Two Ways of thinking about OSAS

[justaname]

Yes, clearly equivocal. And you're doing it again by saying you never 'stated the gospel was not a matter of choice', when in fact you do by stating that we have no Free Will and believing in southern election. You really think that's slightly changing words are going to follow me or rather is that know? I find that to be a very disingenuous way to discuss things.
Jesus said 'nobody can come to me unless the father draws him', not 'gives' him, so again you use equivocal wording.

Well if it TRULY is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of your position, then show how that is, and don't just be dismissive about it. I could easily say that about everything you post, but I do respond to most of your points. Again sadly this is the type of typical rhetoric I do see all the time from people who dogmatically push RT.

Oh and by the way you totally ignored every point I made in the post you responded to here.

Look to this verse regarding your false accusations.
John 6
65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

My paraphrase, "None can come to God unless it is given by Him."

Please quote for me exactly where I stated we have no Free Will.

Reread this statement:
I have never stated the gospel was not a matter of choice. Men left to their devices would never make the choice to turn to God is my contention. God is the initiate in salvation in more than generating a plan, he acts in the lives of individuals.

This addresses the theological aspect of your post. Your character attacks will not be addressed as I will not be drawn to your level of discourse.

 

[justaname]

No, you did not answer the specific issues I raised in your red herring responses.

As for my specifics, can't you see what you did at #62? You quoted my specifics. Here they are again:

That God gives people the opportunity to choose for or against him is implied by all of the verses in Scripture that exhort people to turn to God (see Prov 1:23; Isa 31:6; Ezek 14:6; 18:32; Joel 2:13-14; Matt 18:3; Acts 3:19); to repent (1 Kings 8:47; Matt 3:2; Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts2:38; 17:30), and to believe (2 Chron 20:20; Isa 43:10; John 6:29; 14:1; Acts 16:31; Phil 1:29; 1 John 3:23) (from my article for which I provided a link at #55, How to interpret ‘appeared’ in Titus 2:11)

Don't ever accuse me of not dealing with the specifics when I have. I gave you the link to this article at my post #55 that enabled you to obtain this information - specifics from me.

You are playing games when you accuse me of not giving specifics. I find this to be dishonest and I'm not impressed.

Oz

The specifics I was asking for was in how you perceive a red herring, not the content of your posts or mine. I will say with all honesty I do not believe I committed this fallacy, and all your accusation has really done is nothing but derail the conversation. If you feel I am guilty you need to explain it to me where and how like I am a 4 year old because I am blind to your perception. I think I see the hair standing up on the back of that koala bear. Simmer down some brother. Lets not get lost in semantics here.

 

[justaname]

How does that position align with 1 John 2:2 (ESV), 'He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world'?

Does your position mean that this verse does not apply to the whole world, but only to the ones God draws and not to the ones God does not draw?

From hence fourth I will attempt to break my replies to you in this fashion so as to not be wrongly accused of the red herring fallacy. Trust me I fully understand the definition, yet I feel sometimes as responders in written form our ideas are not fully formulated conveying what we intend to convey. In a verbal conversation or discourse it is easier to communicate our ideas and clarify ourselves when questioned with more ease and immediacy. Verbally one can say, wait a minute you didn't address such and such...where the response can be well actually I did by saying this, but let me go into more detail here. I digress.

I fully agree Jesus is the propitiation for the sin of the world. Here I do not speak of the world of the elect, if there were even such a thing. Yet here it can easily be observed man is still in open rebellion to God, thus his will has not been freed from sin. If what you propose is the truth of the matter, the human will is freed, then why does man still evidence sin? Why has not one human walked in sinless perfection (except the Christ)? I tell you with full confidence, we will never see such sinless perfection this side of the consummation of all things.

So then what is the implication of Jesus being the propitiation for the sin of the world? Without question not universal redemption and reconciliation to God.

1. He has effectively satisfied the wrath of God for all who believe He is the Christ. 1 John 5:13
2. He is the basis of condemnation for all who do not believe He is the Christ. 1 John 5:10

So then Jesus' propitiation is efficient for the world, but only effective for those who believe. Those who are in unbelief nullify Jesus propitiation for themselves by making God out to be a liar.

Why could it not apply to all the world for salvation (as in Titus 2:11 ESV) and God gives all people the ability to say 'yes' or 'no' to him? That means salvation is God-centred on God's terms, but not on Calvinistic terms.

I am uncertain of what you are exactly asking or presenting here, respectively within your last statement.

