The Racist "Immorality Act"

[Phoneman777]

Supposed to do, should do; these and similar expressions have the sound of piety yet they do not qualify for doing. So my question remains and a straightforward honest answer will not only give brownie points but it will enable further meaningful dialog.

Ohhh, and I will add, without self honesty on this matter, one swims in the bottomless waters of the hypothetical.

Do you think a saint - a blood washed, born again, spirit-filled Christian - who impenitently backslides and descends deeper and deeper into sin until he winds up a Satan worshiper will still make it to heaven?

 

[quietthinker]

Do you think a saint - a blood washed, born again, spirit-filled Christian - who impenitently backslides and descends deeper and deeper into sin until he winds up a Satan worshiper will still make it to heaven?

I think they probably won't because they wouldn't want to be there.
The thing is Phoneman, people exclude themselves because it is their preference......a bit like you would exclude yourself from the company of what you would deem an impenitent backslider who prefers to descend deeper and deeper into sin until he winds up a Satan worshiper.

God loves sinners but they don't necessarily love him.
He loves them in the only way he knows how to love them and that is, give his life for them. I think that includes you and me.

Now might I add this; the expression 'give his life for them' is a loaded term......I wonder how we understand it?

 

[BeyondET]

'not be understood'? ...because God's love is not bounded by the theories and limitations of men. God's love is outside of anything men can imagine or invent.

Men determine who is in and who is out.....and then superimpose those views onto God as if they are his.
Jesus showed us that even when pressed with extreme torture and death it could not stop him from revealing his heart in his prayer 'Father forgive them, they know not what they do'

I agree of great magnitude, some good knowledge there

 

[Behold]

You see, that's why I'll never join your OSAS License to Sin cult -

You post no quote to back up your redundant insinuation.
This makes you dishonest, but, i dont think you'll be changing anytime soon.

I notice that there is no CROSS related to your idea of working to stay saved while trying to keep the commandments to be accepted by God.

This theology, yours, that defines your faith, as per your posts.... is what we define as LEGALISM.

 

[Phoneman777]

Supposed to do, should do; these and similar expressions have the sound of piety yet they do not qualify for doing. So my question remains and a straightforward honest answer will not only give brownie points but it will enable further meaningful dialog.

Ohhh, and I will add, without self honesty on this matter, one swims in the bottomless waters of the hypothetical.

You asked if I had "confessed and forsaken" my sins and I respondedk, "Isn't that what a Christian is supposed to do?" -- however, a more appropriate response to your question is: "Isn't that what defines what a Christian IS? One who's confessed and forsaken sin?"

 

[Phoneman777]

I think they probably won't.

I'd say definitely won't. However, when it comes to the grace of God, it's more than enough to cover the sins of the Just Man who strives to overcome sin, whenever and whatever that may be when the Holy Spirit reveals it.

Good thing He doesn't show us all of it at once, lest we see how severely in bad shape we are.

 

[quietthinker]

You asked if I had "confessed and forsaken" my sins and I respondedk, "Isn't that what a Christian is supposed to do?" -- however, a more appropriate response to your question is: "Isn't that what defines what a Christian IS? One who's confessed and forsaken sin?"

Why talk in the third person and so remove personal responsibility. The question is to you personally. It's not hypothetical or removed.
I'm sure you understand this. Now it's a matter of applying it and making it real for yourself.

It's realness that defines a child of God. All the rest is huffing and puffing and making pious noises that ultimately are a pretence.

 

[Phoneman777]

You post no quote to back up your redundant insinuation.
This makes you dishonest, but, i dont think you'll be changing anytime soon.

I notice that there is no CROSS related to your idea of working to stay saved while trying to keep the commandments to be accepted by God.

This theology, yours, that defines your faith, as per your posts.... is what we define as LEGALISM.

I figured out your problem: your a politician.

