a former Evangelical "born again" explains why Protestantism isn't true

page: 18
5
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew
 


Okay, we can add "omniscience" to the list of words that you don't understand the definition of.


I know what omniscience is.

You should really take my previous advice.




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew
 


Okay, we can add "omniscience" to the list of words that you don't understand the definition of.


I know what omniscience is.


Yeah, apparently not:


Jesus is His correct name, you have not provided evidence otherwise. It does not need to be pronounced perfectly, just close enough that God knows that you are calling on Him.

According to you there, the only way that God knows that you are calling on him is if you say his name correctly. YOU are the cause of God's knowledge, according to you. That is not omniscience, it is, in fact, the very opposite of omniscience -- God doesn't know something until you act, and act properly.

More magic spells and incantations, along with a denial of God's omniscience.

I don't know why you keep trying to argue complex issues when you can't even get the basics right.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


You seem to have an incorrect view of what omniscience is. God already knows if a person will call on His name. That does not mean that the person no longer has to call on His name like you seem to think.

I am going to ask you to be more respectful and honest in your posts to me. If you continue to be dishonest, I will have to stop responding.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen
 


You seem to have an incorrect view of what omniscience is. God already knows if a person will call on His name. That does not mean that the person no longer has to call on His name like you seem to think.

Either you're trying to wiggle out of your misstatement, or you don't know what you're talking about, because what you said has nothing to do with his name. You said that he would only know that you were "calling on him" if you used his proper name. Meaning that he would ignore you if you called on him by yelling "hey you" or not saying anything at all because he wouldn't know that you were calling on him.

The issue regarding omniscience has nothing to do with what his name is, it's whether God knows that you want to speak to him because you do (my position) or because you've said something specific (your position) and the latter is not something that is possible if God is omniscient.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


He would know if a person is calling on Him by what name they call.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 



He would know if a person is calling on Him by what name they call.



You clearly don't understand omniscience, and you have a bizarre concept of God...

 

The scene: you're driving across a bridge when your car blows a tire, you lose control and plummet into the ocean.

You (as you're sinking): Oh God, help me! *gurgle* *gurgle* Please Lord Je... *gurgle*
God: Hmmm... thought I heard something for a minute there. (Shrugs shoulders and goes back to playing solitaire.)

 

Do I remember correctly? You're a pastor? You actually teach other people this stuff?



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I know what omniscience is very well. It is knowing all, not controlling all as you seem to think.

Your little "scene" and accusations shows that you have no understanding of what we teach.

In your "scene", God would know what name was going to be called upon.
edit on 26-2-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen
 


I know what omniscience is very well. It is knowing all, not controlling all as you seem to think.

Yes, you're still not getting it.

You're saying that God wouldn't know that you needed him, unless you use the right words. NOT that he'd ignore you for using the wrong words, or condemn you, or whatever, but that he wouldn't know. Your "magic words" are that which triggers God's knowledge, not that which triggers God's action.

That isn't omniscience, it's the opposite of it. God is not a puppy, who comes when called by name... an omniscient God knows you need him, whether you use the proper words or not.

You ignored my previous question -- are you really a pastor? Do you have people who look to you for insight into their salvation?



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   
You are saying that I teach something that I do not teach again. God knows all. If someone calls on the name of another god, they are calling on another god. If someone calls on satan, God is not likely going to do anything, unless He knows that the person will be important to His future plans.

Acts 22:16 (KJV)
16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

It says calling on the name of the Lord, not calling on the name of any god you want.
edit on 26-2-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

You are saying that I teach something that I do not teach again. God knows all. If someone calls on the name of another god, they are calling on another god.

I never said anything about another god, or Satan, or anything, apart from disputing your clear statement that if you don't use God's name, he won't know that you want him. Are you retracting that statement?

edit on 26-2-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

I never said anything about another god, or Satan, or anything,


The names you are arguing for are names of other gods.


Originally posted by adjensen

apart from disputing your clear statement that if you don't use God's name, he won't know that you want him. Are you retracting that statement?


You are either misunderstanding what I have said or twisting it on purpose.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

I never said anything about another god, or Satan, or anything,


The names you are arguing for are names of other gods.

I never said anything about any name, I specifically said "no name" or "hey you". How are either of those a name?




apart from disputing your clear statement that if you don't use God's name, he won't know that you want him. Are you retracting that statement?


You are either misunderstanding what I have said or twisting it on purpose.

Nothing is being misunderstood or twisted -- you said this, exactly:


It does not need to be pronounced perfectly, just close enough that God knows that you are calling on Him.

Stop acting like you don't understand what I'm quoting you as saying -- that statement there says "if you don't use God's name, he won't know that you want him", and that refutes God's omniscience. Either retract it, or admit that you don't think that God is omniscient and won't know that you need him unless you use the proper words.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

I never said anything about any name, I specifically said "no name" or "hey you". How are either of those a name?


You said "yeshua".


Originally posted by adjensen

Nothing is being misunderstood or twisted -- you said this, exactly:


Yes, it is. I never said that God would not have knowledge of what name you call upon before you call it.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Well, we don't seem to be getting anywhere, so what say I just cut out the evasive middleman (TrueJew) and cut to the chase -- the fundamental problem of this belief. I suspect that Reckart came up with this so that he'd have something to "lord over" the UPCI, particularly its leader David K. Bernard, whom Reckart seems to have a specific dislike for (I ran across a post by Reckart the other day, condemning Bernard to hell, how Christian of him, lol.)

