The catholic church recants!

[personal attack edited] I'm not offended but having lived in other places in the world. I remember in one Islamic country where I was sharing the Gospel a Muslim told me a passage from his Koran

[personal attack edited] At least he was saying we'll just have to disagree. [personal attack edited] So much for mercy heh?

 

PROVE IT or stop asserting it. Give a basis for your charge or stop charging. Without proof it is an EMPTY accusation! I said, "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 are the one that distinguished between "the point" and "after the point" and you are the one that said you beleived in justification by faith alone without works and all I have asked you to do is place it within your own timetable, whether it occurs in your "point" of salvation or "after the point of salvation"?????? Show me where I am confusing myself by asking this simple straight forward question in keeping with your definitions and time terms?

Oh, I see! You just accomodate the theology of others by PRETENDING you agree with what they said????? When you use unbiblical terms to define what you believe it is nothing but a "Big whoop" but when I use Biblical termonolgy to define what I believe I am "confusing myself." What a childish response!

Didn't you just lecture me that such inflamatory languague is evidence that the person using such terms are like the crusaders and the ungodly who have no love?????????? Oh, your the exception to that rule - Oh, I get it now!

 

The point is what is good for the goose is good for gander. And I use modern understandable terms I don't dress up bible words to change their meanings.

 

It is one thing to have a genuine difference of opinion where credible evidence can be offered to substantiate that difference. However, if you cannot provide credible or reasonable evidence to back an argument up, then why not be either honest enough to admit it or simply drop out and let others who can offer such continue?????

For example - the silly and ridiculous argument that the term "great" used for a lost man and a saved man is a credible response to a combination of terms ("just" "righteous soul" "rightous man" "godly") ascribed to one man, that God only uses for saved persons.

For example - Claiming I am confusing myself by asking you to place what you claim to believe in your own time scheme you claim to be representative of your position.

I could go on and on presenting rediculous responses, obvious attempts to avoid serious objections.

 

You are sorely mistaken! The reason the Judiazers embraced what they did was based upon the very same foundation of your position - exactly. They beleived in justification by faith in the gospel. They did not deny Jesus was the Christ. They simply added works to the equation as any study of Acts 15 and Romans with Galatians will easily verify. They believed just faith in the provision of Christ was not sufficient but the element of "works" must continue past that initial belief in Christ. They defined those works one way you define them another way but the bottom line is "works" is included somehow or one cannot be saved.

 

Another empty unverifiable accusation without a shed of evidence to support it - that seems to be your MO

 

I never complained about defining your points. I never complained about stating your position on justification by faith without works. I simply asked you to place where it happens within your own chosen words you used to describe your position!

How am I confusing myself by simply asking you to explain your own words, your own statements, your own time terms????

I will tell you what I think is your problem. You don't really beleive there is a point in time when a person is COMPLETELY justified by faith without works. You believe in a PROGRESSIVE justification by faith without works inseparably manifested by continuous works. Right or wrong? If I am wrong then place where it happened?

 

Why don't both you guys give it a rest.....your like horses chomping at your bits.

 

This will be the last I say on this Matter. I said I do not believe works saves people. You keep insisting that I do. I do not. I believe at conversion you are given faith by almighty God. After which your faith necissarily leads you into a cooperative with God doing his will which are expressed in deeds. I don't know how many times I've said this you keep going back to the coversion point (and I mean the word point in the modern context you can call it at the moment of regeneration) either way its what I mean. Jesus says he will abide in us if we abide in him. Whether or not we abide in him determines the extent of our faith. If we do not abide I will not say the person is necissarily unsaved (its a good bet btw) it is not for me to judge but certainly if we abide our salvation is evident. Now that is it that is my soteriology. Take it however you want at this point. (and again I mean it in the context that I used it because its the message I want to convey.) And stop the witch hunt trying to accertain every little detail of what I say. I'm not the president, nor am I a great theologian. It seems that if I or anyone who disagree with you on any point you instead of conceding that we disagree with you attempt more effort at to proving they are not "saved" or a "christian" by your terms and set little"traps" by defining terms as you mean them not necissarily as scripture intended them. It is the same thing the Pharisees did to Jesus when they couldn't argue against him. Such as "by who's authority do you do these things?" I'm not as wise as Jesus and I can't read your mind. But I do know this yelling heretic because of disagreements because you purpose to see it your way is you mode of debate rather than debate on the subjects merit alone. In short you conduct witch hunts. Not only for me but anyone who disagrees with you. You are not the sole conveyer of truth. Scriptures stand on their own. And we disagree with how it is interpreted. Selah.

