Hear the Gospel

Originally posted by whodey
So even though John in Revelation decribed the second death following the resurrection of the unrighteous as "torment" you give no credence for such teachings? Do you find Revelation to be heretical to your theology?

You need to be wary in interpreting & quoting visions and dreams. Pick any chapter at random in Revelation and tell me if you can take everything the chapter says literally. If not how cant you tell which parts are literal and which are figurative. Ok I clicked randomly on any ole chapter in Rev and came up with chapter 7. It starts off with 4 angels, 4 corners and 4 winds. Are those literal? Are there 4 corners in the earth and 4 winds? If it means something else. What is it? If you cant tell me, then you cannot claim to understand Revelation.

Originally posted by whodey
So even though John in Revelation decribed the second death following the resurrection of the unrighteous as "torment" you give no credence for such teachings? Do you find Revelation to be heretical to your theology?

ok, before we start lobbing around spiritual mortars in the shape of calling others heretic, perhaps one can explain the original Greek word used in the book of revelation and translated as torment. there that is a start and some homework for being bad, anymore and we shall be forced to give you detention in the form of additional exercises!

Originally posted by epiphinehas
You display a remarkable lack of biblical understanding for one who claims to be so well-versed. That your views are so obviously heretical explains a great deal about your behavior, frankly.

Indeed the wages of sin are death. If you were worth your salt at Bible exegesis, then you might have understood that this verse (Rom. 6:23) refers to both a p ife in order to be judged.

What in the Bible aren't you willing to disregard?

It's truly remarkable how often you take verses out of context to further your ends and completely ignore the meaning of the passage. Take the passage that contains Matthew 25:46. Jesus clearly and explicitly states that it is the RIGHTEOUS that have eternal life.

Open your eyes so that you can see.

Matthew 25:31-46
"But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.
34 Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' 40 "The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'
41 "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.' 44 "Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?' 45 "Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' 46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

There is no assurance of salvation unless one becomes RIGHTEOUS. Only the righteous have life. Righteousness IS life.

You display a remarkable lack of understanding of the teachings of Jesus for one who claims to be so well-versed.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
It's truly remarkable how often you take verses out of context to further your ends and completely ignore the meaning of the passage. Take the passage that contains Matthew 25:46. Jesus clearly and explicitly states that it is the RIGHTEOUS that have eternal life.

Open your eyes so that you can see.

Matthew 25:31-46
"But when the Son of Man comes i ...[text shortened]... erstanding of the teachings of Jesus for one who claims to be so well-versed.

There is no assurance of salvation unless one becomes RIGHTEOUS. Only the righteous have life. Righteousness IS life.
---------ToO------------------------------------------------------

Agreed. But whose righteousness? Are we to be righteous in our own right or be clothed in His righteousness (as St Paul describes)? I know which I would rather have.

If a person has Jesus living within them and they have handed their life over to Him in faith then they have His righteousness via faith (eg the thief on the cross). It is only the Spirit of God himself that is truely righteous (all other "righteousness" is as rags to God). If the Spirit is received via faith then assurance is possible even if that person is not yet perfected . Why? Because they have God's righteousness within them. This is what it mans to be "justified by faith" . One can only become righteous via the aid of the Spirit and that requires receiving the Spirit via faith.

Do you know of any righteousness outside of the Spirit of God?

Originally posted by knightmeister
There is no assurance of salvation unless one becomes RIGHTEOUS. Only the righteous have life. Righteousness IS life.
---------ToO------------------------------------------------------

Agreed. But whose righteousness? Are we to be righteous in our own right or be clothed in His righteousness (as St Paul describes)? I know which I would rather have ...[text shortened]... ng the Spirit via faith.

Do you know of any righteousness outside of the Spirit of God?

