I wasn't actually thinking you so much . . .Passionately teach this doctrine?
Much love!
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I wasn't actually thinking you so much . . .Passionately teach this doctrine?
I was hoping not, but since you were speaking to me, I presumed... in error it seems.! Sorry!I wasn't actually thinking you so much . . .
Much love!
Lots of very good words, as I understand them. The one point that bothers me is this, "Jesus' blood means I am pure, despite my sinful nature". At a moment walking in Christ I may also pure, but if as He checks me out and as I check myself out and rough places and places in error are encountered the purity is found to be not so pure after all. Back to the laver one more time! The ladies' looking glasses are there for that reason. Help us dear Lord!My understanding of being saved is that the blood of Jesus saved me from eternal damnation. The veil has been torn, allowing me, and all believers, to enter into the Holy of Holies, as the Hebrew high priests had done. Such priests had to be purified by the blood sacrifice before they could enter into the presence of God. Jesus' blood means I am pure, despite my sinful nature. I can enter God's throne room, I have the Holy Spirit living inside me. I have entered God's rest, every day has become the Sabbath for me. I have the Kingdom of God within me. And, now that I am saved, every day, the Holy Spirit inspires me to walk Jesus' Way, I am inspired to avoid hateful thoughts and acts, I am inspired to avoid greed, and to not lay up treasures (retirement plans) in this world, but to seek my treasure in the next life. I am inspired to be merciful to those indebted to me and to forgive their debts.
This is a reference to justification by grace through faith. It does not mean that sanctification is unnecessary, but it does mean that God has saved a soul purely by His grace, and applied the blood of Christ to that soul to wash away all previous sins and guilt. This also corresponds to the remission of sins.The one point that bothers me is this, "Jesus' blood means I am pure, despite my sinful nature".
The atoning blood of Christ doesn’t save men’s fleshThis is a reference to justification by grace through faith. It does not mean that sanctification is unnecessary, but it does mean that God has saved a soul purely by His grace, and applied the blood of Christ to that soul to wash away all previous sins and guilt. This also corresponds to the remission of sins.
Salvation is never by works, always by grace through faith.Hi Stumpmaster,
Scripture never contradicts itself. Notice that the passage speaks of salvation in the past tense? (”you have been saved.”) In Greek this is the perfect tense, which denotes a past, completed action. We know from the Bible that salvation also has present and future aspects, so the kind of salvation Paul is discussing in Ephesians 2:8–9 is initial salvation. It is the salvation we received when we first came to God and were justified, not the kind of salvation we are now receiving (1 Pet. 1:8–9, Phil. 2:12) or the kind we one day will receive (Rom. 13:11, 1 Cor. 3:15, 5:5).Bible Study Mary
Of course scriptures doesn't find fault in scriptures. The error is with the reader, when he attempts to understand the written word concerning the things of the Spirit of God not by spiritual discernment but by his natural human means of discerning. And when he uses his own human wisdom, reasoning, and thinking in determining what is the truth that scriptures reveals and teaches.I do not disagree with anything you said, still, scripture doesn’t find fault with such expressions as, “if you would enter life, keep the commandments,” (Matthew 19:17) or that by loving his neighbor one can inherit eternal life (Luke 10:25-28) or that dedicating your life in the service of God (Luke 18:29-30) does the same. So I do not think it’s a mistake to say 'through charity the rich are saved,' ommitting the assumption of also having true faith and relying on God's Grace.
Well yes, I disagree, in that, we are talking about an effectively dead person. And one who is effectively dead can't effectively do what you say there he ought to do. So, how then could an effectively dead one save himself or get himself saved? He just effectively can't. As I have pointed out, unless one is born from above (born again) he cannot see nor can he do anything in that regard. Now, it is God who saves and He is the one who chooses the people who will be His people. And to those whom God had chosen from every nation, place, and generation, God goes out to them, in His perfect time, and works out to save them, recreating them by rebirth, and ultimately transform them to conform to the image of the Son, Jesus Christ.If a person does not go toward that Light, he cannot find anything worthwhile and remains then in death. Of course you disagree, but there it is! God is the One who increases!
