So since you don't believe in eternal life, what makes you think you're gonna make it into heaven?? God doesn't accept those who don't believe in ALL of His promises.
The context is clear.....those who push a working for dogma are just as false as the Pharisees.....they appear righteous, but inwardly are just as lost as Anton Levey or Allister Crowley......
If you studied more you would realize I directly quoted 4 verses.....
Who's Anton Levey or Allister Crowley?????
I don't do Google.
I read my N.T..
I was trained by two very good churches.
I'm like the Beareans. Acts 17:11
I listen to Jesus.
So who do you listen to?
Well, I see you are back with your lies again. I remember you bringing up hell with me, when I had not mentioned it. Liars like you just don't give up, do they? I have a suggestion for you Fran: learn how to tell the truth.I'm not even a believer of eternal security and I NEVER talk about hell, unless YOU bring it up.
Funny.
Could you please stop calling God a liar.
Could you please use scripture?
What exactly did Jesus promise OUTSIDE of Him??
Mathew 24:13
Please take the time to read Mathew again and understand it in context, as you yourself have said.
Jesus did NOT make following the commandments easier, He made it MORE DIFFICULT.
Originally Posted by FranC![]()
The Prodigal Son is about a Son who gets his inheritance ahead of time,
Leaves his home and abandons His father,
Goes out into the world and is sorry he did,
Goes back home where his Father is Always waiting for him.
Luke 15:24
THIS SON OF MINE WAS DEAD
AND HAS COME TO LIFE AGAIN
Please notice the AGAIN.
He was saved
He was lost
He was saved again
FURTHER PROOF THAT SALVATON CAN BE LOST.
This is absolute rubbish. You CAN fall away from faith for awhile, then return to God once again. It happens every single day. The story of the prodigal son is NOT about being saved, losing it, and gaining it again.. I think UnderGrace's post sums up very nicely, exactly what the tale of the prodigal son is about.. here it is.. Post #12831.
original quote by UnderGrace:
It is an erroneous assumption to believe that the parable is teaching about salvation that is given and then lost. This parable was launched because Jesus was accused of eating with sinners. He was talking to scribes and Pharisees. Context is always important!
As well, the inheritance in this instance is not analogous to salvation.
The younger son has done the unthinkable and asked for his inheritance before his father has died.
Salvation is inherited as a gift, it not something that is due to us under law.
In the story, the inheritance was something due to the son under Jewish law upon his father’s death.
The parable is driving home a point about the father -- the father who forgives, who is merciful and gracious. He told it to contrast God’s love to that of the religious leaders of that day who were in the audience.
You fail to realize that it is the younger brother who ultimately is sinning more gravely.
Who's Anton Levey or Allister Crowley?????
I don't do Google.
I read my N.T..
I was trained by two very good churches.
I'm like the Beareans. Acts 17:11
I listen to Jesus.
So who do you listen to?
So since you don't believe in eternal life, what makes you think you're gonna make it into heaven?? God doesn't accept those who don't believe in ALL of His promises.
You listen to Jesus, but refuse to accept His promise of eternal life.. AND you teach that salvation CAN be lost, despite the bible verses that state otherwise.
You're 70 years old, Fran. Better start believing in eternal life before you depart this earth..
To call grace cheap reeks of ignorance......not even understanding that it is a POSITION that the believe is placed into.........Romans 5:1-2 and Ephesians........In the grace YOU ARE......IN this GRACE wherein we NOW STAND.....
Who's Anton Levey or Allister Crowley?????
I don't do Google.
I read my N.T..
I was trained by two very good churches.
I'm like the Beareans. Acts 17:11
I listen to Jesus.
So who do you listen to?
Scripture... can it be?
Romans 5:1-2
1. "Therefore havig been justified by faith, we have peace withGod through our Lord Jesus Christ.
2. Through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand: and we exult in hope of the glory of God."
AMEN!
This is speaking to JUSTIFICATION, and NOT sanctification.
Through Justification, a free gift of God lavihed upon us, we have obtained a right standing wih him. We are made righteous through Jesus in the eyes of God. Our faith has saved us and our faith will continue to save us for as long as we believe.
We can praise God for this.
1 Corinthians 6:11 (NASB)
[SUP]11 [/SUP] Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
- you were sanctified and you were justified are both in the Aorist indicative passive
These mean a one time event in the past that remains in effect and passive means it was done to us - we didn't do it to ourselves.
~Mat 11:28 "Come to me, all of you who are weary and loaded down with burdens, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Place my yoke on you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble, and you will find rest for your souls,
Mat 11:30 because my yoke is pleasant, and my burden is light."
Spirit Fran...the walk by Spirit is not of men. Rest in Him...then walk...then stand. Nee.
You directly quoted scripture?
WHERE?????????????????????
Please show me....
The whole point of discussion is to identify what is a position or opinion and what is
logical and a good foundation. People have many reasons for believing different things
and the logic may not be part of it.
So you can build a framework of belief and show how it works. You can also show another
framework and why you feel it fails.
Hopefully the people involved can respect participants and believe they come to look at the
issues fairly and with a good spirit.
Now just calling people names, accusing them of lying and slandering undermines any respect
or validity in a position. Equally disowning statements as invalid, miss out the step as to what
the statements actually are. Once one agrees what the statements mean you can then go on
to say why they do not apply. It maybe by clarifying what they mean, is really the reason why
some disown the statements while others embrace them.
For instance Paul says he is free to do anything, but he is actually saying within the confinds of
food, ceremonies, and sharing with unbelievers. Some would think this actually means in everything
moral, honouring God or the law. But it is always possible to take words out of their context and meaning
to try and create an obvious extension which leads to a total distortion of the writers intension.
As you can show with discussion between Whitfield and Wesley these points are centuries old, and it is
more about where you put yourself on the sliding scale.