The sky is blue

Maybe some of the Christians are not so obnoxiously obsessive with the sins of others, and more concerned about the message of redemption from all sin.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I don't want to diminish your point about the importance of faith. After all, "without faith, it is impossible to please God." Neither do I want to ignore the aspect of reason. God gave of a brain and the ability to reason. Some things in the Bible make perfect sense, both spiritually and intellectually.

There have been many times that I came to the end of my intellectual understanding, and simply accepted God's word by faith. The Trinity is one area where we must rely on faith beyond our understanding.

 

And maybe some Christians are so unconcerned about the sins of others that they aren't representing the Gospel properly to them. People need to know what they need redemption from. If you downplay sin, why do they need a Savior?

 

If you think I downplay sin, then you need to learn how to read English. I talked about obessiveness with sins as if one sin is worse than another.

Cheers,

Jim

 

"Yet, most of the Christians here, have been convinced that it isn’t completely blue."

Brother, I hope you can back up such a blanket statement. Who are "most" of the Chirstians here?

 

red skies I see tonight,
A fisherman's delight.
Red skies I see this morn,
Sailor's be warned.

So, I guess the sky isn't always blue afterall. Maybe it does take faith to believe the sky is blue.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I don't want to burst any bubbles here, but, genuine Christians have argued about the color of the sky since the founding of the church. Please be careful. You seem to be saying that all genuine Christians will always agree with you.

I have good discussions with folks on this board, but I won't question the genuineness of their faith just because they disagree with me.

peace to youraying:

 

In terms of the topic Stilllearning refers to as an example. the sky is blue.

And I understand about how other views can be disturbing. If these views are wrong, then it should drive us back to God's word and learn it even better, thus coming out stronger on God's word and as a believer.

 

Touchy touchy Jim. I never said I was referring to you! You spoke about how you think some Christians are, and I did the same.

 

Agreed.

Sometimes, however, we go back to God's Word and discover the sky wasn't the same color we once believed.

That puts us in the position of holding on to what we had believed, or changing our minds to conform to the teachings of our Lord.

peace to youraying:

 

Cute!

Nice 'code words' here.

Ed

 

There are many shades of blue.
Carolina Blue
Royal Blue
Navy Blue
Light Blue
Dark Blue
Sky Blue
Eggshell Blue...............


Which shade are y'all talking about?

 

But Jim----------you say in your statement something like---"A sin is a sin is a sin" and that there is none worse than the next one

What did Jesus tell His disciples about the one who would betray Him

"Therefore, he who betrays Me into the hands of sinful man--he hath the great--er sin"

(emphasis is mine)

Sure---sin is sin---but according to what Jesus says about Judas----He wouldn't rank something like stealing candy from a baby right along side His betrayal

 

True, my dear Mr. Blackbird. I did say that. Then, I failed to mention, in that post the unpardonable sin. It falls in the same category of blaspheming against deity.

There is a verse that says, "no liar shall enter heaven..." Hence, we do have some categories of sins. I still say that sin is sin is sin, and in my context, it remains true. Any sin ful act can land us in terrible trouble, and we ought not to become obessive with which sin it is.

Cab you even imagine sitting down and listing all imaginable sins and categorizing them by their level of badness? I can't. Hence, we cant become obessed with a particular sin, but with sin in general.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I think that the point stillearning is conveying is that there are some here that are in support of the practice of sin. Forfeiting the doctrine of repentance of sin that Jesus Himself also taught. You can not have forgiveness without repentance.

 

Jesus taught a lot of things, among which any "doctrine of repentance from sin" is not to be found, I do not believe.
Where can one even find any of the phrases such as "repentance of sin," "repent from/of sin(s)," or "repented of/from sin(s)" in the Bible? (I'll even allow the use of any legitimate translation, for this, BTW.)

FTR, I can find exactly three 'persons', as individuals, that are ever specifically said either to repent or to not repent in the Bible - Job, who was a saved individual before it is said of him, and he said this directly, BTW. (Job 42:6); Judas, who was unsaved both before and after he repented, IMO (Mt. 27:3); and God Himself, who is said to repent, repented, or not to repent some 30 times.

Uh- exactly what sins are you suggesting our Triune God had need to repent from, if repentance really means "repentance of sin" in Scripture, as you just stated that Jesus taught?? I can speak for no other, but I'm certainly not 'going there' in any way, at any time, and I suggest that even considering that idea is pretty close to blasphemy, a word I do not use often or lightly.

Must one repent in order to be saved? Absolutely, IMO. But the repentance that is "necessary" or part and parcel of salvation is nowhere declared to be directed toward sin(s) anyplace that I have found.

Did Jesus preach and teach "repent" and "repentance" during His ministry? Of course. Many times, in fact. Did he add the words "of/from sins" anywhere? If so, tell me where, please.

BTW, I have posted multiple times that I fully believe in repentance, and I believe I always gave the Biblical definition of what that is, in those posts. One can check the archives to see that I have been saying this same thing since Day 1 of my BB arrival, three years ago.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=31491&postcount=4

Yet I have at the same time, been wrongly accused (along with several others) of not believing in repentance, at all, as well as not believing in "lordship" either.

My refusal to allow others to redefine these Biblical terms and phrases is a long standing practice of mine.

When one believes in Jesus, one repents, in the NT sense of "metanoeO" and as it refers to salvation. Sin (or sins) have absolutely zero to do with "coming to Christ" or believing in Christ for salvation. That problem was fully taken care of by the precious blood of the Lamb slain on Mt. Moriah.

Sins have a great deal to do with one's "coming after Christ" or following Christ for discipleship, however.

FWIW, I really don't think that stilllearning is really here referring to sin, any more than to the sky being blue, however. You might note my previous response on this thread. And yes, I also fully believe that H*m*$*xu*lity is a grievous sin, before God.

Ed

 

What does whether or not "you are Calvinistic" have anything to do with the question or anything in my post?? The question is whether or not I have accurately portrayed Scripture, I believe. Hence - -

Just wonderin'.

(Since I do not even consider that to be applicable.)

BTW, do you likewise have any Scripture to back this assertion of "this application," as opposed to merely making the statement??

FTR, I do not believe "God changed His mind, about having created mankind" in the passage under consideration, but suggest here one is attempting to 'back read' the meaning of the Greek "metanoeO" into the Hebrew "nacham", a questionable practice, at best.

Actually, it's either "I chose to become a Calvinist." or "I was predestined to become an Arminian." since many do seem to love to apply labels and 'pigeonhole' someone, sans cause or evidence.

Incidentally, when you get that digested, consider that there is, in the final analysis, no difference between Calvinism and Arminianism, as well. (That statement, which is a true one BTW, should definitely cause you to get a 'big-time' headache.) :BangHead:

:laugh:

Ed