Blood sacrifice, i.e. animal sacrifice

Originally posted by josephw
What a freakin' ignorant reply.

What does pedophilia have to do with animal cruelty?

It ain't about governments and it ain't about religion. It's about power. Power and money. And corrupt individuals.

What do you know. We agree on something, and I'm not about to let that pass by unnoticed.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]However Paul not only does not say that "salvation is lost by immorality", he doesn't mention "salvation" at all.

That is not true. I have given a plethora of quotes. Consider more:

Romans 2:6, 13, Who will render to each one according to his deeds. ... For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will b ...[text shortened]... writes about the dangers of immorality. The moral law is clearly not some optional add-on.[/b]

You've taken the text you quoted out of context. It is in reference to Col 3:5-6 specifically which does not speak of "salvation". I'd have thought that that would have been clear.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You've taken the text you quoted out of context. It is in reference to Col 3:5-6 specifically which does not speak of "salvation". I'd have thought that that would have been clear.

You've taken the text you quoted out of context.

---------------Tinkof One------------------------


Unbelievable!!!!!!!

🙄

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You've taken the text you quoted out of context. It is in reference to Col 3:5-6 specifically which does not speak of "salvation". I'd have thought that that would have been clear.

It doesn't have to mention salvation. All it has to show is that divine justice will be accorded to each individual principally on the good and bad they have done. That is enough to show he rejects cheap salvation. It is actually you who are ignoring context; context clearly indicates the soteriological significance of this passage.

Originally posted by Conrau K
It doesn't have to mention salvation. All it has to show is that divine justice will be accorded to each individual principally on the good and bad they have done. That is enough to show he rejects cheap salvation. It is actually you who are ignoring context; context clearly indicates the soteriological significance of this passage.

It is actually you who are ignoring context; context clearly indicates the soteriological significance of this passage.

Hmmm, seems like maybe you still don't understand that when I said, "You've taken the text you quoted out of context", I was referring to the following text in bold which was referring to the text immediately proceeding it (in italics).

You made the following claims of Col 3:5-6:
"I have shown that Paul sees the possibility of a believer losing salvation by immorality."
"Paul clearly says that salvation is lost by immorality."

However Paul not only does not say that "salvation is lost by immorality", he doesn't mention "salvation" at all.

Note that in the text in italics you speak of Col 3:5-6 speaking of a loss of salvation which is untrue.

It doesn't have to mention salvation. All it has to show is that divine justice will be accorded to each individual principally on the good and bad they have done. That is enough to show he rejects cheap salvation.

For your assertion that it "clearly says that salvation is lost by immorality" to be true, it does have to mention salvation.

There are many Christians who believe in "once saved always saved". They can easily dismiss Col. 3:5-6 on a couple of grounds.

Col. 3
5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. 6 For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience, 7 and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them. 8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, 10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him—

1) "The wrath of God" comes upon "sons of disobedience", but they are no longer "sons of disobedience", but rather "children of God" (or however they may identify themselves) so the "wrath" does not apply to them.

2) "The wrath of God" does not constitute a "loss of salvation". Many seem to believe that while their "salvation" is assured, there may be a period of punishment.

That is enough to show he rejects cheap salvation.

While Paul does exhort his audience try to live moral lives, nothing you have shown clearly shows that their "salvation" can be lost if they don't. Your continued insistence that it does, does not make it so. If you do have something, then just show it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]It is actually you who are ignoring context; context clearly indicates the soteriological significance of this passage.

Hmmm, seems like maybe you still don't understand that when I said, "You've taken the text you quoted out of context", I was referring to the following text in bold which was referring to the text immediately proceeding it (in ...[text shortened]... ot make it so. If you do have something, then just show it.[/b]

Simple question: Do you argue that Paul believes that a man can be saved and yet have all the vices, commit a number of horrible sins and even renounce their faith?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Simple question: Do you argue that Paul believes that a man can be saved and yet have all the vices, commit a number of horrible sins and even renounce their faith?

Earlier I said something to the effect that Paul's teachings shows a lack of clarity of thought and a lack of clarity of presentation. He strikes me the same as a politician talking out both sides of his mouth or a carnival barker saying whatever he feels is necessary to "fill the tent". But whatever one makes of that morass of ambiguity, it doesn't seem possible that Paul was trying to make the following case:

The absolute minimum requirement for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" as taught by Jesus: One must become righteous, i.e., one must become one with God, one must follow the will of God, one cannot continue to commit sin, etc.

This is what I argue. Anything less than this is "cheap salvation".

Are you going to address my previous post?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Earlier I said something to the effect that Paul's teachings shows a lack of clarity of thought and a lack of clarity of presentation. He strikes me the same as a politician talking out both sides of his mouth or a carnival barker saying whatever he feels is necessary to "fill the tent". But whatever one makes of that morass of ambiguity, it doesn't seem ...[text shortened]... less than this is "cheap salvation".

Are you going to address my previous post?

This is what I argue.

----ToOne----------------

Yes . We know that.

The problem is that you present "what you argue" as indisputable fact , thus making everything else you say circular.

It's basically "I'm right because I'm right".

You use your own argument to back yourself up and have even started quoting your own statements as if they are somehow indisputable.