To the question:
All have the ability to respond positively to God, hence human culpability, yet none are inclined to do so on their own. Scripture is rather clear regarding this. It is not that we are unable, rather unwilling. Humanity is in open rebellion to God, subject to the prince of the power of the air.

But regarding Titus 2:11 you are not conveying the full context. Allow me to expand this idea because as we both know exegesis looks to the full context before drawing conclusions. As I see it the salvation the incarnation expresses is fully explained in the following verses:

11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,

Here we have the incarnation bringing salvation to all men. As it is salvation is presented to all, for God so loved the world, yet neither of us speak of universal salvation in respective terms. Yet you desire to change what a standard soteriological definition of salvation might be in this context in replacement of the freedom of the will. Firstly you need to justify your contextual decision without giving me a book to chase after. You are making this claim so you need to support your conclusion in a summarized fashion.

My argument:
Jesus did bring salvation to all men because it is offered to all, yet men are in open rebellion to God and to the salvation He brings in the person of Jesus Christ. If men were all "freed" at this point all men would chose Christ for the creature is subject to the Creator if not in rebellion. To emphasize if the will were freed there would be no choice to made at all for we would all willingly fall into obedience to the Logos and His gospel.

12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,
13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of bour great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,
14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

Here now is where the salvation that is spoken of bears its full implication and condition. We are to obey the instruction given by the Christ to receive this salvation. Here in verse 14 it states we are redeemed. We know the unregenerate is not redeemed, thus the salvation that was earlier referred to is not applied to all. Not all people are His own possession. Not all people are zealous for good deeds. Yes salvation has been brought by the Christ for all, yet not all will benefit from this salvation He brought.

That God gives people the opportunity to choose for or against him is implied by all of the verses in Scripture that exhort people to turn to God (see Prov 1:23; Isa 31:6; Ezek 14:6; 18:32; Joel 2:13-14; Matt 18:3; Acts 3:19); to repent (1 Kings 8:47; Matt 3:2; Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts2:38; 17:30), and to believe (2 Chron 20:20; Isa 43:10; John 6:29; 14:1; Acts 16:31; Phil 1:29; 1 John 3:23).

Oz

I am uncertain how you want me to respond to this other than the opening premise is fully dealt with in the above portion of the post. Again it is not that man is unable to turn to God, to repent, and to believe, rather he is unwilling due to his open rebellion. Also regarding the Romans passage you can refer to #63, to which you never cared to respond.

 

[FHII]

I went back to the beginning of this thread and read all posts concerning justaname and Oz.

Whay i saw is that justaname has indeed touched on every question Oz brought up. He may not have spent alot of time (certainly not as much as Oz wanted), but he did address them. Frankly, i can see Justaname's reason for not going too deep into them because there wasn't much there to begin with(referring to Acts 2, 2 peter 1:1-2,20 and titus 2:11).

What it appears to me is that these verses were brought up only to disect the meaning of words, or more specifically, how they are translated.

I like doing that too, but it shouldn't be done to form doctrine. Yet, its possible to suggest that's what is being done. If you need an explanation for why this is not a good idea.... Well, research it.

I saw that both Justaname and Oz both had no problem bringing new scripture into the conversation, which of course is great IF it applies. And overall, both parties did well. But what i also saw is when Justaname did it, Oz threw the red herring flag. Yet, justaname addressed (sometimes briefly) everything. Oz refused a few things because he thought they were some sort of fallacy, which they weren't.

So, my suggestions going forward are as follows:

Justaname: be more thorough with your answers to what is being stated or asked so there is no questions that can be raised. Even if the question or statement is irrelevant or vague or for the most part pointless, if you don't it will be dwelt upon.

Oz: I don't have any suggestions for you. You wouldn't listen and would accuse me of some fallacy anyway. So what's the point?

But if you would listen, I'd suggest you lighten up and stop dodging questions with your fallacy scales. You'd do well in a forum that had a formal debate template. But it doesn't work well in a discussion forum.

 

[StanJ]

Look to this verse regarding your false accusations.John 665 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”My paraphrase, "None can come to God unless it is given by Him."Please quote for me exactly where I stated we have no Free Will.Reread this statement:I have never stated the gospel was not a matter of choice. Men left to their devices would never make the choice to turn to God is my contention. God is the initiate in salvation in more than generating a plan, he acts in the lives of individuals.This addresses the theological aspect of your post. Your character attacks will not be addressed as I will not be drawn to your level of discourse.

