The love of God

Originally posted by @rajk999
Well from the place you speak you sure do condemn what I say .. all the time. You side with people who seem to disagree with what you say. Something is not right about that. But thats your choice.

Do you agree that only God is good and that our own 'goodness' is not enough to get us into the Kingdom of Heaven?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Do you agree that only God is good and that our own 'goodness' is not enough to get us into the Kingdom of Heaven?

In Matt 25 we have a detailed description of who gets into the Kingdom of Heaven from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself. Tell me what it says. I dont think Jesus said any such thing.

If what you keep saying, church doctrine, is different from what Jesus is saying, then maybe you should stop going to that church. Just some friendly advice. .. Stay on the side of Christ.

Originally posted by @rajk999
In Matt 25 we have a detailed description of who gets into the Kingdom of Heaven from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself. Tell me what it says. I dont think Jesus said any such thing.

If what you keep saying, church doctrine, is different from what Jesus is saying, then maybe you should stop going to that church. Just some friendly advice. .. Stay on the side of Christ.

I actually don't belong to a church and the home group I meet with does not subscribe to any specific denomination, but we try to focus on what scripture says. Do you think only Matt 25 is enough for you to state unequivocally what the requirements for salvation are and that all the other parts of scripture can be ignored?

Originally posted by @rajk999
In Matt 25 we have a detailed description of who gets into the Kingdom of Heaven from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself. Tell me what it says. I dont think Jesus said any such thing.

If what you keep saying, church doctrine, is different from what Jesus is saying, then maybe you should stop going to that church. Just some friendly advice. .. Stay on the side of Christ.

Deatailed yes, but exhaustive?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I actually don't belong to a church and the home group I meet with does not subscribe to any specific denomination, but we try to focus on what scripture says. Do you think only Matt 25 is enough for you to state unequivocally what the requirements for salvation are and that all the other parts of scripture can be ignored?

Was Christ unequivocal or was he sure?

Originally posted by @rajk999
Was Christ unequivocal or was he sure?

Can you actually answer the question or must you simply deflect?

Originally posted by @rajk999
Was Christ unequivocal or was he sure?

I am asking you whether you are happy basing your doctrine of salvation on one chapter of the Bible and ignoring every other scripture that mentions the same topic?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I am asking you whether you are happy basing your doctrine of salvation on one chapter of the Bible and ignoring every other scripture that mentions the same topic?

Are you yourself content to discount that 'one chapter of the bible' bearing in mind it too was divinely inspired?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Are you yourself content to discount that 'one chapter of the bible' bearing in mind it too was divinely inspired?

What gave you the impression that I was discounting Matthew 25? I just don't think I should base an entire doctrine on only one portion of scripture and ignore the rest.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Are you yourself content to discount that 'one chapter of the bible' bearing in mind it too was divinely inspired?

One portion of scripture does not negate another, they will fit together if one rightly divides
them. You cannot have one point say you have to work your way in, and another say you
cannot work your way in. If there is a disagreement it is because someone isn't looking at
what is really being said in both places.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What gave you the impression that I was discounting Matthew 25? I just don't think I should base an entire doctrine on only one portion of scripture and ignore the rest.

I think you miss the point.

When every cherry on a tree is divinely placed, 'cherry picking' is not an issue. (All cherries carry equal weight).

One doctrine, 'any' doctrine in a divinely inspired book should be sufficient to base understanding. There should be not contradictions, no disparity.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
One portion of scripture does not negate another, they will fit together if one rightly divides
them. You cannot have one point say you have to work your way in, and another say you
cannot work your way in. If there is a disagreement it is because someone isn't looking at
what is really being said in both places.

Indeed, so no need to look beyond Matthew 25. All other books will mirror the same teaching.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I think you miss the point.

When every cherry on a tree is divinely placed, 'cherry picking' is not an issue. (All cherries carry equal weight).

One doctrine, 'any' doctrine in a divinely inspired book should be sufficient to base understanding. There should be not contradictions, no disparity.

Exactly so if one portion of scripture says we are not saved by works then it would be an error to interpret Matthew 25 to mean that we can be saved by works. Especially when Matthew 25 does not explicitly say we are saved by works and when another portion of scripture does explicitly say that we are not saved by works.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Indeed, so no need to look beyond Matthew 25. All other books will mirror the same teaching.

Nope that's how cults are formed. Creating and basing an entire doctrine on what you think one scripture is saying but gnoring other scriptures that directly contradict your doctrine.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Indeed, so no need to look beyond Matthew 25. All other books will mirror the same teaching.

Which teaching will that be in your opinion?