Elephant in the room - accusation of judging

[shazeep]

i am not suggesting that you are being disingenuous, at least not consciously--i am suggesting that you have accepted a lie, that let's admit you did not get from Scripture on your own. You went to some "Bible College."

What's the lie?

well, many lies, making up a doctrine; for one, that you are saved, right now, contrary to Scripture in more than one place.

[shazeep]

And wadr if you admit that all you can go by is what people say, then i don't get why all the resistance @ 'you accept verbal declarations as proof?'

I am saying that is as good as we humans can get from other humans about one's salvation. But I say that with the conclusion of the matter being IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT OPINIONS WE HAVE in the end. It's what God thinks. I presume no more than that.

i'm here because you have presumed much more than that, Mike. I tried the ol' "thankfully, your opinions do not seem to have actually affected the salvational state of any Catholics" and was dismissed, so if you are now saying that "All Catholics are lost" is merely an opinion then please say so.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, you really mean it when you say that people must do those works in your "church" in order to "be saved," too;

No. I never said that and neither do I believe it.

my meaning is that your theology demands a conversion experience, as evidenced by your definition of "speaking in tongues" etc., and other Christian religions, and possibly even other OP sects are adjudged "lost" by you based upon their lack of accomplishment.

That is not true. Tongues are not a means to salvation, just evidence of it. And accomplishments do not save us either, unless they're sins.

Again, you have quite the odd way of describing what I believe. Saying things I believe that I do not believe .lol

[shazeep]

But those who distinctly deny the cross even occurred are lost according to the word.
that is your understanding, and is what was emphasized to you, and so is what you emphasize, but i think should be tempered by the fact that any who admit that Christ came in the flesh are from God, and other passages, so i find your statement one-dimensional in theory and quite destructive in practice.

but let me also add that i see how one might admit the cross occurred and be lost, or admit Christ walked the earth and be lost, too. Declarations are indicative, but you cannot talk your way into salvation, iow.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i am not suggesting that you are being disingenuous, at least not consciously--i am suggesting that you have accepted a lie, that let's admit you did not get from Scripture on your own. You went to some "Bible College."

What's the lie?

well, many lies, making up a doctrine; for one, that you are saved, right now, contrary to Scripture in more than one place.

Come on you can do better than that. Always vague.

WHAT doctrine have I made up?

Scripture says we can know we are saved now. Want to see it?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

And wadr if you admit that all you can go by is what people say, then i don't get why all the resistance @ 'you accept verbal declarations as proof?'

I am saying that is as good as we humans can get from other humans about one's salvation. But I say that with the conclusion of the matter being IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT OPINIONS WE HAVE in the end. It's what God thinks. I presume no more than that.

i'm here because you have presumed much more than that, Mike. I tried the ol' "thankfully, your opinions do not seem to have actually affected the salvational state of any Catholics" and was dismissed, so if you are now saying that "All Catholics are lost" is merely an opinion then please say so.

Again, you words are not clear. Seriously, type out more of what's in your head and tack it on with these sorts of words.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

But those who distinctly deny the cross even occurred are lost according to the word.
that is your understanding, and is what was emphasized to you, and so is what you emphasize, but i think should be tempered by the fact that any who admit that Christ came in the flesh are from God, and other passages, so i find your statement one-dimensional in theory and quite destructive in practice.

I already said it is HOW he came in flesh from the same book you cite that from that determines his coming in flesh. He was BEGOTTEN OF GOD, and that is denied by your buddies.

but let me also add that i see how one might admit the cross occurred and be lost, or admit Christ walked the earth and be lost, too. Declarations are indicative, but you cannot talk your way into salvation, iow.

I never said you could talk your way in. You don't read what I write. Seriously.

And, also, if one says the cross never occurred, there is no way one is saved. Simple. But I just said that earlier today, as well.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

SHow me why I am lost and show me what I lack.

i said that to illustrate that you are being sanctimonious toward other genuine seekers after God, and that you would not appreciate being considered lost.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Catholics patently don't trust in the work of the cross to make them righteous like the bible says we must do. Ask them.

i don't need to ask them, i already know their doctrine is not mine. You ignore that the Bible says we should do a lot of things, and insist upon your understanding of Scripture for everyone, or to hell with them. This is the benefit of an advanced education in Christianity? That everything really important in Scripture be filtered through your lens?

I suggest that the conception of righteousness provided you, that you now preach, is taking you to hell, Mike; and Little children seem to be backing me up. Do not be deceived. Gee, i wonder why he put it that way, how might a Rhema student possibly be deceived?

The one who does what is right is righteous, and if your theology discounts this, as you have indicated that it does, perhaps it is time to review what "trust in the work of the cross" means, and possibly even "like the Bible says we must do" which i certainly don't disagree with, but trust the Holy Spirit to direct me in, and not men conducting a religion.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Again, you're so vague and oddly elusive in your posts. I cannot get your point.

Let me try. When someone claims a way to be saved is by doing good deeds, more than bad deeds in most claims, that reveals they know nothing about the trust we must have solely in the work of the cross for righteousness. So, that is plain as plain can be.

What IT TAKES to be saved is to genuinely believe god's work on the cross makes us righteous. But only God truly knows if a heart believes like that. But when someone flatly states they don't believe that but believe some other method, then we know they do not have it in their hearts. lol. When they claim they have it in their hearts we cannot know. Simple. If you cannot see that, then no sense talking.

i can see that that might be tripe; we can compare one's speech with their actions, spiritual discernment, or keep believing them in the face of evidence to the contrary, denial, and as to the "flatly states" part, i would not hold out much hope for them myself, but we have the Vineyard Owner with Two Sons to consider; and the fact that you may have a poor or at least one-dimensional definition of "righteousness."

Women might be saved in childbirth, so you surely have a bad def of "saved," too. The point is that you demonstrably do not know, and surely should not be trying to reduce salvation to your--or rather Rhema's--inadequate understanding for purposes of dissemination as a pastor, at least imo, do it if you like. I would have vastly more respect for a pastor who said "I don't really know, but i can regurgitate what i was told, and maybe do some reflecting upon it and get back to you" than one who insists his regurgitation is some kind of irrefutable law.