Well granted is not the same as given and if you check out verse 44 you'll see that it says draw. Bottom line God doesn't give us to Jesus, He draws us to Him we choose. We don't need you to paraphrase, we know exactly what the Bible says and how to read it and I find that all this does when you paraphrase Scripture is show that you deliberately want to mislead people. I'm going to be concerned about some who may be reading these posts and falling for your tactics, which is why I address them.
As far as the gospel issue is concerned you're talking out of both sides of your mouth now. I know exactly what you said and what you meant to convey and if you can't remember your own posts then that's your problem not mine.
Of course God is the initiate in salvation, He put the plan together. That's not the same thing as giving only certain people salvation and not allowing others to be saved, which is a fallacious teaching and totally wrong. Peter said that 'God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance'. If he did what you claim he does, then he would fulfill his own desire by making everybody saved according to His will. The fact is that not everybody does get saved and people choose whether to get saved or not. It's really quite simple and the fact that you continue to not recognize this just shows the severe degree of inculcation you are under.
Inculcation has nothing to do with character, it has to do with learning and how one learns. If you were to actually address my posts point-by-point and not deflect and complain then we might get somewhere, but you don't. I made the observation long time ago when I first got on here that you wouldn't do this genuinely and you have proven me to be right. If that offends you, too bad. I get offended by people who paraphrase what I say or misquote me and equivocate.

 

[StanJ]

I actually wish we did have a formal debate process and sub forum, but we don't and that's probably because nobody can really afford the time to moderate it.

It is too bad because most of us know what the formal rules of debating are and if we stuck to them we would probably get further along but sadly we don't.

 

[justaname]

Well granted is not the same as given and if you check out verse 44 you'll see that it says draw. Bottom line God doesn't give us to Jesus, He draws us to Him we choose. We don't need you to paraphrase, we know exactly what the Bible says and how to read it and I find that all this does when you paraphrase Scripture is show that you deliberately want to mislead people. I'm going to be concerned about some who may be reading these posts and falling for your tactics, which is why I address them.
As far as the gospel issue is concerned you're talking out of both sides of your mouth now. I know exactly what you said and what you meant to convey and if you can't remember your own posts then that's your problem not mine.
Of course God is the initiate in salvation, He put the plan together. That's not the same thing as giving only certain people salvation and not allowing others to be saved, which is a fallacious teaching and totally wrong. Peter said that 'God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance'. If he did what you claim he does, then he would fulfill his own desire by making everybody saved according to His will. The fact is that not everybody does get saved and people choose whether to get saved or not. It's really quite simple and the fact that you continue to not recognize this just shows the severe degree of inculcation you are under.
Inculcation has nothing to do with character, it has to do with learning and how one learns. If you were to actually address my posts point-by-point and not deflect and complain then we might get somewhere, but you don't. I made the observation long time ago when I first got on here that you wouldn't do this genuinely and you have proven me to be right. If that offends you, too bad. I get offended by people who paraphrase what I say or misquote me and equivocate.

Here Stan is verse 37 within the same context:

37 “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

Do all come to Jesus from this context? Jesus says the ones the Father gives to Him come. Lets move further down contextually.

“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
39 “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

Do all receive eternal life? Let me answer this for you. NO! Contextually Jesus is speaking of only those who receive eternal life.
Then lets look to verse 44.

43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves.
44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

This speaks of the drawing activity of the Father. Not all men receive eternal life, so Jesus can not be speaking of the drawing you attempt to proclaim. Context is key. Where are you drawing your context from because it is not from this pericope?

Then the verse I paraphrased, which does nothing to mislead, falls in line with exactly what I was conveying.

65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”


Lets move to some more supporting scripture.

10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”
11 Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.

Here Jesus explicitly states God selected some to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, yet to others it is not granted.

I have already presented Peter's statement that is further support. The Father revealed to Peter that Jesus is the Christ. (Here is another paraphrase that does nothing to mislead)

Then your statement:

"That's not the same thing as giving only certain people salvation and not allowing others to be saved, which is a fallacious teaching and totally wrong."

Show me where I teach this. You can not. This is your misinterpretation and false allegation. You continually infuse your misrepresentation into every post stating I make claims I never have, then accuse me of your own guilt. Tiring!

Man is unwilling to choose God, not unable.

Then you state God is not willing that any should perish. You should take your own advise and look to a modern translation on their text.

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. NASB

This is speaking about God's desire that all come to repentance. No one disagrees. Man is the one that does not desire to come to Him!