Anyway, what you've claimed is that the real name of God is the English "Jesus", pronounced "gee-zus", and this name must be used in all prayers (or else God won't know that you're calling on him) and rites (or else it's an invalid rite.) This is, I suppose, to counter the UPCI's statement that

In other words, Jesus is the Lord Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, manifested in flesh to be our Savior. (Source)

as well as their baptism of people "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ", which Reckart associates with Trinitarianism (because it's three words, I guess, I can't see any other reason to come to that conclusion.)

So, out of a need to show the UPCI that Reckart is right, and they are wrong (sending the whole lot of them to hell, along with heathens and Trinitarians,) it must be demonstrated that "gee-zus" is God's only name, and if you refer to him by any other means, you're out of luck. But is this Biblical?

I'm going to make three assertions that logically prove it is not. You are welcome to refute them, but not by making vague statements like "we teach what the Apostles taught" (because they never would have taught what these assertions evidence that you teach) or "stop making false statements about us" -- you disprove these statements with theology, not vague emotional claims, or you're just admitting that you do not worship the God of the Bible.

First assertion -- Your claim that if one does not "call on the name of God, pronounced correctly", God will not know that you are calling on him refutes God's omniscience.

Proof:

O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether. (Psalm 139:1-4 KJV)

If your claim is correct, you do not worship the God of the Bible.

Second assertion -- Your claim that if one does not use proper words, God will ignore your request, refutes God's love and compassion

Proof:
The Bible is filled with passages of God's love for us, his compassion, and his desire to be in communion with his children. Because God knows what is in our hearts (Proof #1) he knows that a person is sincere in their calling to him, regardless of whether they know his "real name" or not. Your assertion is that God knows you, knows your sincerity, but intentionally ignores you, because you used the wrong word.

If your claim is correct, you worship a petty tyrant of a god, not the God of the Bible.

Third assertion -- Your claim that, if one uses the wrong name, a baptism won't "work" because it's done in the name of another god, assumes salvation by works, refutes God's omniscience, as well as his love and compassion.

Proof:

Bronisław Malinowski, in Coral Gardens and their Magic (1935), suggests that this belief is an extension of man's basic use of language to describe his surroundings, in which "the knowledge of the right words, appropriate phrases and the more highly developed forms of speech, gives man a power over and above his own limited field of personal action."Magical speech is therefore a ritual act and is of equal or even greater importance to the performance of magic than non-verbal acts. (Source)

This belief of yours is both non-Biblical and consistent with teachings that are condemned by the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. God knows our intentions in baptism, marriage and all other acts, he doesn't need a specific performance to accept what is done in faith.

If your claim is correct, you worship a god of magic spells and incantations, not the God of the Bible.

 

And that, as they say, is that. If you have any wisdom or independence of thought left in you, you will think long and hard about what Reckart is teaching, and whether it is consistent with the Bible or not. Because those three assertions and proofs blow his theology out of the water, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Trinitarianism.

Though you refused to answer my direct question, my memory is that you have claimed to be a pastor. In that, recall James 3:1 -- you will be held accountable for those you have been given charge of, and if you are teaching them to worship a god other than the God of the Bible, that will be on your head.
edit on 27-2-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I am not Pastor Reckart and he is not here to discuss with you. If you want to attack him be a man and contact him.

I have not claimed to be a pastor. That is just another case of you taking what I say and twisting or adding to it. Just like you do with Scripture.
edit on 27-2-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen
 


I am not Pastor Reckart and he is not here to discuss with you. If you want to attack him be a man and contact him.

Hey, he knows where to find me -- he's welcome to join ATS and defend his claims.

I didn't think that you'd be able to refute those assertions, and I doubt that he can either.


I have not claimed to be a pastor. That is just another case of you taking what I say and twisting or adding to it.

... and it's funny that I asked you several times directly if that was the case, and you ignored it until now.

Still, the point stands -- you've claimed that you teach this stuff to others, so if you're wrong (and it's pretty clear that you're wrong,) then you're intentionally leading other people away from God.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

reply to post by adjensen
 


I didn't think that you'd be able to refute those assertions, and I doubt that he can either.


I can, but why should I? All you do is attack, twist, and add to my words. You do the same to the word of God. Your posts have long shown that you have no desire for truth and may be under control of a demon. The fruit of the Spirit is something that you do not have.


Originally posted by adjensen

... and it's funny that I asked you several times directly if that was the case, and you ignored it until now.


I wasn't expecting the Spanish inquisition.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

reply to post by adjensen
 


I didn't think that you'd be able to refute those assertions, and I doubt that he can either.


I can, but why should I?

No, you can't. Based on your claims, and the claims of Reckart, those three assertions are solid. This whole discussion has been you making vague statements that have absolutely nothing to do with the theology involved -- I've come to the conclusion that you're incapable of mounting a reasonable defense, and apparently Reckart's too busy whiling away the hours on Facebook to do it, either.



... and it's funny that I asked you several times directly if that was the case, and you ignored it until now.


I wasn't expecting the Spanish inquisition.







posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Again, why should I? So you can twist and add to my words?



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen
 


Again, why should I? So you can twist and add to my words?

You shouldn't. Given that, once we drilled down to the specifics of the ramifications of what your theology truly implies, all you ever responded with were vague evasions, I think it's fairly evident that you can't, so you shouldn't even try.

Or, optionally, I can get you "Fighter" status, and we can debate those assertions in a structured ATS debate, and allow the Debate Forum judges to decide whether I'm "twisting" anything, or if those assertions stand.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join