The OSAS crowd is perfectly happy if people say:

"OSAS teaches once we're saved we can't be lost because grace is a Shield that protects the Shielded from suffering the same punishment for doing the exact same thing for which the Unshielded will be punished."​

But...they're perfectly butthurt if people say the same thing, but in a different light:

"OSAS teaches once we're saved we can't be lost because grace is a License to Sin that protects the Licensed from suffering the same punishment for doing the exact same thing for which the Unlicensed will be punished."​

Politicians are all about symbolism over substance...don't call it "child murder", it's "a woman's right to choose"...don't call it "sodomy", it's "an alternative lifestyle"...don't call it "reverse racism", it's "affirmative action"...and don't call OSAS grace a "License to Sin", it's "Biblical theology".

 

[Phoneman777]

Why talk in the third person and so remove personal responsibility.

Because this platform is for discussing present truth, not personal opinions or experiences per se. While personal testimony has its place, let the Word of God have the preeminence, amen?

 

[quietthinker]

Because this platform is for discussing present truth, not personal opinions or experiences per se. While personal testimony has its place, let the Word of God have the preeminence, amen?

Convenient sidestep Phoneman, but it's a lame duck....in fact, very lame........and what's more, you're smart enough to know it!

 

[Phoneman777]

Convenient sidestep Phoneman, but it's a lame duck....in fact, very lame........and what's more, you're smart enough to know it!

I'm from the South, therefore I'm a bit sloooooow....but not too slow to understand when a man refuses to answer a personal question after being asked twice, a wise man will stop asking.

 

[Phoneman777]

Why talk in the third person and so remove personal responsibility. The question is to you personally. It's not hypothetical or removed.
I'm sure you understand this. Now it's a matter of applying it and making it real for yourself.

It's realness that defines a child of God. All the rest is huffing and puffing and making pious noises that ultimately are a pretence.

Yes, "realness" does define the Christian...they who are preaching the "real" Gospel which is the "everlasting Gospel" of the Three Angels' Messages "into all the world, to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people".

Also, did you never read that the church is "not a building, but God's commandment keeping people"?

Several good authoritative statements from the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy which identify what the Christian is.

 

[quietthinker]

Because this platform is for discussing present truth, not personal opinions or experiences per se. While personal testimony has its place, let the Word of God have the preeminence, amen?

what I understand you to mean is
My guess Phoneman is you don't want to answer the question I've asked because you feel you will be cornered. I understand that but the thing is, you negate self honesty for the sake of convenience and in so doing establish a far more dangerous principle.

 

[quietthinker]

1....

Yes, "realness" does define the Christian...they who are preaching the "real" Gospel which is the "everlasting Gospel" of the Three Angels' Messages "into all the world, to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people".

2....Also, did you never read that the church is "not a building, but God's commandment keeping people"?

3....Several good authoritative statements from the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy which identify what the Christian is.

This is a muddled reply Phoneman, the which have nothing to do with my question.

 

[Phoneman777]

what I understand you to mean is
My guess Phoneman is you don't want to answer the question I've asked because you feel you will be cornered. I understand that but the thing is, you negate self honesty for the sake of convenience and in so doing establish a far more dangerous principle.

As a member of this forum, I welcome Christian fellowship and/or spiritual proposition discussion - but I'm not too keen on witness badgering or accusations of dishonesty based on your lone "guesswork", understand?

Suffice it to say, the Christian experiences continued Holy Spirit illumination of the dark corners and crevasses of his mind because John 16:12-14 KJV implies if He showed us everything at once, we'd flee in terror, never to return. He is to "strive against sin" which inevitably - if he is a Christian at all - will result in a continual surrender of his will to His will, God alone his judge.

Now, if you have a problem with my spiritual proposition that God's standard in the Judgment disallows the covering of habitual, deliberate, known, presumptuous impenitent sin by grace, please state the nature of it, and cease from your disrespectful violations of the CB TOS.