Your quote:
If he did what you claim he does, then he would fulfill his own desire by making everybody saved according to His will.

This exact argument applies to your position also. This a moot point.

 

[StanJ]

Here Stan is verse 37 within the same context:37 “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.Do all come to Jesus from this context? Jesus says the ones the Father gives to Him come. Lets move further down contextually.“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.39 “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”Do all receive eternal life? Let me answer this for you. NO! Contextually Jesus is speaking of only those who receive eternal life.Then lets look to verse 44.43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves.44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.This speaks of the drawing activity of the Father. Not all men receive eternal life, so Jesus can not be speaking of the drawing you attempt to proclaim. Context is key. Where are you drawing your context from because it is not from this pericope?Then the verse I paraphrased, which does nothing to mislead, falls in line with exactly what I was conveying.65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”Lets move to some more supporting scripture.10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”11 Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.Here Jesus explicitly states God selected some to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, yet to others it is not granted.I have already presented Peter's statement that is further support. The Father revealed to Peter that Jesus is the Christ. (Here is another paraphrase that does nothing to mislead)Then your statement:"That's not the same thing as giving only certain people salvation and not allowing others to be saved, which is a fallacious teaching and totally wrong."Show me where I teach this. You can not. This is your misinterpretation and false allegation. You continually infuse your misrepresentation into every post stating I make claims I never have, then accuse me of your own guilt. Tiring!Man is unwilling to choose God, not unable.Then you state God is not willing that any should perish. You should take your own advise and look to a modern translation on their text.The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. NASBThis is speaking about God's desire that all come to repentance. No one disagrees. Man is the one that does not desire to come to Him!Your quote:If he did what you claim he does, then he would fulfill his own desire by making everybody saved according to His will.This exact argument applies to your position also. This a moot point.

I can deflect the same way by getting you to read verse 29 & 35. Just another example of how you don't actually deal with any particular saying but just continue to quote scripture hoping that something will catch. That's not the way the Bible works. There is an overall contacts to the New Testament in the Gospels. And that is not that Jesus is only for some. Jesus died for all sin and God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. Ignore those scriptures if you will, but continually quoting other scripture in order to not address the scriptures you're given is nothing more than running away from the issue. Context is indeed key and yet for some reason you seem to think it's okay for you to not stay in keeping with the context?
If you can't understand the rationale that Peter uses and showing that God wants all to be saved vs your dogma that God only saves those he wants to then there really is no use whatsoever in me continuing to try to get through to you. I have tried and you fail to see so at this point I see no further use in discussing with you anything whatsoever. As per forum rules, please don't address me again in regards to any of my posts unless you're acting in the role of moderator.

 

[H. Richard]

Richard,

I find your comment somewhat confusing as well. After people become Christians and commit sins, do they need to confess those sins to God, repent and seek His forgiveness? Or is there no need to do this?

Oz

If a person is saved by putting their faith (trust) in Jesus' work (shed blood) on the cross do they then put their faith, trust in their works of repentance to keep them saved or are they still trusting in Jesus' work on the cross to save them?

According to the scriptures Jesus shed His blood one time, not many times, and it paid for ALL the sins of mankind, past, present and future. Therefore all those sins a person is told they must repent of have already been paid for. If a person does not believe this then they really don't have faith and trust in the shed blood to pay for their sins of the flesh. They have not been set free.

I have said it before and still say it, the only sin that condemns a person in this age of God's grace is to NOT BELIEVE Jesus' shed blood on the cross has paid for all of that person's sins. It is very simple, you either believe in Jesus' works to save you or you don't.

Jesus knows that men/women live in sinful bodies that will sin as long as they live. Therefore He came up with a perfectly fair plan of salvation. It only requires that a person believe in His work on the cross.

 

[OzSpen]

If a person is saved by putting their faith (trust) in Jesus' work (shed blood) on the cross do they then put their faith, trust in their works of repentance to keep them saved or are they still trusting in Jesus' work on the cross to save them?

According to the scriptures Jesus shed His blood one time, not many times, and it paid for ALL the sins of mankind, past, present and future. Therefore all those sins a person is told they must repent of have already been paid for. If a person does not believe this then they really don't have faith and trust in the shed blood to pay for their sins of the flesh. They have not been set free.

I have said it before and still say it, the only sin that condemns a person in this age of God's grace is to NOT BELIEVE Jesus' shed blood on the cross has paid for all of that person's sins. It is very simple, you either believe in Jesus' works to save you or you don't.

