Not By Works
- Thread starter dcontroversal
- 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 am not ignoring it, see my post #151390
You said in reference to Matthew 24:12
Therefore, these "many" are saints who, through the practice of iniquity, kill their agape cold and dead, fail to endure to the end, and are not saved in the end.
Jesus said in Matthew 7:23
“And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
Matthew 7:23 KJV
https://www.bible.com/1/mat.7.23.kjv
Jesus said, of those who work iniquity, he never knew them. So, the iniquity that abounds in Matthew 24:12 was not practiced by Christians.
Your view of this verse is in error according to the words of Jesus. Please reconsider your position.
You said in reference to Matthew 24:12
Therefore, these "many" are saints who, through the practice of iniquity, kill their agape cold and dead, fail to endure to the end, and are not saved in the end.
Jesus said in Matthew 7:23
“And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
Matthew 7:23 KJV
https://www.bible.com/1/mat.7.23.kjv
Jesus said, of those who work iniquity, he never knew them. So, the iniquity that abounds in Matthew 24:12 was not practiced by Christians.
Your view of this verse is in error according to the words of Jesus. Please reconsider your position.
-
1
- Show all
Consistency is not the issue here. Case in point:
The Tree of Life is the means by which God imparts to mankind immortality.
The Tree of Life was in Eden and Adam and Eve were barred from it "lest they eat of it (continually) and live forever", and thus immortalizing sin.
Revelation says the saints are given entrance to heaven and granted the "right to the Tree of Life" - it doesn't say they are force-fed, right or wrong? That means they have to choose to reach up and eat the fruit in order to live forever....or will we be robots just running off some celestial program? We aren't now, so why then?
Now, is it "inconsistent" that we have to choose to eat the fruit in order to "live forever" while God enjoys self-existent immortality?
The Tree of Life is the means by which God imparts to mankind immortality.
The Tree of Life was in Eden and Adam and Eve were barred from it "lest they eat of it (continually) and live forever", and thus immortalizing sin.
Revelation says the saints are given entrance to heaven and granted the "right to the Tree of Life" - it doesn't say they are force-fed, right or wrong? That means they have to choose to reach up and eat the fruit in order to live forever....or will we be robots just running off some celestial program? We aren't now, so why then?
Now, is it "inconsistent" that we have to choose to eat the fruit in order to "live forever" while God enjoys self-existent immortality?
“And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.”
Matthew 24:12 KJV
https://www.bible.com/1/mat.24.12.kjv
This verse doesn’t say that iniquity was practiced by the many. It also doesn’t say that saints practiced iniquity. If saints didn’t practice iniquity, and Jesus clearly said he never knew those who work iniquity, the point you wanted to make by using the verse goes away.
-
1
- Show all
Yes, many preach that nonsense which says if you question whether a work is from the Holy Spirit or another spirit, you're guilty of "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit"-- even though Scripture says specifically to "test the spirits". These same people tell us that speaking in tongues is the "evidence" of the Holy Spirit, instead of reading Acts 5:32 KJV which plainly says God gives His Spirit "to them that obey Him" which is exactly what 1 John 2:3-4 KJV says, right?
Good gravy, where did you get that idea? Did you misread something I said?
As an SDA, then, are you now promoting conscious eternal torment? 
For both the saved and the unsaved. Wow. That is some perverted reading of Scripture you got going there
For both the saved and the unsaved. Wow. That is some perverted reading of Scripture you got going there
Yep, you keep right on skipping over it. Here, I'll post it again and I guarantee you won't miss it
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POST # 151392
I thought I was clear, but I'll repeat:
In Matthew 24:12 KJV, the "many" are recipients of "agape" love of God. The reason is
no one is going to argue that these recipients are unconverted sinners - they are the saints, FOR ONLY SAINTS PARTAKE OF "AGAPE" LOVE, right or wrong?
Therefore, these "many" are saints who, through the practice of iniquity, kill their agape cold and dead, fail to endure to the end, and are not saved in the end.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POST # 151392
I thought I was clear, but I'll repeat:
In Matthew 24:12 KJV, the "many" are recipients of "agape" love of God. The reason is
no one is going to argue that these recipients are unconverted sinners - they are the saints, FOR ONLY SAINTS PARTAKE OF "AGAPE" LOVE, right or wrong?