Surely there is righteousness outside the spirit of your "God" -but never mind, theology has killed long ago the common sens

Originally posted by black beetle
Surely there is righteousness outside the spirit of your "God" -but never mind, theology has killed long ago the common sens

hi beetle, its an incredibly interesting question, if my understanding of righteousness is correct, in that it means to do what is morally correct, then the answer must be yes, based on scripture. please note beetle dude this is not in anyway an attempt to preach at you, i can see from other posts that you have had quite enough of that already, but simply to provide a reference which illustrates the point that you make.

romans 2:14, 'For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves'.

its this phrase here beetle, ' do by nature the things of the law, which shows that 'the people of the nations', i.e non jews and by extension non Christians have quite clearly the ability to determine for themselves standards of conduct, in other words there exists according to the verse a universal conscience, regardless of religious creed, race, denomination etc etc. (i think this was established at the Nuremberg trials when the Nazis were trying to claim that they were just following orders, but it was proven that their 'universal conscience and human morality should have over ridden these orders especially in the case of perpetrated atrocities). thus when we see injustice, regardless of our religious stance or otherwise we are incensed, this natural law ( i would argue placed in everyone by god, you don't need to agree or accept this, i understand) comes into play and we demonstrate the argument that Paul was making, that although we may be unaware of standards of morality from a religious source or otherwise, we exhibit these standards when we exercise our conscience naturaly. does this make any sense? sometimes the trail of thought gets lost in my mind like an ascending smoke ring and dissipates into nothingness! 😀

p.s. yes indoctrination really kills the ability to reason!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hi beetle, its an incredibly interesting question, if my understanding of righteousness is correct, in that it means to do what is morally correct, then the answer must be yes, based on scripture. please note beetle dude this is not in anyway an attempt to preach at you, i can see from other posts that you have had quite enough of that already, but ...[text shortened]... ates into nothingness! 😀

p.s. yes indoctrination really kills the ability to reason!

Good Post. So all people have a conscience and know good from evil. So what do you think of the claim made by Epiphinehas and his cronies that nobody is capable of doing any good works except Christians and that all works are 'filthy rags' except what THEY alone do. So its like this:

1 Jan 2008 - a man feeds and clothes 10 homeless people on his street. (Not Good works becuase he is not a born again Christian)

3 Jan 2008, the man becomes a born again Christian.

5 Jan 2008. - the man feeds and clothes 10 homeless people on his street. (NOW Good works becuase he is a born again Christian).

They have verses from Paul (not Christ) to back up this heretical theory.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hi beetle, its an incredibly interesting question, if my understanding of righteousness is correct, in that it means to do what is morally correct, then the answer must be yes, based on scripture. please note beetle dude this is not in anyway an attempt to preach at you, i can see from other posts that you have had quite enough of that already, but ...[text shortened]... ates into nothingness! 😀

p.s. yes indoctrination really kills the ability to reason!

I hear the pibroch wailing amidst the din of fight, and my dim spirit wakes again upon the verge of night.
So we agree over here ye leggedy beastie and fetisch of them lassies, both philosophy and common sens they proove that a Human can be righteous without being "truly born by God" Christian. I am very glad to hear that there is a specific Christian note regarding this matter. Weel are ye wordy of a grace as lang’s my arm


😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I hear the pibroch wailing amidst the din of fight, and my dim spirit wakes again upon the verge of night.
So we agree over here ye leggedy beastie and fetisch of them lassies, both philosophy and common sens they proove that a Human can be righteous without being "truly born by God" Christian. I am very glad to hear that there is a specific Christian note regarding this matter. Weel are ye wordy of a grace as lang’s my arm


😵

ah beetle, the days of Scotlands glory are in the past my friend, we were bought and sold for English gold, such a parcel of rouges in a nation! once we could disdain the steel of English swords, safe in valours glory, but alas tis no more, sic a parcel of rouges in a nation.

Originally posted by black beetle
Surely there is righteousness outside the spirit of your "God" -but never mind, theology has killed long ago the common sens

No there is no righteousness outside of the Spirit of God. If an atheist is moved by compassion to feed the poor the Spirit of God is involved somewhere. The whole point of becoming a Christian is that you realise that God was there doing stuff in your life all along you just didn't realise it.

The idea that love, compassion etc can exist without God's spirit is just a perception. We had this debate a while ago and although you may not agree , do at least try to understand this position.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Good Post. So all people have a conscience and know good from evil. So what do you think of the claim made by Epiphinehas and his cronies that nobody is capable of doing any good works except Christians and that all works are 'filthy rags' except what THEY alone do. So its like this:

1 Jan 2008 - a man feeds and clothes 10 homeless people on his street. ...[text shortened]... again Christian).

They have verses from Paul (not Christ) to back up this heretical theory.