What differences, may I ask? If differences in one's person and in the situation in this earthly life we are in, then my answer to your question is, Yes.Can we have differences like this and still please God? If our hearts are right I do believe so. Praise His blessed holy name!
Having lectured in Bible College I can assure you by the standards of normal exegesis you are not logical and you read into the text.You could disagree, why not. But if only that you find me not being logical (which I am not) and me reading into the text (which I did not), I would have to say that such is a shallow basis for disagreeing. But be that as it may, so be it then with you.
Tong
R1054
Adam and Eve were clean and set apart [sanctified or holy] by God. When they disobeyed God they were no longer clean. They were unclean beasts with no Life in them [no Life like God was Life. They were no longer in God's image.]. They were unclean, filthy beasts. Reading the whole Bible and talking to God can give us a greater picture than perhaps finally the full picture, a vision of God whole plan.
I am not aware of any "beast nature" of man taught nor spoken in scriptures, such as that which pushes a man to go against God.The "sin that lives in me" is the old man, the beast nature, which pushes a man to go against God.
And so you say and claim, even with a degree of certainty. That sounds like some self-exaltation, at least concerning the material and carnal and based on standards set by man. Having been a lecturer, perhaps you can put up a brief lecture to show how was I not logical and have read into the text, instead of just merely mouthing out an accusation. That would be a good thing, right?Having lectured in Bible College I can assure you by the standards of normal exegesis you are not logical and you read into the text.
What would be a good thing is for you to stop giving the impression that you are always right and everyone else is always wrong.And so you say and claim, even with a degree of certainty. That sounds like some self-exaltation, at least concerning the material and carnal and based on standards set by man. Having been a lecturer, perhaps you can put up a brief lecture to show how was I not logical and have read into the text, instead of just merely mouthing out an accusation. That would be a good thing, right?
Tong
R1063
Well, the impression on a poster rest on the reader. Posting one's view either for or against a post is all over this forum and is allowed. Now, it is incumbent upon anyone who post an argument against another's post, and proper for him to provide scriptural references in support of his position, specially when requested by the other party whose post he is refuting by his argument. And also, it is unbecoming for a Christian, to respond by ad hominem or just simply mouth out an accusation based on opinion.What would be a good thing is for you to stop giving the impression that you are always right and everyone else is always wrong.
The fact that we have a choice is indisputable. The more interesting question, in my opinion, is why we choose the alternatives we do. If we have freedom of the will, why is sin inevitable? It seems to me that a doctrine of salvation must address the inevitability of sin. Jesus had freewill and yet he was without sin. I would love it if, someday, God could cause it so that I never sin again. What a glorious blessing. To truly have freedom of the will, always doing what we know is right.The choice is always ours!
Jesus had freewill and yet he was without sin.
Not when you have been trained in psychologically reading another person. This means your posts which ALWAYS give the impression you are right and we are wrong is a dead giveaway. But I guess you will reply with a trite answer to the fact that you ARE always right and we are always wrong.Well, the impression on a poster rest on the reader. Posting one's view either for or against a post is all over this forum and is allowed. Now, it is incumbent upon anyone who post an argument against another's post, and proper for him to provide scriptural references in support of his position, specially when requested by the other party whose post he is refuting by his argument. And also, it is unbecoming for a Christian, to respond by ad hominem or just simply mouth out an accusation based on opinion.
So, please go ahead and show how I was illogical and was reading into the text.
Tong
R1064
An appeal to such reasoning does not prove anything nor thus it give justice to your accusation. It is safe to assume that everyone here post something which they think is what is right and that no one here would post something he thinks is wrong. Be that as it may, every poster is responsible for what he/she post and must be ready to give a defense or explain when asked. Anyway, if you choose not to, which is your right, no one can force you to nor is there anything that one can do about that. But then, that would be making the impression that there is no proof or defense that you can show.Not when you have been trained in psychologically reading another person. This means your posts which ALWAYS give the impression you are right and we are wrong is a dead giveaway. But I guess you will reply with a trite answer to the fact that you ARE always right and we are always wrong.