Therefore, these "many" are saints who, through the practice of iniquity, kill their agape cold and dead, fail to endure to the end, and are not saved in the end.
Yep, you keep right on skipping over it. Here, I'll post it again and I guarantee you won't miss it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought I was clear, but I'll repeat:
In Matthew 24:12 KJV, the "many" are recipients of "agape" love of God. No one is going to argue that these recipients are unconverted sinners - they are the saints, for only saints partake of "agape" love, right or wrong?
Therefore, these "many" are saints who, through the practice of iniquity, kill their agape cold and dead, fail to endure to the end, and are not saved in the end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought I was clear, but I'll repeat:
In Matthew 24:12 KJV, the "many" are recipients of "agape" love of God. No one is going to argue that these recipients are unconverted sinners - they are the saints, for only saints partake of "agape" love, right or wrong?
Therefore, these "many" are saints who, through the practice of iniquity, kill their agape cold and dead, fail to endure to the end, and are not saved in the end.
“And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.”
Matthew 24:12 KJV
https://www.bible.com/1/mat.24.12.kjv
-
1
- Show all
And I'm telling you that in His human nature, Jesus had to strive against temptation almost every second of His life; in the wilderness, among His murderers, finally in Gethsemane.
If Jesus' journey to Calvary was without risk of failure, why did He almost kill Himself striving against the temptation to run away? And why would Paul use as an example of how we should fight against temptation an experience of Jesus in which it was not necessary for Him to fight because, as you said, "He cannot sin"?
If Jesus' journey to Calvary was without risk of failure, why did He almost kill Himself striving against the temptation to run away? And why would Paul use as an example of how we should fight against temptation an experience of Jesus in which it was not necessary for Him to fight because, as you said, "He cannot sin"?
Sigh..OK, I'll spell it out. If you look up the word "love" in "the love of many..." you'll find the Greek word is "agape". Only saints partake of "agape", right? Therefore, the "many" who kill their "agape" cold and dead and fail to endure to the end and wind up lost must be saints.
If you disagree, then you are saying that unconverted sinners can partake of Godly agape. Please please don't say that, because I will have no choice but to make you my first blocked member on CC because I have much patience for abuse, but little patience for such stubborness
If you disagree, then you are saying that unconverted sinners can partake of Godly agape. Please please don't say that, because I will have no choice but to make you my first blocked member on CC because I have much patience for abuse, but little patience for such stubborness
https://faith.edu/faith-news/the-impeccability-of-christ/
Answers to Objections
1. “If Christ could not have sinned, His temptation was not real.” M.R. DeHaan says, “There is but little glory in not sinning when it is IMPOSSIBLE to sin” (The Temptation of Jesus, p. 13). Again DeHaan says (p. 19), “Therein lies the glory of His victory—not that He could not sin—but that HE WOULD NOT SIN. Otherwise there could have been no temptation.”
The answer to this objection is that there can indeed be a genuine temptation without the possibility of Christ’s yielding to it. This is because temptability does not imply that the one being tempted must be able to yield to the temptation Walvoord (Jesus Christ Our Lord, p. 147) states, “While the temptation may be real, there may be infinite power to resist that temptation and if this power is infinite, the person is impeccable.”
Related to this objection is the idea that true freedom involves the possibility of choosing to sin. Yet we know that God has free will (Ephesians 1:11) and it is impossible for Him to lie (Titus 1:2). Francis Pieper (Christian Dogmatics, II, p. 76) remarks, “The assertion that ‘freedom’ must always involve the possibility of sinning operates with a false conception of freedom. The saints in heaven cannot sin, and still they are not unfree, but enjoy a state of perfect freedom.”
2. “If Christ could not have sinned, then He cannot be our example as Hebrews 4:15 says He is.” This is DeHaan’s argument (The Temptation of Jesus, p. 8).