1 Jan 2008 - a man feeds and clothes 10 homeless people on his street. (Not Good works becuase he is not a born again Christian)

3 Jan 2008, the man becomes a born again Christian.

5 Jan 2008. - the man feeds and clothes 10 homeless people on his street. (NOW Good works becuase he is a born again Christian).
-------------------------Rajk------------------------

CORRECTION

1 Jan 2008 - a man feeds and clothes 10 homeless people on his street. (= Good works done via the power of the Holy Spirit acting on his conscience but not recognised as such)

3 Jan 2008, the man becomes a born again Christian.

5 Jan 2008. - the man feeds and clothes 10 homeless people on his street. (= also good works but this time the man recognises where the real credit lies and his eyes are open to it - he does not think that his works will save him because he knows that he is only acting as a vessel for a higher power , his recognition leads him to humility and stops him from becoming self righteous thus making more good works even more likely)

6 Jan 2008 - the man is now able to have his heart fixed on love because he has been saved and he does not perform good works IN ORDER TO BE SAVED but BECAUSE he is saved. His good works are no longer selfish but self giving because he is not performing good works in order to GAIN salvation.

Originally posted by knightmeister
1 Jan 2008 - a man feeds and clothes 10 homeless people on his street. (Not Good works becuase he is not a born again Christian)

3 Jan 2008, the man becomes a born again Christian.

5 Jan 2008. - the man feeds and clothes 10 homeless people on his street. (NOW Good works becuase he is a born again Christian).
-------------------------Rajk----- ...[text shortened]... nger selfish but self giving because he is not performing good works in order to GAIN salvation.

i am sorry, we have clearly demonstrated that every man women and child has the ability to display god given qualities, inherited from birth, regardless of whether they are an atheist, a born again Christan, (whatever that means), or anything else, whats more we have scriptural references for our claims, genesis chapter 1:27,' And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them', every human being that has ever lived as the scripture states was created 'in gods image', in other words, with godly qualities, some may suppress these qualities, even deny that they exist, but they are there and either latent or exercised as in the case of kind acts, you cannot say that, or i would be surprised to find references to the fact that holy spirit was involved, furthermore, there is no occurrence of the apostles having been given a 'christian baptism', in that they were born from water and spirit, prerequisites as the christ states to being born again, is it not?

Originally posted by knightmeister
1 Jan 2008 - a man feeds and clothes 10 homeless people on his street. (Not Good works becuase he is not a born again Christian)

3 Jan 2008, the man becomes a born again Christian.

5 Jan 2008. - the man feeds and clothes 10 homeless people on his street. (NOW Good works becuase he is a born again Christian).
-------------------------Rajk----- ...[text shortened]... nger selfish but self giving because he is not performing good works in order to GAIN salvation.

Rubbish

Originally posted by knightmeister
No there is no righteousness outside of the Spirit of God. If an atheist is moved by compassion to feed the poor the Spirit of God is involved somewhere. The whole point of becoming a Christian is that you realise that God was there doing stuff in your life all along you just didn't realise it.

The idea that love, compassion etc can exist without G ...[text shortened]... bate a while ago and although you may not agree , do at least try to understand this position.

!!!
Over that debate your thesis, along with the slightly different epi's opinion, was clear to me. However it was quite out of the blue, and the questions posen by Wule and myself remained unanswered.

The fact that I understand fine our opinion (it is not that difficult afterall), which surely you are free to express it, it means not that your opinion is right and accurate. It solely means that it is right and accurate according to your personal theology of your personal denomination, which BTW is as rejected by the common sense the same way as when somebody else, ie an Hindu or a Muslim, were expressing strongly the belief that only a "truly born by Krishna/ Allah" Hinduist/ Muslim can be a man of righeousness.

Do you really expect to bring the people together with such -at least discriminative- beliefs? Is this your interpretation of the concept of the consensus?
🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ah beetle, the days of Scotlands glory are in the past my friend, we were bought and sold for English gold, such a parcel of rouges in a nation! once we could disdain the steel of English swords, safe in valours glory, but alas tis no more, sic a parcel of rouges in a nation.

Then, robbie, thers a han, my trustee feer! An gees a han o thyn!
And we’ll tak a right gude-willie-waught, fir ald lang syn

😵