The catholic church recants!

Note it doesn't tell of his final outcome. But also note it talks about him being vexed in Sodom. Kind of letting you view it both ways.

 

You are playing a game of semantics and both DHK and I can clearly see that. How? Here is how - You state that a man is justified by faith alone without works but then proceed to deny that this "faith" can be separated from "works" which in essence makes it a FAITH WORKS inseparable union that we are justified by. Both DHK and I can clearly see that you are preaching justification by works just as Rome includes works in grace you include works in faith - no difference when it comes to the bottom line.

 

From my perspective you water down faith.

 

So, you admit he was a "righteous" man with a "righteous soul" and God delivered what God says is a "godly" man but due to WORKS his final outcome may differ than what you admit is his present state of salvation???

 

It is because I deal with what justifies a person first before I deal with what IMPERFECTLY manifests sanctification of a person second whereas you confuse the two. The Bible does not confuse the two.

 

I'm not. Faith is faith. Salvation is Salvation. Two different words two different meanings and there is the time line to consider. the point of salvation and after the point of salvation. It you who mince words. God entirely of his own accord gets me to the point of salvation and give me faith AT THAT POINT. Before that I have no Faith. Therefore, faith and my life with Christ lead to a natural result of faith. The good work God has for me as Blackaby has said in his point 3. You're still back there with the point of salvation. I'm ahead of you in discouse in living in salvation. Paul says he strives! I'm talking about sanctification and your stuck in God still getting you till salvation. This is the point of disagreement. You have the wrong bottom line.

 

No it doesn't. Though you've added extra steps. I have not.

 

I don't think I'm defining the words the same way you are. You want me to answer based on your definition rather than mine. I won't. First clarify what you think it is saying. The bible calls David a great man as does it call nimrod are they both saved? No.

 

Thinkingstuff, You agree with me that a person cannot go from regenerate to unregenerate to regenerate OR go from lost to save to lost to saved OR from belief in Christ to unbelief in Christ to Unbelief in Christ when a beleiver goes from "good" to "bad" works but nevertheless you assert that works is INSEPARABLE from faith!!!

Either your logic is warped or you do not understand what you are agreeing with!!!!

I will assume you do not understand what you are agreeing with. If works are inseparable from faith in Christ (as this is what justified a man) as you demand, then is faith existent within a man when he is either not manifesting any good works or is sinning???? OR has he returned to an unjustified state in unbelief?

 

May I ask you what the term "great" has to do with the salvation of any man whether Nimrod or David????????

I could care less what your definition may or may not be. It is Peter who says he was a "just" man and it was Peter who said he had a "righteous soul" and it was Peter who said he was a "righteous man" and it was Peter who said that he was the "godly" man that God delivered!

Peter spoke under inspiration by God and so it is God who is calling Lot a "just" man and it is God who is saying Lot had a "righteous" soul and it is God that says he was a "righteous" man and it was God who not only said but delivered Lot as a "godly" man. HOW MANY DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS AND APPLICATIONS DOES GOD HAVE FOR THESE TERMS? Does God apply them to lost human beings?????

Your simply caught in your error and your too proud to simply admit you are wrong so you now have to accuse God of misapplying terms that are used by God to distinguish the lost from the saved and try to escape such applications by resorting to a term "great" that nowhere is used to distinguish the lost from the saved.

If you cannot discuss the topic honestly just drop it and move on.

 

Keep in mind you accused me of slandering you. However, if you think so. [Personal attack edited]

And again what does that have to do with salvation not by works? It has nothing to do with your statement. In post 47. It was an Eschatology discussion. Once again keep in mind it is you who accused me of slander.

I never said you must be saved by works. That is just not true.

Right and I don't judge others works.

.Yes it is but it doesn't gain salvation its an expression of faith gained at Salvation.

I didn't remotely even say that. I said the current topic was eschatology and that I had already explained my point of view you keep asking about its like a broken record.

Generally, I am. And I appreciate that you did. However, as you know you have said I was a secret Catholic have you not?

I am and I've given them a good run. My brother for instance is coming home to the Lord!

This is true and I usually say at some point that I am. And I give it the best shot I can. And some times I do it just to ruffle feathers.

Yes. There are several times I was going to take the athiest position.

You got a point. I will try to make it more clear.

Fine call the doctrine heresy don't call me a heretic.

You haven't even scratched the surface of what they believe.

I do. All the time.

When I'm in the baptist part of this forum I stay primarily to my baptist beliefs unless it has to do with creation specifically young earth.

Is this not a debate forum?