Jesus knows that men/women live in sinful bodies that will sin as long as they live. Therefore He came up with a perfectly fair plan of salvation. It only requires that a person believe in His work on the cross.

If a person is saved by putting their faith (trust) in Jesus' work (shed blood) on the cross do they then put their faith, trust in their works of repentance to keep them saved or are they still trusting in Jesus' work on the cross to save them?

According to the scriptures Jesus shed His blood one time, not many times, and it paid for ALL the sins of mankind, past, present and future. Therefore all those sins a person is told they must repent of have already been paid for. If a person does not believe this then they really don't have faith and trust in the shed blood to pay for their sins of the flesh. They have not been set free.

I have said it before and still say it, the only sin that condemns a person in this age of God's grace is to NOT BELIEVE Jesus' shed blood on the cross has paid for all of that person's sins. It is very simple, you either believe in Jesus' works to save you or you don't.

Jesus knows that men/women live in sinful bodies that will sin as long as they live. Therefore He came up with a perfectly fair plan of salvation. It only requires that a person believe in His work on the cross.

Richard,

What you have stated contradicts Colossians 3:13 (ESV), 'bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive'.

There is a requirement of NT believers that they continue to seek forgiveness if there is a sin against them. 'Forgiving each other' is core theology for biblical Christianity.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Oz: I don't have any suggestions for you. You wouldn't listen and would accuse me of some fallacy anyway. So what's the point?

FHill,

You don't have any suggestions for me, you say, but you gave me a suggestion. So I wouldn't listen? This is a straw man. I'm always listening and changing, but I note when anyone uses a logical fallacy, we cannot continue to have a logical discussion because of the fallacious reasoning.

I will only draw attention to your or anybody's logical fallacy if one is committed. Could you be inferring that you don't listen when I show your use of a logical fallacy? Who is the one not listening?

What's the point, you ask? The point is: Both of us should be examining what we write to discern if there is any erroneous reasoning in how we present our material. Logical fallacies seriously interfere with reasonable conversation, but that doesn't seem to bother you.

Oz

 

[FHII]

Richard,

What you have stated contradicts Colossians 3:13 (ESV), 'bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive'.

There is a requirement of NT believers that they continue to seek forgiveness if there is a sin against them. 'Forgiving each other' is core theology for biblical Christianity.

Oz

Col 3:13 speaaks of forgiving each other. In other words sheep forgiving sheep. Not a sheep repenting for his sins against god.

Yes, i do believe man must repent to god. But only once, and there is a secret to doing so.

But I absolutely believe in forgiving others. Col 3;13 goes along well with mat 6.

 

[FHII]

FHill,

You don't have any suggestions for me, you say, but you gave me a suggestion. So I wouldn't listen? This is a straw man. I'm always listening and changing, but I note when anyone uses a logical fallacy, we cannot continue to have a logical discussion because of the fallacious reasoning.

I will only draw attention to your or anybody's logical fallacy if one is committed. Could you be inferring that you don't listen when I show your use of a logical fallacy? Who is the one not listening?

What's the point, you ask? The point is: Both of us should be examining what we write to discern if there is any erroneous reasoning in how we present our material. Logical fallacies seriously interfere with reasonable conversation, but that doesn't seem to bother you.

Oz

Oz, you proved my point. Just like i thought you would!

Have a nice day!

 

[OzSpen]

Col 3:13 speaaks of forgiving each other. In other words sheep forgiving sheep. Not a sheep repenting for his sins against god.

Yes, i do believe man must repent to god. But only once, and there is a secret to doing so.

But I absolutely believe in forgiving others. Col 3;13 goes along well with mat 6.

Col 3:13 speaaks of forgiving each other. In other words sheep forgiving sheep. Not a sheep repenting for his sins against god.

Yes, i do believe man must repent to god. But only once, and there is a secret to doing so.

But I absolutely believe in forgiving others. Col 3;13 goes along well with mat 6.

What you have stated here is contradicted by 1 John 1:8-10 (ESV):

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Who is John addressing? Those who have fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3 ESV). You are coming down on the wrong side of what the Bible teaches.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, you proved my point. Just like i thought you would!

Have a nice day!

FHill,

Do you see what you have done in providing another red herring logical fallacy? In #91 I presented a number of points to which you should have responded, but you ignored those points to provide your own agenda in this 2-line response.

Your response did not deal with my content, thus you have created another red herring. Why must you continue to do this? Don't you want to understand what you do in this erroneous reasoning? It makes having a reasonable conversation with you impossible. That's what the use of logical fallacies does to dialogue.

