01 Apr 06
Originally posted by telerionRebuking does little toward stopping some of RB's obstinance. I think it would be disingenuous for anyone to always side with others simply based on underlying loyalties. If I am off on a point of doctrine, I would expect another well-versed Christian to call me on the carpet for the same.
You know it's really shameful that one of Arby Hill's more intelligent brothers/sisters didn't show the maturity to rebuke him.
I realize frogstomp is a believer of sorts, but certainly not one that Arby Hill respects. You guys continually claim on here to have morally superior belief system, but then you share a little laugh as your brother stumbles. ...[text shortened]... ee that atheists are fools, you should recognize that this is no way a xian should behave.
Despite gentle admonishments, RB consistently barks out street-corner condemnations to a crowd more receptive to conversational discourse, and it is unlikely this is apt to change in the immediate future. That's his style, apparently.
However, while delivery may not be his speciality, RB is correct on a few things. I John 1:9 promises the believer that if he confesses his sin, God is faithful and just to forgive that sin and to cleanse the believer from all unrighteousness. Throughout Scripture, there are no restrictions on that grace.
01 Apr 06
Originally posted by NordlysYou're quite right. The same is true for swedish. Giftermål or äktenskap are the proper translations for marriage in swedish. Your great insight into the linguistic matters of things are, as always, both useful and inspiring.
In Norwegian, it can mean "married".
Would you marry me? 😀 I think we could be great poison for each other. 😉
01 Apr 06
3 edits
Originally posted by stockenI wouldn't want to poison a cute green baby. 😉
You're quite right. The same is true for swedish. Giftermål or äktenskap are the proper translations for marriage in swedish. Your great insight into the linguistic matters of things are, as always, both useful and inspiring.
Would you marry me? 😀 I think we could be great poison for each other. 😉
Edit: "Giftermål" is the same in Norwegian, "äktenskap" is "ekteskap", which means "genuine cupboard". 😉
01 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by NordlysAs usual, you're right. Not only would your poison make this beautiful green skin pale, but I just realised you might be the death of me. You see, I can't breath very well in blue water. Then I'd have to be gone for another 2000 years, before I can return as a blue whale to marry you. And then what? All blue whales are extinct (as is mankind) and I would look positively stupid circling around that last underwater powerplant that men built in 2145, just five years before they were all extinct due to a comet they'd known about for years but didn't care to worry about because it was unlikely it would hit earth. In fact, it was so unlikely, that despite it happened, it really didn't (in the memorable words of Tage Danielsson - one of the great comedians of sweden whom has now, unfortunately, past away).
I wouldn't want to poison a cute green baby. 😉
Edit: "Giftermål" is the same in Norwegian, "äktenskap" is "ekteskap", which means "genuine cupboard". 😉
Genuine cupboard? That would be äkta sval in swedish.
[Edit: Can't believe I misspelled extinct twice. And you not commenting on it. Too much underwater pressure, perhaps?]
01 Apr 06
Originally posted by stockenOr you (or rather our marriage) might be the death of me. Faith whales don't thrive in genuine cupboards, they are too small and dry for us.
As usual, you're right. Not only would your poison make this beautiful green skin pale, but I just realised you might be the death of me.
01 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat you say is true.
Rebuking does little toward stopping some of RB's obstinance. I think it would be disingenuous for anyone to always side with others simply based on underlying loyalties. If I am off on a point of doctrine, I would expect another well-versed Christian to call me on the carpet for the same.
Despite gentle admonishments, RB consistently barks out street ...[text shortened]... ever from all unrighteousness. Throughout Scripture, there are no restrictions on that grace.
Surely though, Arby Hill's attitude (here now and elsewhere in the past) that he can sin as he pleases and bank on Christ's forgiveness after the fact, all the while showing not a hint of remorse, deserves some stern warning.
In my discussions with evangelicals, when I bring up this loophole (get saved, sin with impunity), they generally respond that such behavior brings the salvation of the person into serious question. It's not a matter of whether you can lose your salvation, but whether you were ever saved at all.
Now I don't buy that sort of argument, but it is interesting to see that it is never brought up in Arby Hill's case.
01 Apr 06
Originally posted by telerionI.e. anyone who is saved is incapable of such behaviour? And people who behave that way must have been insincere (possibly deceiving themselves) about ever having accepted Jesus Christ as their saviour? That seems to contradict the certainty evangelicals (maybe not all of them?) seem to have about being saved. How can they know they didn't deceive themselves?
In my discussions with evangelicals, when I bring up this loophole (get saved, sin with impunity), they generally respond that such behavior brings the salvation of the person into serious question. It's not a matter of whether you can lose your salvation, but whether you were ever saved at all.
This argument reminds me a bit of an argument sometimes used in medicine which goes like this: "There's no cure for X. Proof: Nobody who had X has ever been cured. There have been some cases in which people who were diagnosed with X were cured, but since we know X is incurable, they have clearly been misdiagnosed."
01 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is plain wrong. 1 John 1:6-7 states: "6If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7But 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[b/] sin."
Rebuking does little toward stopping some of RB's obstinance. I think it would be disingenuous for anyone to always side with others simply based on underlying loyalties. If I am off on a point of doctrine, I would expect another well-versed Christian to call me on the carpet for the same.
Despite gentle admonishments, RB consistently barks out street ever from all unrighteousness. Throughout Scripture, there are no restrictions on that grace.
Jesus constantly speaks about what men should do, not merely what they should believe. The idea that one can do whatever one desires but that God will simply forgive it if you are "saved" is certainly contrary to the Gospels. James is also another chapter which refutes the "pure grace" doctrine (which is probably why Martin Luther wanted it booted out of the Bible). RB and other evangelicals by extremly selective parsing of Scripture have concoted a doctrine which allows them to conduct themselves in a totally amoral way by normal Christian standards. And while numbers are no proof of what is true, this type of amoral Christianity is rejected by the vast majority of Christians in the world. that's fine with RB; it is a necessity for him to believe that he's part of a select group that will receive God's blessing while everyone else is severely punished.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderGood post.
This is plain wrong. 1 John 1:6-7 states: "6If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7But 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[b/] sin."
Jesus constantly speaks about what men shoul ...[text shortened]... select group that will receive God's blessing while everyone else is severely punished.
While I would never deny that a superficial (not intended as an insult, merely as a description of exegesis) reading of many passages can yield certain stances, until Scripture is viewed in its entirety, stopping at any point along the way invariably falls short of the full intended meaning.
Biblical salvation is a non-meritorious proposition, meaning man can do nothing whatsoever to gain salvation with respect to work, effort or achievement. As such, the only way to gain salvation is to accept the work accomplished by Jesus Christ on the cross as though it were one's own. This is what is meant when the Bible says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved."
Some would take this 'believe' to mean the same thing as 'believing' in Santa Claus, or etc. Instead, this belief is an acceptance of His work on my behalf, trusting in His work instead of my own.
As man can do nothing to gain salvation, he can do nothing to lose salvation, either. There is no such thing as a scot-free life for the Christian. Justice is our point of contact with God, and we will either adjust to God's justice in blessing, or His justice will adjust to us in discipline.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by telerionSince I'm Catholic, I guess I'm worse off than a fool in RBH's eyes. Which makes any fraternal correction from me pretty much pointless...
You know it's really shameful that one of Arby Hill's more intelligent brothers/sisters didn't show the maturity to rebuke him.
I realize frogstomp is a believer of sorts, but certainly not one that Arby Hill respects. You guys continually claim on here to have morally superior belief system, but then you share a little laugh as your brother stumbles. ...[text shortened]... ee that atheists are fools, you should recognize that this is no way a xian should behave.