I post there as well some times and the Hobby section because I like Dr. Who.

 

Your the one trying to "trap me" into saying something I don't believe. I think just is the point at which Lot was acting just was he saved? I have no idea was Gideon saved? It makes you wonder huh?

 

So you admit there is a point of salvation and there is a point after salvation!!!! You admit that we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone period - without works - but where? At the point of salvation or AFTER the point of salvation?????

You use UNBIBLICAL terminology to describe the "point" versus "after the point" when I use Biblcal terminology "regeneration" "justification" for what you call "the point" of salvation and I use biblical terminology "sanctification" and "unto good works" for what you call "after the point of salvation". You admit they are distinctly different but when I say they are and use Biblical terms you claim I am ADDED distinctions to God's Word!!!!

"you've added extra steps. I have not" - Thinkingstuff

Faith is faith but not all faith is justifing faith as that is determined soley by the object of faith not the nature of faith. Faith is faith and demons have faith in regard to the nature of faith but they do not have the object of faith.

Good works MAY manifest justifying faith and MAY NOT (Mt. 7:21-23). Bad words do not deny justifying faith resides in a believer when they are doing bad works because they do not go from beleif while doing good works to unbelief while doing bad works. This is the logic of your demand that GOOD works and faith are inseparable. IF they are inseparable then it is impossible to do bad works without moving from faith to unbelief.

The truth is that only in the SPHERE OF HUMAN OBSERVATION is faith judged to be dead and not living when EVIL works are present. Only in the SPHERE OF HUMAN OBSERVATION is faith LIVING when GOOD works are present because in God's sight his saints do no jump back and forth from justification by faith to unjustificaiton by unbelief.

Only God can show your blind mind the self-contradiction of your position. You are teaching salvation by works just like Rome as you use the same heresy that defines grace to includes works when you demand faith includes works - same error. Same complete misrepresentation of God's Word that distinguishes between justification by faith and sanctification by faith a distinction that even you make with UNBIBLICAL terms "point" of salvation versus the "AFTER the point of salvation."

 

You don't care about the truth of God's word and it is self-evident from your foolish and silly responses. Have your ever read Hebrews 11 and the hall way of Faith? Is Gideon's name recorded there?

Heb. 11:32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:

Your arguments this far are about as valid as if you argued that the "Gideon" of Hebrews 11:32 must be another Gideon that the one in Judges!! Why don't you make that arguement? Your argument over the use of "great" is no better! Your argument against Peter's inspired use of terms that the Bible consistently uses to distinguish the lost from the saved is no better.

[personal attack removed]

 

Didn't he have idols in the end? ...[edited] Even though I disagree with some of the things you say I've never accused you of being the enemy of the gospel of Christ....[edited]
fortunatley I believe in the Gospel, grace, mercy, and completed work of christ that even if I make certain errors Christ is beyond that and I can rest assured in his hands of love. ...
[edited]

 

yes I do.

You're confusing yourself.

Big whoop! I say things as I understand them I don't redefine biblical words into modern meanings and say its biblical. And yes I did. Because you did.

See you have to use adjective to explain rather than just the word. Doesn't that show you something?

Again you confuse yourself. Earth wind and fire put it finely when he told me

exactly my point adding to james.

Good, just insult me won't you, you white washed sepluchar. See I can use biblical terms too.

Nope wrong again.

Again big whoop on using words as I understand them at least I'm honest enough. to use it in the context as it is meant not redefined a term used in the bible into a context you want it to mean and then apply it contrary to its context.

 

Don't YOU have sin to the end (I Jn. 1:8-10) or is his sin worse than your sin to the end?????????? Your very argument demands you believe in salvation by works or you would not even say this!

Jesus used the same kind of language to those who believe error (edit) (Mt. 23). Paul uses the same language in Galatians to those who believe error (edit) ("accursed"). The difference between Christ, Paul, Dr. Walter and the crusaders is we stop with words but the crusaders took it to actions. We condemn heresies and expose heretics but they tortured and killed them.

[personal attack edited] It was Paul who charged those teaching the very same doctrine you are teaching:

"Let them be accursed....O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you...Christ is become of no effect unto you"

If the shoe fits then that is the way it is [personal attack edited]

 

Moderator...... Don't you think you should close this down considering what just happened? Enough is Enough.

 

First of all Paul wasn't dealing with people that believed exactly as I do when he used those words and the very fact that you think so shows you how little you understand the time period. That is what happens when you make up a history from a fantasy and apply to your reality. He was speaking of the Judiazers. I am not one. [personal attack edited]