 

I explained it clearly on post 76 I will post it here clearly for your review Here In that Post I clearly showed you what it was you said and how I viewed it. It is clear.

I will post this by you from the "Why universalism is wrong" thread post 186 Bolded mine.

This is how you broke it down for debating. Thus I have given you verification of your request. Twice for one item and once for your last item. Again I wonder how serious the accusation is since its common on this board. But you have your evidence.

 

I said I do not believe works saves people. You keep insisting that I do. I do not. I believe at conversion you are given faith by almighty God. After which your faith necissarily leads you into a cooperative with God doing his will which are expressed in deeds.

You want your cake and eat to! From your past posts you have said that a person is justified WITHOUT works but by faith ALONE. I assume that is what you still mean by the first three sentences above??? Is it?

However, in your last sentence above you do a SHIFT from "without works" for salvation to a COOPERATIVE position WITH works that in your words is "necessary" to be ultimately saved. So within four sentences you deny that works can save anyone but then shift to a position you deny anyone can be utlimately saved without works. Obviously the kind of faith you begin with is not the kind of faith you end with as the former saves you WITHOUT works but the latter saves you WITH works as a "COOPERATIVE" effort with God.

Another glaring problem is that you actually state that a person can be genuinely justified by faith alone without works but then potentially end up lost due to works. In other words you claim the very possibility of a true child of God that Jesus Christ claims is impossible (Jn. 6:39).

I believe you simply do not understand the biblical nature or application of faith. Please explain to me how justification by faith is WITHOUT works but then transforms into a faith inseparable WITH works in regard to justification?

Now, you may just come back at me and charge me with perverting your position but I think if anyone on this forum reads what you have said above and reads my response it is pretty obvious that I have correctly defined your position. If not, then, tell me where I misinterpreted your language, your definitions, your descriptions?

 

No, I think I explained it very clear in Post 76 to which I referred you again. I explain exactly what it was you said. The context of the discussion and why I thought it was sanctimoniou soap box preaching. I did not say it was because I disagreed with you. I'm ok with disagreements. This is however not the issue of why I said what I did. Again I was very clear in post 76.

 

Amen! Thank the Lord Jesus Christ who allows me to have my cake and to eat it as well.

You need to read again to gain understanding. I'm saying nothing different than Blackaby point number 3 as I've said for the umpteenth time.
Unfortunately, I let you drag me back into the discussion but I've made my point clear. I will stop now as you will no doubt continue in your endevour to brand me a heretic by finding any flaw or statement by which you can accuse.

 

Post 76 posted here I will bold relevant parts so you get it:

Ok so lets review important words. 1)I had already said Works do not save. Your post goes on about works not saving (REDUNDANT? NO NEED ETC...) Purpose of you doing it then? In my mind "TO PREACH" an already conceded point. If preaching rather than debate then its sanctimonioius or

. 2) I was currently on a different Topic of Eschatology which had nothing to do with your post since it was geared at fortifying your position on works do not save by using Lot as an example. Again the purpose of it? In my mind "TO PREACH" which in the context I find it sanctimonious or

. I thought I clarified that perfectly in post 76. If it wasn't clear I am sorry. Hopefully this clears it up. I have in no way made this post vague but to the point of why I thought the way I did.

 

I taught through Blackby several years ago. In the past year I moved to Ohio and then moved back so I still have his books boxed up somewhere among several other boxes. So if you will do me the kindness of quoting all three points for me I will appreciate it greatly since it is his third point you seem to rest your case upon.

 

For the sake of argument, lets suppose I completely misunderstand your position entirely. There is one point that I do not misunderstand at all and that is you believe that a truely justified born again person can potentially lose their salvation due to works. You have made that crystal clear.

Hence, your view of justification and salvation is completely at odds with the clear and explicit and unambigous words of Christ "OF ALL that the father hath given me I SHOULD LOSE NOTHING but should raise IT up again at the last day."

There is no necessity to interpret his language as "OF ALL" means "OF ALL" and the words "I SHALL LOSE NOTHING" means "nothing" but your view of justification and salvation forces a contradictory interpretation on these words of Christ to mean "OF ALL that the Father hath given me I MIGHT LOSE SOME".

I intepret the unclear by the clear and Jesus could not be any clearer in his choice of terms here.