 

[Phoneman777]

1....
This is a muddled reply Phoneman, the which have nothing to do with my question.

Please see post#35

 

[quietthinker]

As a member of this forum, I welcome Christian fellowship and/or spiritual proposition discussion - but I'm not too keen on witness badgering or accusations of dishonesty based on your lone "guesswork", understand?

Suffice it to say, the Christian experiences continued Holy Spirit illumination of the dark corners and crevasses of his mind because John 16:12-14 KJV implies if He showed us everything at once, we'd flee in terror, never to return. He is to "strive against sin" which inevitably - if he is a Christian at all - will result in a continual surrender of his will to His will, God alone his judge.

Now, if you have a problem with my spiritual proposition that God's standard in the Judgment disallows the covering of habitual, deliberate, known, presumptuous impenitent sin by grace, please state the nature of it, and cease from your disrespectful violations of the CB TOS.

If we define sin by breaking the Law which I understand is your go to, then notwithstanding the fancy descriptions of how one shouldn't, the fact is all of us fall into the category of law breakers and continue to do so and it seems to me, telling others that they shouldn't and why they shouldn't becomes nothing more than a hypocritical exercise.

The enlightening of the Spirit surely will create the desire to strive against sin yet further more he will do far more than that. He will expand our understanding on the matter. In spite of our shortcomings he will remind us that we have a Saviour just as Jesus described in the following in John 16:8-11 quoted from the NIV

'8When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.'

Notice how Jesus defines both sin, righteousness and judgement .......can we hear it?.......or at the very least, can we discuss it?

 

[Phoneman777]

If we define sin by breaking the Law which I understand is your go to, then notwithstanding the fancy descriptions of how one shouldn't, the fact is all of us fall into the category of law breakers and continue to do so and it seems to me, telling others that they shouldn't and why they shouldn't becomes nothing more than a hypocritical exercise.

We do? I thought Christians were supposed to "go and sin no more" and are "new creatures in Christ Jesus" and render "reasonable service" and "unprofitable servitude" when we do "all that your heavenly Father hath commanded you to do", right?

I suspect you've been seduced by the same liberal theology that the OSAS crowd subscribes to, and I would encourage you to get back to the Bible and the SOP. Satan doesn't hold a gun to anyone's head and force them to sin - but, unfortunately, that's what liberal Christianity would love to believe is so...to escape the personal responsibility of having to choose to "abide in the Vine" day by day.

 

[quietthinker]

We do? I thought Christians were supposed to "go and sin no more" and are "new creatures in Christ Jesus" and render "reasonable service" and "unprofitable servitude" when we do "all that your heavenly Father hath commanded you to do", right?

I suspect you've been seduced by the same liberal theology that the OSAS crowd subscribes to, and I would encourage you to get back to the Bible and the SOP. Satan doesn't hold a gun to anyone's head and force them to sin - but, unfortunately, that's what liberal Christianity would love to believe is so...to escape the personal responsibility of having to choose to "abide in the Vine" day by day.

Dear Phoneman, have you confused 'supposed to do' with 'doing'? Do you recall the story Jesus told of the the two sons; one said I will and the other said I won't to the Fathers request?....you can read the story here: Matthew 22:28-31

28“What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’
29“ ‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
30“Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.
31“Which of the two did what his father wanted?”

You are enamoured by what we are 'supposed to do' and my question to you is; knowing this, do you actually do? In other words, do you follow through on what you tell others they should do, ie confess and forsake their/your sins?........and when I ask this, you suspect I have been seduced. What sort of twisting is this?

 

[Phoneman777]

Dear Phoneman, have you confused 'supposed to do' with 'doing'?

No.

Have you confused the mission of your church - taking the Three Angels' Messages into all the world "with the additional mention of the corruptions which have been entering the various organizations that constitute Babylon, since that message was first given, in the summer of 1844" - with another mission?

Please direct me to any of your posts which confirm you haven't - I'm very interested in reading some