26 May 14
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwYou are referring to the salvation you have now by your faith in Christ. However, I believe Rajk999 is referring to the salvation of our natural bodies to incorruptible bodies that we will receive at our resurrection by Christ. I believe it is your faith in Christ that must endure to the end, not you personally that must endure to the end.
I know that's what you believe.
The kind of salvation I'm talking about is a present possession. I have eternal life right now. I don't have to "endure to the end" to have it.
The salvation you believe in is from that body of doctrine designed for those under the law. You are misapplying the Word.
26 May 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FMF"Permanent Members of Christ's Royal Family"
Still dodging.
Original post by Standard member FMF, 23 May '14 01:37
"Christ's Royal Family" is too significant and reverential a doctrinal truth to be trivialized and fingered to death by anyone. You're a family member who will be sharing God's perfect happiness in heaven for eternity or a stranger, by choice, destined to be separated from Him for eternity. Continue the subjective bastardization of this truth at your own risk. Count me out.
26 May 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyHow do you explain away the conflicting statements ~ pretty much diametrically opposite in meaning ~ that you have made to me about what you claim will be my fate as an "unbeliever"?
"Permanent Members of Christ's Royal [b]Family"
Original post by Standard member FMF, 23 May '14 01:37
"Christ's Royal Family" is too significant and reverential a doctrinal truth to be trivialized and fingered to death by anyone. You're a family member who will be sharing God's perfect happiness in heaven for eternity [i]or a stranger[/i ...[text shortened]... r eternity. Continue the subjective bastardization of this truth at your own risk. Count me out.[/b]
You've told me [1] I will burn in tortuous fires for eternity for being an "unbeliever".
And you've told me [2] I am "saved" ~ despite being an "unbeliever" ~ and I cannot "undo" my "salvation" on account of the fact that I believed in Christ "for a moment in time".
How do you explain this contradiction?
I put it to you that you are deliberately dodging this point blank question because you know full well that you have contradicted yourself.
26 May 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyRemember that you are not responsible for FMF's faith and belief. Christ will save by grace whosoever believes and puts their faith and trust in Him and will resurrect that one to everlasting life.
"Permanent Members of Christ's Royal [b]Family"
Original post by Standard member FMF, 23 May '14 01:37
"Christ's Royal Family" is too significant and reverential a doctrinal truth to be trivialized and fingered to death by anyone. You're a family member who will be sharing God's perfect happiness in heaven for eternity [i]or a stranger[/i ...[text shortened]... r eternity. Continue the subjective bastardization of this truth at your own risk. Count me out.[/b]
FMF has chosen at present to be an unbeliever and NOT to put his faith and trust in Christ for salvation. It doesn't matter what we believe about the fate of FMF. It is FMF that must do the believing and Christ that determines who the believers and the unbelievers are.
26 May 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI agree with you. It certainly does not matter to me. But it clearly matters to Grampy Bobby. He has been so eager to pontificate about my fate that he has has made contradictory claims about it. And he has been squirming ever since I called him on it. I find it all quite interesting. It's also interesting that you have finally chosen to address him directly about the difference between your ideology and his.
It doesn't matter what we believe about the fate of FMF.
The whole thread would have been a bit more interesting if more of the Christians ~ who clearly subscribe to totally different doctrines ~ had addressed one another directly rather than addressing each other through me and sprinkling red herrings everywhere about my Christian faith in the past.
26 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsCorrect.
You are referring to the salvation you have now by your faith in Christ. However, I believe Rajk999 is referring to the salvation of our natural bodies to incorruptible bodies that we will receive at our resurrection by Christ. I believe it is your faith in Christ that must endure to the end, not you personally that must endure to the end.
26 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsThanks, Ron.
Remember that you are not responsible for FMF's faith and belief. Christ will save by grace whosoever believes and puts their faith and trust in Him and will resurrect that one to everlasting life.
FMF has chosen at present to be an unbeliever and NOT to put his faith and trust in Christ for salvation. It doesn't matter what we believe about the fate of ...[text shortened]... that must do the believing and Christ that determines who the believers and the unbelievers are.
26 May 14
Originally posted by FMFGB probably cannot believe that he spent his whole life without noticing that contradiction. So he can't bring himself to make that admission publicly.
How do you explain away the conflicting statements ~ pretty much diametrically opposite in meaning ~ that you have made to me about what you claim will be my fate as an "unbeliever"?
You've told me [1] I will burn in tortuous fires for eternity for being an "unbeliever".
And you've told me [2] I am "saved" ~ despite being an "unbeliever" ~ and I cannot "u ...[text shortened]... odging this point blank question because you know full well that you have contradicted yourself.
26 May 14
Originally posted by Rajk999He uses a bag of passive aggressive attention-seeking tricks to cover up the contradictions in his ideology and to disguise the fact that he has proven himself to be incapable of arguing his corner properly. I know of no other regular poster here who wears his apparent fear of being 'found out' so squarely on his sleeve.
GB probably cannot believe that he spent his whole life without noticing that contradiction. So he can't bring himself to make that admission publicly.
26 May 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFHe has too much pride. Anyway nobody will come out and say it but this thread you started will cause quite a few Christians to think things over.
He uses a bag of passive aggressive attention-seeking tricks to cover up the contradictions in his ideology and to disguise the fact that he has proven himself to be incapable of arguing his corner properly. I know of no other regular poster here who wears his apparent fear of being 'found out' so squarely on his sleeve.
26 May 14
Originally posted by FMFi do not subscribe to the 'once saved always saved', concept. Nor do i agree with the 'KNOW' Christ theory either. KNOW Christ, meaning you HAVE TO know Him in your head (or have thinking knowledge of Him).
But you have said many times in the past that "unbelievers" will be tortured for eternity. As you know, in Christian terms, I am an "unbeliever". Now you say I "cannot lose [my] salvation"?
Jesus teaches us to Love God with our hearts. He teaches, 'if salt looses it's saltiness it is worthless'. If a man loved God, (accepting Him as Lord and savior) then falls out of love with God, hates God and does what God hates. Teaching others to hate God. That man is walking a dangerous path. If this man sins against God and men, without repentance, and dies, he WILL be rejected by God. Why would Jesus state, "'but Lord, we cast out demons in your name'. And the King said to them, 'away from me I never knew you'".
Scripture also teaches, 'there are times when we use the ordinary dishes and there are times when the special dishes are used for special moments'. Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers", "blessed are you that weep and morn", etc. Never once did He say, "and you need to know me too".
God uses people all the time, whether they know Him or not is irrelevant.
If a man loves, but doesn't KNOW Jesus in his mind. It can be said that that man knows God in his heart. It is in the heart where the true circumcision is, not in the physical.
26 May 14
1 edit
Originally posted by PudgenikThanks for your comments. Aside from the 'once saved always saved' notion and its opposite, another pair of apparently contradictory assertions on the table on this thread is [my paraphrasing] 'once a Christian, always a Christian, like it or not' versus 'an ex-Christian was never a Christian'. Where do you come down on these two notions, seemingly from two different religions?
i do not subscribe to the 'once saved always saved', concept. Nor do i agree with the 'KNOW' Christ theory either. KNOW Christ, meaning you HAVE TO know Him in your head (or have thinking knowledge of Him).