Total Depravity
- Thread starter TMS
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I'm more interested in what the Bible says than in what you think it means. What? Do you really think that a person can only own one metaphorical identity per lifetime?
You may be confusing "adding scripture" with "adding to scripture".
When you say "Yes, that's ANOTHER rhetorical question", you seem to be now admitting that you were dissembling when you criticised me for treating your earlier question as rhetorical.
And BTW you both added to scripture and took away from scripture. You wrote "scrpturre".
You are right that there are many metaphors used to describe the Christian and their relationship to Christ. The sheep-goat metaphor is used in conjunction purposefully to juxtapose the believer with the unbeliever. Otherwise, there would be an example of a goat being changed to a sheep. Never find this in scripture. Incidentally, you find the same thing with the wheat-tare metaphor.
God could have easily used a caterpillar-butterfly metaphor to do as you suppose. I don't recall it from scripture.
Well you must be in a frog metaphor somewhere with all the conclusions you've been jumping to.I'm more interested in what the Bible says than in what you think it means. What? Do you really think that a person can only own one metaphorical identity per lifetime?
You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. God can't be wholly righteous unless He is knowing all things always. He would be no different to us. There are always choices and if you don't know the answer you have as much chance to be wrong as you have to be right. It is precisely because God is knowing all things always that he is 100% righteous and is the very reason why trusting in His word makes us righteous. We are made righteous through faith.
Romans 4:5
But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
I trust that you failed to understand what Sawdust was saying.
I have no idea how you went to the place where you did....
No, you add to Scripture... this has been what you asked me about some time ago and I have beenYou may be confusing "adding scripture" with "adding to scripture".
When you say "Yes, that's ANOTHER rhetorical question", you seem to be now admitting that
you were dissembling when you criticised me for treating your earlier question as rhetorical.
And BTW you both added to scripture and took away from scripture. You wrote "scrpturre".
documenting through responses to you, though you dissemble and try to deny it. Also, asking a
rhetorical question is not dissembling as you falsely accuse. Get some integrity, PLEASE.
What???!!! In what world would that statement make any sense? Someone cannot be righteous and behave righteously unless they know all the future? ???
Well, that is an assertion without any evidence supporting it from the context of Matt 25. The sheep in this parable did not have any idea that that they were doing to Christians they were doing to Jesus. What makes you think such people are believers in Jesus?
They knew Jesus and He knew them. The reason they didn't accrue the good deeds to themselves is because they give credit for what they do to Him. Anyways, the main point was that they actually cared for others...that's true religion. The other group did not.
It would seem to me that there must be some significance in that God did not (actively) deny Adam knowledge... and that this was not done, by even God, that the not doing is an act, or rather a refrain from acting, of love considering the action, or nonaction in this case, is from God.
And if this is so, then, can we conclude that God, in love, actually, did not deny Adam anything?
Does anyone see where I'm going here?
(and oh, I know you are probably thinking, "to hell?" but no... not going to hell )
And if this is so, then, can we conclude that God, in love, actually, did not deny Adam anything?
Does anyone see where I'm going here?
(and oh, I know you are probably thinking, "to hell?" but no... not going to hell )In the real world. You can't be right if you're wrong and if you don't know the answer, you can be wrong as easily as you can be right. God is always right because He is always knowing the right answer.
entangled particles change state instantaneously according to a star change of their entangled partner, even from one side of the universe to the other. since information can only travel at the speed of light, the entangled particle 'observes' the information even while that information only exists in the future. since that observation can physically only be made at the speed of light, the information about the future can only come from that observer - He is the link between the two that transcends time and space.
Being right or wrong in anticipating the future is not a moral issue. It has nothing to do with righteousness.
Instantaneously means at the same time, not in the future. How do you know that information can only travel at the speed of light. Your assertions are unpersuasive.
Matt 25 does not give any indication that the sheep will be saints who descend from the clouds with Jesus after they have been resurrected and glorified. Frankly, I just don't see those words in any way realistically coming from the mouths of such resurrected saints.