Question about Acts 2:38: What about the martyrs?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Grace does nothing to negate those verses. Grace is very real and does not nullify those facts in those verses.

it does, if you are led to "All ______ are lost." All you have done, quite possibly in all innocence, is set up another Spanish Inquisition. They had Corinthians, ergo they were saved, right? How is the Pentecostal Inquisition any different?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You didn't like my little diagram?

no, because it does not seek to discover where those who might not agree with you are nonetheless still saved, but rather seeks to exclude all of those who do not agree with you.

"Notice, the initial premise of the syllogism is NOT 'All Christians are saved', but 'all the saved are Christians."

this is not true. this is a lie, that judges the Good Samaritan, and the First Son, and negates other areas of Scripture. People asking "When did we see you thirsty, and give you to drink?" are quite obviously those who do not adhere to your understanding, but are nonetheless accepted by Christ. The Good Samaritan was not a Christian.

This is why "works" and "deeds" are conflated, so that our "Christian" works may be considered "faith," and "deeds" may be called unnecessary to salvation--as much as this will surely set Mike off again. Faith without works is dead; to quote a poor translation.

[shazeep]

don't be deceived--you can judge by fruit, or verbal declarations, but you cannot use both.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shazeep

no, because it does not seek to discover where those who might not agree with you are nonetheless still saved, but rather seeks to exclude all of those who do not agree with you.

"Notice, the initial premise of the syllogism is NOT 'All Christians are saved', but 'all the saved are Christians."

this is not true. this is a lie, that judges the Good Samaritan, and the First Son, and negates other areas of Scripture. People asking "When did we see you thirsty, and give you to drink?" are quite obviously those who do not adhere to your understanding, but are nonetheless accepted by Christ. The Good Samaritan was not a Christian.

This is why "works" and "deeds" are conflated, so that our "Christian" works may be considered "faith," and "deeds" may be called unnecessary to salvation--as much as this will surely set Mike off again. Faith without works is dead; to quote a poor translation.

The good Samaritan was a fictitious character who helped his neighbor out. The fact a Samaritan in a parable helped an Israelite who got mugged does not prove "some of the saved are not Christians."

Suppose a Satan worshipping child molestor helped a Christian who got mugged? According to you, the pervert is "saved" and the Christian - if he believed that satan-worshipping child molesters were lost - would be bound for hell.

So you failed to prove your point, and my very simple, straightforward syllogism stands. See, logic and reality don't give two hoots about your sensibilities, or mine. Reality is what it is. Now, you can ignore reality if you like. But you cannot ignore its consequences, which include the fact that no Christian or Muslim could take you seriously at all.

Of course, the illiterate zombie emo post modern American neo-pagan anti-rationalists would find your nonsense thrilling and titillating, I'm CERTAIN of that.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The good Samaritan was a fictitious character

and so you make the GS "fictitious," when Christ Himself said "There was a man." And then go on to conflate him with a satan worshipping child molester, saying that a bad tree might produce good fruit. It just does not work like that. Good fruit comes from good trees. And so you deny the fruit, and accept the word, when you do this. Saul also did the same, with the church's blessing.

And nevermind the GS, anyway--you have to ignore too much other Scripture to hold the opinion, starting with "Judge not..."

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shazeep

and so you make the GS "fictitious," when Christ Himself said "There was a man." And then go on to conflate him with a satan worshipping child molester, saying that a bad tree might produce good fruit. It just does not work like that. Good fruit comes from good trees. And so you deny the fruit, and accept the word, when you do this. Saul also did the same, with the church's blessing.

And nevermind the GS, anyway--you have to ignore too much other Scripture to hold the opinion, starting with "Judge not..."

Argumentum ad nauseum.

[Esaias]

Shaz, I just destroyed your whole sophistical "argument". Obviously you disagree. That's cool, I am a little disappointed but not surprised.

Carry on.

[shazeep]

by conflating a good tree with a bad tree? I would say that Scripture disagrees. Then, like i said, let's take the GS out of the equation, and discuss how "All Muslims are lost" violates "Judge not, lest you be judged," or Paul's edict to let God judge those outside the church. Or how this is not "Love your enemies," or "Love your neighbor." Or how God does not judge like we do, but judges a person's heart. Or, or, or, or.

Again, this is not about Muslims, at all, but about lack of humility. You can argue that you deem all Muslims lost "in all humility," but you then get trapped into describing how you deem anyone saved, wherein you talk fruit, but reveal that you really mean words. "Muslims are all lost," at the end of the day, because they do not chant "Acts 2:38" along with you.

[shazeep]

You didn't like the comparison with the Spanish Inquisition?
how is the Pentecostal Inquisition any different?

[shazeep]

At some point you have to examine whether there is a part of you that wants, or even needs All Muslims Are Lost.