite side from the Free Grace advocates.
"Works" is the idea that God wants the earth populated with good people.
"Free Grace" believes the state of the world is irrelevant, and all that matters is going to heaven, even if you are still bad.

edit on 21-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

While I struggle, a bit, with the "going to heaven, even if you are still bad" part, because I think that there is a philosophical point in there that we can set aside for the moment, I don't think that there is much of a case to be made for a Christian "by works alone" doctrine. That was Judaism, which said that being Jewish, being circumcised, and correctly following the Law would save you. Jesus, and everyone who followed Jesus, flat out said that wasn't the case. The "Harrowing of Hell" was case in point of it -- none of the fathers of the faith, from Abraham on down, was in paradise, so how could one say that following the Law, as best as you could, was sufficient?

Sorry, JM, unless I'm missing something key, I don't see that as a reasonable standpoint (unless you're dismissing Christ from the picture.)

reply to post by adjensen

I don't think that there is much of a case to be made for a Christian "by works alone" doctrine.

Apparently you missed my thread, Salvation By Works Alone, Why "Free Grace" is a False Doctrine.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
The basis of my "doctrine" is the statement by Paul that it is the spirit that comes from God making you to do good works that raises you from the dead, so according to my logic, if you are not doing good works, your hypothetical "salvation" will do you no good since you will be dead.

ETA: even though it was only a little over four months ago that I started the thread I just linked to, I have changed my opinion on a lot of what I wrote in it. I still hold to the main theme though, as stated above in this post.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

No, the Son manifested as Jesus. The Holy Spirit is basically the wind/breath of God. The Hebrew word is "Ruach" and means wind/ breath.

So if the Spirit of Jesus is not the Holy Spirit, do you believe it's because His Spirit is not Holy, not Spirit, or both?

If the Father was not manifest as Jesus, how do you explain Him being called The everlasting Father in the following:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6-7 KJV)

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And of course repentance is necessary for salvation, unless a person is born a believer.

Peter said that repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Spirit were necessary for salvation. How are you able to pick one and deny the other two? If baptism is a work to earn salvation as you say and not an act of faith as I say, what makes repentance different?