Search results

I'm not here saying you all are condemned to hell, only that one aspect of your teaching had its roots in Gnosticism (because in truth it did), that is an imperfection, an inaccuracy, in your beliefs, so there's no reason to lob accusations, especially ones as serious as that.

If only things were so simple. We will have to agree to disagree. No disrespect.

There is no point in discussing Scripture with you--you can't stay on topic. LOL Anyone can go and look at all our past discussions to see what that looks like.

I do not think people who disagree with me can't know God--I've seen Catholics, Orthodox, and all manner of Protestants who disagree with me who know God. You know John Piper said he never lusted after a woman other than his wife since he got married ? That's grace!

Sounds good. Go answer all of my threads where Scripture disproves your Gnosticism--this thread has its point that OSAS is Gnostic and wasn't held by the early church and was fought against by the early church for hundreds of years.

Sorry, I sincerely believe Behold knows God, he just doesn't know Scripture.

@Behold knows God, he just doesn't know Scripture.

You don't know Scripture.

LOL He is 100% incoherent. Never on topic. Never directly answers. LOL I'm so glad someone else sees it.

Your own verses contradict your teaching, because He had something against them, and warned them to repent, or else face destruction, and yet you are arguing for OSAS! The early church fought Gnostic OSAS for hundreds of years--your OSAS belief is a Gnostic heresy.

The point was there was a difference in emphases : you emphasize the Cross, Episkopos emphasizes the ongoing intervention of Christ, sticking with the ongoing process.

Just sayin : we know there is a discrepancy, but, to me, much more exhaustive study could be done. I'm not satisfied with the current knowledge to reach a conclusion.

The life is in His Son (1 Jn 5:11), and we are commanded "remain in Him" (1 Jn 2:28)--some don't, so they're cut off and thrown in the fire (Jn 15)..

I have to believe that one's own righteousness is different than Abraham's, because Abraham's was based on God revealing Himself to Abraham, and Abraham believing, whereas "a righteousness of my own" has to do with looking at oneself--imo the difference between God's righteousness and one's own...

I don't conflate things--I still don't know if Abraham was "born again".

Christ had to send a messenger of satan to Paul, to attack his body, to keep him from boasting. It wasn't "the Cross alone" for Paul.

I meant that I don't know that Abraham was "born again", because Hebrews 11 says he was only "just', not "made perfect" by the blood of the New Covenant (which had not at the time been inaugurated).

What the two of you are saying sounds synonymous. I guess the difference is you're emphasizing what God has done for us, whereas he is emphasizing what God is doing for us on an ongoing basis (eg, Paul still had a problem with boasting, so God sent satan to attack his body, what ever that...

I have been sharing many--please feel free to interact with any thread of mine.

The reason I'd be uncertain about how to define their walk is because Abraham was said to have "steps of faith" whereby he had "glorified God" (Ro 4) : New Covenant righteousness, true righteousness, is "God Is Our Righteousness" (Jer 23:6). Unrighteousness has the effect of "suppressing the...