The answer to this objection is that the parallel between our blessed Lord and ourselves is not that because He conquered temptation we can also. How could such a parallel exist? He had no sin nature. We do. He never sinned. We do. Our sin nature offers the tempter an inward point of temptation. This was missing in Jesus. Hebrews 4:15 does not say that Jesus was tempted so that He could be our example, but so that He could sympathize with us. He was human. He got tired. He was hungry. In this sense His temptations were real and in this sense He can understand when we, too, become weary. But this is vastly different from saying Jesus Christ could have sinned. Berkhouwer (The Person of Christ, p. 254,255) clearly presents this truth.
Answers to Objections
1. “If Christ could not have sinned, His temptation was not real.” M.R. DeHaan says, “There is but little glory in not sinning when it is IMPOSSIBLE to sin” (The Temptation of Jesus, p. 13). Again DeHaan says (p. 19), “Therein lies the glory of His victory—not that He could not sin—but that HE WOULD NOT SIN. Otherwise there could have been no temptation.”
The answer to this objection is that there can indeed be a genuine temptation without the possibility of Christ’s yielding to it. This is because temptability does not imply that the one being tempted must be able to yield to the temptation Walvoord (Jesus Christ Our Lord, p. 147) states, “While the temptation may be real, there may be infinite power to resist that temptation and if this power is infinite, the person is impeccable.”
Related to this objection is the idea that true freedom involves the possibility of choosing to sin. Yet we know that God has free will (Ephesians 1:11) and it is impossible for Him to lie (Titus 1:2). Francis Pieper (Christian Dogmatics, II, p. 76) remarks, “The assertion that ‘freedom’ must always involve the possibility of sinning operates with a false conception of freedom. The saints in heaven cannot sin, and still they are not unfree, but enjoy a state of perfect freedom.”
2. “If Christ could not have sinned, then He cannot be our example as Hebrews 4:15 says He is.” This is DeHaan’s argument (The Temptation of Jesus, p. 8).
The answer to this objection is that the parallel between our blessed Lord and ourselves is not that because He conquered temptation we can also. How could such a parallel exist? He had no sin nature. We do. He never sinned. We do. Our sin nature offers the tempter an inward point of temptation. This was missing in Jesus. Hebrews 4:15 does not say that Jesus was tempted so that He could be our example, but so that He could sympathize with us. He was human. He got tired. He was hungry. In this sense His temptations were real and in this sense He can understand when we, too, become weary. But this is vastly different from saying Jesus Christ could have sinned. Berkhouwer (The Person of Christ, p. 254,255) clearly presents this truth.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Yes, Bishop Desmond Tutu says Christ did not rise bodily, Chung Hyun Kyung says "Jesus was mistaken" and at only 33 years old "too young to understand" when compared to her Eastern "gods"...there's all sorts of false ideas that spring forth from the minds of people who don't understand the nature of our Lord Jesus.
Here's a presentation from a different perspective:
Here's a presentation from a different perspective:
just to add for the impeccable position -- the word often translated "tempted" can be translated "tested" -- and that this is what's going on here. Matthew 4 parallels the Israelites in the wilderness having come out of Egypt, where they are 'tested' and 'proven' ((Deut. 8:2 for example))
Christ is 'tested' by the Devil, not 'tempted' -- God cannot be tempted ((James 1:13)) and Christ is God.
Christ is 'tested' by the Devil, not 'tempted' -- God cannot be tempted ((James 1:13)) and Christ is God.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I have much patience for abuse, but little patience for such stubborness
-
2
-
1
- Show all
And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world,
and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
(John 3:19)
the word there in 'men loved darkness rather than light' happens to be 'agape' so it appears that one has to contradict Jesus in order to hold the view that 'only saints can have agape'
will now your 'love will grow cold' and you'll block me for telling you the truth?
on the subject, it appears you probably have John 21 wrong, too. when Peter is asked 3 times by Jesus if he loves Him, it isn't about the different words for love in Greek. it's about the fact that Peter finally says ''Lord, you know all things" -- Peter confessing that Christ is God. that's when Peter gets the answer right.
would you say Peter lost his salvation during the 1st and 2nd questions, then regained it after he gave the right answer?
i would say Peter never lost the eternal life God gave him -- and God taught him when he misspoke, and reached out and grabbed him when he was sinking. Peter looking away from Jesus at the waves and wind isn't Peter forfeiting his salvation. it's Peter stumbling -- and Jesus is faithful to keep him.
-
3
-
1
- Show all