Oz

 

[FHII]

What you have stated here is contradicted by 1 John 1:8-10 (ESV):


Who is John addressing? Those who have fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3 ESV). You are coming down on the wrong side of what the Bible teaches.

Oz

Well the truth of the matter is i haven't contradicted 1john 1:8-10. I won't even ask how you feel i have. I just read what i wrote and read the verse you alledge i contradicted. Its clear to me that your accusations are poppycock.

The rest of your fallacies make no sense and aren't worth spending time on. Not that your other accusations were worth spending time on, but they were fun to address.

Oz, bother me no more. You have nothing to add to me.

 

[H. Richard]

Richard,

What you have stated contradicts Colossians 3:13 (ESV), 'bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive'.

There is a requirement of NT believers that they continue to seek forgiveness if there is a sin against them. 'Forgiving each other' is core theology for biblical Christianity.

Oz

Are you saying that we must keep ourselves saved by what we do, or not do, and if we fail to forgive someone we are not saved? That might be what you are counting on but I know that I and everyone else still sin in the flesh and most of those sins they don't even know they commit. To place faith in what you do is to want to share in the work of salvation and claim glory in your works. It might be your core theology for biblical Christianity but it isn't mine.

My "CORE OF CHRISTIANITY" is what Jesus did on the cross. By the way, I do not call myself a Christian because it has become a catch all word that includes all church denominations many of which I think are apostate. According to the gospel of grace as given to Paul a person who has placed all their faith, trust and confidence in the shed blood of Jesus on the cross are placed in the body of Christ and are children of God and joint heirs with Christ. Therefore I call myself a "child of God in Christ." God may spank His children but He will never cast them out.

 

[ScaliaFan]

Those that do not believe in OSAS are the ones that believe they save themselves by not sinning in the flesh.

that is SO untrue.

I know that i cannot save myself. If i were capable of doing that, Jesus would never h ave had to come to Earth to suffer and pay for my sins (Thank you, Jesus..)

But just because you are not saved by your works does NOT .. that does NOT translate into: Go ahead and violate God's laws (such as the 10 Commandments.. and "love your neighbor as yourself")!!

that is the most ridiculous thing i have heard of in.. possibly ever

God hates sin; there is absolutely no sin in Heaven, and no desire for sin-- that last has to be purged from you b4 you can get into Heaven, where "no impure thing will enter" (Bk of Revelation)


:huh:

 

[H. Richard]

that is SO untrue.

I know that i cannot save myself. If i were capable of doing that, Jesus would never h ave had to come to Earth to suffer and pay for my sins (Thank you, Jesus..)

But just because you are not saved by your works does NOT .. that does NOT translate into: Go ahead and violate God's laws (such as the 10 Commandments.. and "love your neighbor as yourself")!!

that is the most ridiculous thing i have heard of in.. possibly ever

God hates sin; there is absolutely no sin in Heaven, and no desire for sin-- that last has to be purged from you b4 you can get into Heaven, where "no impure thing will enter" (Bk of Revelation)


:huh:

1 Cor 6:11-12
11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
Glorify God in Body and Spirit 12 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
NKJV

We are already washed, sanctified, justified and ready for heaven.

People may think they are keeping the 10 commandments but it is impossible for sinful flesh to do so. I thank God always for what Jesus did for me on the cross that has already paid for my sins of the flesh, past, present and future. I do not live in fear that this sinful body I live in will send me to hell.

Phil 3:2-3
2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation!
3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh,
NKJV

 

[OzSpen]

Well the truth of the matter is i haven't contradicted 1john 1:8-10. I won't even ask how you feel i have. I just read what i wrote and read the verse you alledge i contradicted. Its clear to me that your accusations are poppycock.

The rest of your fallacies make no sense and aren't worth spending time on. Not that your other accusations were worth spending time on, but they were fun to address.

Oz, bother me no more. You have nothing to add to me.

1John 1:8-10 is addressed to Christian believers, those of whom it is said "our fellowship is with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 1:3) and "if we say we have fellowship with him" (1 Jn 1:8). For these Christians who sin after becoming Christians, we are instructed:

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:8-10 ESV).

It is a requirement for Christians who sin after becoming believers that they confess their sins to God to obtain His forgiveness and cleansing. There are also times when we sin against another person that we need to confess our sins to that person to obtain his/her forgiveness (Col 1:13 ESV; James 5:16 ESV).

What I am writing has biblical support.

Oz