Do you know what your protesting

[Jordon]

Exactly. The moniker makes no sense.

why would somebody who believes there proclaiming the truth, be outdated ?

Now a moniker can be a pet name to, so I have a pet that that I dont want to be attacked anymore, should I say that's outdated, and leave out the part the pet is still getting attacked when I went way.

So the knowledge of the moniker, wasn't spoken for ten years as the little pet wanted to forget, and when I came back there was 100000 people willfully attacking people with that horrible knowledge, that has once been quietened, only because that horrible knowledge has been forgotten, new people blissfully unaware of the good knowledge, fell into the wrong knowledge again .

I wonders where my moniker is now ?

 

[SomeDisciple]

It's debated in nearly every debate here regarding salvation in many ways, you need your eyes opening I think.

No, I think you're just re-framing discussions about salvation to be something they're not.

 

[Jordon]

No, I think you're just re-framing discussions about salvation to be something they're not.

that moniker is outdated to me.

Do you believe in faith alone saves a person ?

So you believe you can have complete assurance your saved by faith alone ?

 

[SomeDisciple]

So you believe you can have complete assurance your saved by faith alone ?

Justified by grace, through faith specifically. You can have assurance. "complete" assurance sounds like something that comes from experiential knowledge, which we wouldn't have until the resurrection.

 

[Jordon]

Justified by grace, through faith specifically. You can have assurance. "complete" assurance sounds like something that comes from experiential knowledge, which we wouldn't have until the resurrection.

so the theological concept is one can know they've been given justification by growing in assurance.

Because faith in it's essence is a living hope on things not seen, such as conviction,

But what is that conviction if that conviction gives no assurance from the living hope.

 

[YouOnlyLiveTwice]

have you managed to regurgitate it

That tortilla is most likely coming out as a tortilla lol

 

[Jordon]

That tortilla is most likely coming out as a tortilla lol

let's hope you get a choice next time

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

Justified by grace, through faith specifically. You can have assurance. "complete" assurance sounds like something that comes from experiential knowledge, which we wouldn't have until the resurrection.

Why waffle on "complete assurance"?

Every time we sin, God brings us to repentance through His correction. And restoration always comes at the expense of Christ. It is not as if He suffers again when we sin because He paid the price for all sins with His one sacrifice. But decades of experience with Christ's sacrifice washing my conscience of the guilt of sin has led me to conclude that I am totally dependent on His sacrifice being sufficient for all my sins. This also leads me to rest in complete assurance that His sacrifice for my sins will never fail to be effective.

 

[YouOnlyLiveTwice]

let's hope you get a choice next time

The family ended up buying a pack of brand new tortillas, literally a half hour after I ate my burrito....just like every first born child....test run him, then every other sibling benefits from the first borns mistakes.

 

[SomeDisciple]

Why waffle on "complete assurance"?

Every time we sin, God brings us to repentance through His correction. And restoration always comes at the expense of Christ. It is not as if He suffers again when we sin because He paid the price for all sins with His one sacrifice. But decades of experience with Christ's sacrifice washing my conscience of the guilt of sin has led me to conclude that I am totally dependent on His sacrifice being sufficient for all my sins. This also leads me to rest in complete assurance that His sacrifice for my sins will never fail to be effective.

I wouldn't call it "complete" assurance (or assuredness); because there is more assurance forthcoming, whether or not we are fully persuaded in our minds concerning Jesus' sacrifice and God's promised ongoing deliverance.

 

[rewriter]

Which Bible of the at least 4 that were all writ

have you managed to regurgitate it

Which Bible of the at least 4 that were all written and assembled by HUMANS? And does accepting a specific collection of books called the Bible require accepting a specific understanding of what the words written mean? And on that note, precisely was does Paul mean in 2 Timothy 3:16, which in context excludes the entire NT, with the word he invented, "theopneustos"?

Note, I do not consider anything humans have tampered with to be totally reliable, humans will adjust things for various reasons. To claim that something humans have touched is totally reliable is an act of faith, which may be misdirected. For instance, I know of one collection of works called "the Bible" that includes a work that 1 Timothy 4:1 seems to be suggesting is not scripture, even though some humans claim it is, and there are other books that may be questioned as to whether God intended them as scripture or not even though humans have made their own interpretation of their status.

And, yes, I do ask questions that can make people feel uncomfortable. Knowledge does not advance without discomfort and I seek to advance knowledge rather than stagnate by seeking to stay comfortable.

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

I wouldn't call it "complete" assurance (or assuredness); because there is more assurance forthcoming, whether or not we are fully persuaded in our minds concerning Jesus' sacrifice and God's promised ongoing deliverance.

It will certainly be a game changer when we shed this skin of flesh and see Him as He is.

 

[Citizen]

I do not consider anything humans have tampered with to be totally reliable, humans will adjust things for various reasons. To claim that something humans have touched is totally reliable is an act of faith, which may be misdirected.

Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

Prov 30:5 Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. 6 Do not add to His words, or He will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

Ps 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words;
As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.
7 You, O Lord, will keep them;

1 Pet 1:23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God, 24 For, "All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, 25 but the word of the Lord stands forever." And this is the word that was preached to you.

If you reject the above scriptures - and you obviously do - then we clearly don't share the same foundation as a starting point. Someone could post the entire Bible, and you will never accept it's inerrant truth because you don't believe God has kept and protected His word. Further discussion would go something like:

Me: John 1 says "In the beginning was the Word..."
You: Maybe this was just his personal opinion? Was it tampered with? Did John even write this? How can we be sure of anything???

