Not By Works

  • 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.
gb9 said:
notice how he seemed to present a grace - based theology for a while, but as soon as he was proven wrong by undergrace, the mask came off, and the same legalistic garbage came back, as strong as ever..
Click to expand...

Tell me one thing that I said that was anti-grace. You won't, because what you said is an outright lie.
 
dcontroversal said:
Now you are embellishing pal..........you were clear and dismissed the two natures......and the point JOHN makes is clear....see if you can follow reason....

If I say that which is born of incorruptible seed/spirit DOES NOT SIN......what is the obvious conclusion about the flesh......?

SEE....you cannot DISMISS the rest of the BIBLE when considering similar contexts and or statements of TRUTH......so you may think you can compartmentalize the bible away into little boxes pal, but you cannot....IT STANDS AS A WHOLE
Click to expand...

Post number where I dismissed the two natures. You won't, because it is an outright lie.
 
gb9 said:
notice how he seemed to present a grace - based theology for a while, but as soon as he was proven wrong by undergrace, the mask came off, and the same legalistic garbage came back, as strong as ever..
Click to expand...

Is eternally grateful legalistic too? Because his interpretation of the text is exactly the same as mine
 
dcontroversal said:
Now you are embellishing pal..........you were clear and dismissed the two natures......and the point JOHN makes is clear....see if you can follow reason....

If I say that which is born of incorruptible seed/spirit DOES NOT SIN......what is the obvious conclusion about the flesh......?

SEE....you cannot DISMISS the rest of the BIBLE when considering similar contexts and or statements of TRUTH......so you may think you can compartmentalize the bible away into little boxes pal, but you cannot....IT STANDS AS A WHOLE
Click to expand...

I see what you did there. I showed that by calling my interpretation of 1 John 3 religious blather, you are unknowingly also insulting E.G, (because he said the same thing) so to save face you make up a phony strawman about me denying the two natures. You are very good at building strawmen, kudos.
 
gb9 said:
notice how he seemed to present a grace - based theology for a while, but as soon as he was proven wrong by undergrace, the mask came off, and the same legalistic garbage came back, as strong as ever..
Click to expand...
Thats lordship for ya.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gb9
dcontroversal said:
Just another religionist deceiver.....he likes to compartmentalize the bible into little boxes while ignoring the fact it must be taken in the whole.....
Click to expand...

Actually, you're the one who removed 1 John 3:6-7 from the rest of the book and put it over there in Romans. Where do you want to put it, Romans 7 or 8?
 
Macabeus said:
Tell me one thing that I said that was anti-grace. You won't, because what you said is an outright lie.
Click to expand...

if you think how a person behaves has ANYTHJING to do with their salvation, which you do, then you are pushing a saved by grace, kept saved by doing good works, or salvation proven by good works, then that is legalism, plan and simple.

* not of yourself, a gift of God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UnderGrace and eternally-gratefull
dcontroversal said:
No.....I am calling your view and religionist false gospel drivel....get your facts straight.......the bible is clear....until this body is raised or changed we pack two natures that fight each other for control....the fact you deny this proves your inability to be honest....now....quit lying and be honest
Click to expand...

Yes , it is called the spirit and the flesh...
It reminds me when Paul speaks that he does what he does not want to do , what a wretched man I am...xox...
 
  • Like
Reactions: dcontroversal
gb9 said:
if you think how a person behaves has ANYTHJING to do with their salvation, which you do, then you are pushing a saved by grace, kept saved by doing good works, or salvation proven by good works, then that is legalism, plan and simple.

* not of yourself, a gift of God.
Click to expand...

I never said such. Actually, my argument is the opposite. I am arguing that salvation changes the way a believer behaves. This is taught in the Bible, in case you haven't read it lately.
 
Rosemaryx said:
Yes , it is called the spirit and the flesh...
It reminds me when Paul speaks that he does what he does not want to do , what a wretched man I am...xox...
Click to expand...

Look at the shift to strawman argumentation. The issue is "is 1 John 3 about two natures", and DC and company have shifted it to "Mac doesn't believe in the dual nature of the believer", which is a lie and a misrepresentation.

Any doubt about the fact that DC and gang liberally utilize red herrings and strawmen should be put to rest for any honest person
 
dcontroversal said:
He is still lip flappin trying to say we are pitted against each other and that I am calling what you say drivel.....oblivious to the fact that what i am calling drivel is his inability to acknowledge the fact that we pack two natures that fight each other for control until we are either raised or changed in the resurrection/change......he is like the others I mentioned...zero honesty
Click to expand...
Even if we did disagree

It does not help him one iota..
 
  • Like
Reactions: dcontroversal
gb9 said:
notice how he seemed to present a grace - based theology for a while, but as soon as he was proven wrong by undergrace, the mask came off, and the same legalistic garbage came back, as strong as ever..
Click to expand...

I agree...I actually thought he had turned a corner , he was posting good stuff , the truth , then the tantrums started and he went backwards , masks slip , and the truth s seen...xox...
 
  • Like
Reactions: OneOfHis and dcontroversal
Macabeus said:
He is transposing Pauline theology regarding two natures onto 1 John 3:6-10.

a. Where do you see two natures in 1 John 3?

b. Verse 6 IS NOT talking about the new nature it is talking about believers.

c. What 1 John 3 is talking about is evident in verse 10. Go and read verse 10

d.1 John 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

e. This text is not talking about two natures. It is talking about two different types of people. Those who are born of God and those that are not.

f. DC is transposing "two natures" unto the text to make it fit his theology instead of making his theology fit the text.
Click to expand...

Read the first line of the post above, and it will show that I did not deny, but rather affirmed the two natures. DC lied.

I believe in the two natures. I just do not see them in 1 John 3

DC needs to resort to lies, which casts a light on his argument and his character
 
Here are the lies you have blathered on about......


1. Lie one -->Paul did not write 1 John <--I never said or implied this

2. Lie 2 --->DC is transposing "two natures" unto the text to make it fit his theology instead <----LIE number 2.....done no such thing..made a generalized statement of truth...YOU are the one that took what I said and started implying what I WAS DOIN PAL

3. Lie 3 -->SO I guess it's clear to you that works of obedienceafter salvation are optional <---NEVER said this or implied this

4. Lie 4 --->Your irrational hatred of me <---Another lie....I do not hate you....I despise your twisted false biblical blather.....


The BIBLE is TAKEN IN THE WHOLE....YOU CANNOT dismiss already GIVEN truths as you do here and exactly why you miss the mark on so many things.......

Yep, the Bible is replete with references of the conflict of the two natures. Two bad there is NO REFERENCE to the two natures in 1 John 3. The new nature is mentioned, but where is the old nature?
 
Rosemaryx said:
I agree...I actually thought he had turned a corner , he was posting good stuff , the truth , then the tantrums started and he went backwards , masks slip , and the truth s seen...xox...
Click to expand...

Sorry, but lifetransformation and being a purchased possession of Christ is not anti-grace. It is WONDERFUL grace.
 
dcontroversal said:
Here are the lies you have blathered on about......


1. Lie one -->Paul did not write 1 John <--I never said or implied this

2. Lie 2 --->DC is transposing "two natures" unto the text to make it fit his theology instead <----LIE number 2.....done no such thing..made a generalized statement of truth...YOU are the one that took what I said and started implying what I WAS DOIN PAL

3. Lie 3 -->SO I guess it's clear to you that works of obedienceafter salvation are optional <---NEVER said this or implied this

4. Lie 4 --->Your irrational hatred of me <---Another lie....I do not hate you....I despise your twisted false biblical blather.....


The BIBLE is TAKEN IN THE WHOLE....YOU CANNOT dismiss already GIVEN truths as you do here and exactly why you miss the mark on so many things.......

Yep, the Bible is replete with references of the conflict of the two natures. Two bad there is NO REFERENCE to the two natures in 1 John 3. The new nature is mentioned, but where is the old nature?
Click to expand...

Where do you see two natures in 1 John 3? I see the new nature, but where is the other nature?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back