That's a bit pointless. And yes, it's a matter of faith given to us by God, not of ourselves. That is the basis of Christianity, after all.

 

[rewriter]

Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

Prov 30:5 Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. 6 Do not add to His words, or He will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

Ps 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words;
As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.
7 You, O Lord, will keep them;

1 Pet 1:23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God, 24 For, "All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, 25 but the word of the Lord stands forever." And this is the word that was preached to you.

If you reject the above scriptures - and you obviously do - then we clearly don't share the same foundation as a starting point. Someone could post the entire Bible, and you will never accept it's inerrant truth because you don't believe God has kept and protected His word. Further discussion would go something like:

Me: John 1 says "In the beginning was the Word..."
You: Maybe this was just his personal opinion? Was it tampered with? Did John even write this? How can we be sure of anything???

That's a bit pointless. And yes, it's a matter of faith given to us by God, not of ourselves. That is the basis of Christianity, after all.

You seem to place great value in the written word. However, the written word recorded in the Bible declares that God's word is not what is written, it is a person. Now I ask you, what biography of any person presents that person as they truly were when they walked the earth instead of a distorted image that was captured by the biographer?

And even on the times when a writer recorded the words they heard from God, they usually recorded it as "God said", while in the writings of the Apostle Paul in the Bible, he will on occasion say that he is giving his words, not Gods. Now do you claim that God lied at that point and denied his own words?

And since in 2 Timothy 3:15 Paul refers to the HOLY scriptures that Timothy had known since his childhood, writings produced after Timothy would be excluded from that collection, including all of Paul's letters, the gospel account, except for possibly Mark, written sometime pre-49, but likely not. This is also well before there was an established canon of scripture, so you cannot refer to such to know what "Holy Scripture" meant. And even then, in the very next verse when Paul references ALL scripture (why did he not refer again to Holy scripture unless he was including other ancient writings that some considered scripture) when he declared it "theopneustos".

Might I suggest that rather than telling me what I believe that you directly address the challenges I present and give YOUR response, not merely cite some scriptures you feel are appropriate without explanation. Cite scriptures if you feel you need to but explain their clear relevance. But the key is to directly address my challenges, not try to dance around them as if you have no clear counterarguments.

 

[Citizen]

You seem to place great value in the written word.

My post #113 needs no further explanation. I'm not going to endlessly argue scripture with someone who does not even view it as the inerrant and reliable word of God. It's pointless and fruitless. Agree to disagree and we'll call it a day.

 

[Jordon]

The family ended up buying a pack of brand new tortillas, literally a half hour after I ate my burrito....just like every first born child....test run him, then every other sibling benefits from the first borns mistakes.

The first born often referred to the crash test dummy, I suppose here it's a case of becoming more relaxed by the same old complaints but at first it can be a bit of a burrito moment lol

 

[Jordon]

I'm not a member of the reformed movement. And I'm not sure what you are ferring to when you ask "where does that put us". What is "that"?

sorry i misunderstood you, i dont always have time to reply, but if @Watchman22 is right and so confident maybe he could answer how it's right that people in a fallen condition can be held responsible for saying yes or no, to a spiritual decision , so far I haven't had an answer to this from anyone

 

[Jordon]

Which Bible of the at least 4 that were all written and assembled by HUMANS? And does accepting a specific collection of books called the Bible require accepting a specific understanding of what the words written mean? And on that note, precisely was does Paul mean in 2 Timothy 3:16, which in context excludes the entire NT, with the word he invented, "theopneustos"?

Note, I do not consider anything humans have tampered with to be totally reliable, humans will adjust things for various reasons. To claim that something humans have touched is totally reliable is an act of faith, which may be misdirected. For instance, I know of one collection of works called "the Bible" that includes a work that 1 Timothy 4:1 seems to be suggesting is not scripture, even though some humans claim it is, and there are other books that may be questioned as to whether God intended them as scripture or not even though humans have made their own interpretation of their status.

And, yes, I do ask questions that can make people feel uncomfortable. Knowledge does not advance without discomfort and I seek to advance knowledge rather than stagnate by seeking to stay comfortable.

I'm not concerned that much by peoples mistakes, but yet so many people can think you are, going to punish them. But at same time you can't let people grow confident in there mistakes,

The sin of presumption was pretty much a discipline i was disciplined with, one thing I learned was to be very careful about believing I could get away with having an excuse to have an excuse. I can question it but not believe it in full,
I know there's going to be many mistakes from many people, but the sin of presumption could be willfully taking advantage of here on the bases that people have found the best excuse ever to accept faith can't be justified completely because you have to know the whole word is 100 percent accurate,

It is about what you believe to from his word, and what you can take from his word, but as in his whole word trying to believe what characters in the bible have been made to believe by God, has mostly come about from an experience with God unique to them. That's how I approach it.

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

how it's right that people in a fallen condition can be held responsible for saying yes or no, to a spiritual decision

This question hangs on the premise that lost people do not have any ability whatsoever to place their trust in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. If we could establish the veracity of the premise, the conclusion would be a foregone conclusion.

 

[Jordon]

This question hangs on the premise that lost people do not have any ability whatsoever to place their trust in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. If we could establish the veracity of the premise, the conclusion would be a foregone conclusion.

no the question is asked on the bases of a person saying no in a fallen condition, is not fair to them.

So it's fair they should be made temporarily spiritualy alive whilst making the decision