Not By Works

[Macabeus]

I said John was not talking about two natures in 1 John 3 and you replied that "I didn't know what I was talking about" See post 101,655. Direct answer to my assertion that John was not talking about two natures in 1 John 3 was "pal, you don't know what you're talking about"

If I say 1 John 3 is not talking about two natures, and you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about and then go on to argue about two natures, isn't that about the same thing as saying 1 John 3 is about two natures?

See, this is the problem. A lot of times your answers are out of context with what you are replying to. I'll say something, like 1 John 3 is not about two natures, and then you'll burst out with a "you don't know what your talking about". Then you'll say "I didn't say that."

Correction, you try to say you didn't apply it to John. But post 101,655 shows otherwise

 

[Macabeus]

did you miss where I said " activity "??

SO is an activity something you do? And are YOU SURE that faith is merely an activity? Or is it a product of and response to divine revelation, illumination, and drawing?

IN other words, is faith produced by the Grace of God?

Well, I would argue that LIFECHANGE is produced by the grace of God. And love is produced by the Grace of God. And perserverance is only by the Grace of God. And sanctification is by the Grace of God, and glorification is by the grace of God, and anything good we do is by the Grace of God, and fruit bearing is by the grace of God. EVERYTHING good is by the Grace of God.

Nothing I said is anti grace. I just believe we should gladly receive the whole package, whereas some think that grace is a buffet where everything except faith is optional. OK, perhaps that is true. But what they are missing out on

 

[VCO]

Sure, I will turn down the heat,but my challenge to DC stands. Same rules I offered Bud, which are standard. Two men discussing civilly, without dog piling from the gallery.

Without Dog Piling ? ? ?







OH YEAH!

 

[dcontroversal]

if you want to get technical about yes, but the actual definition of the word believe in the greek is to be persuaded of, to think to be true, to entrust.

so, the actual act of believing is a mental activity.
and, I borrowed nothing, my theology is very consistent .

saved by faith, then everything else is a separate conversation .

AMEN brother.......simple as.....even a child can understand

 

[dcontroversal]

Macaroni...there is no challenge....every time I engage you you twist, deceive, embellish and take what I say and apply it in a manner I never implied....then, double down, triple down, use deception and go off on a 5 day tangent of how right you are......I am not the only one you have done this to and exactly why many have you on ignore.....until you can be honest we are done...do not address me, engage me or even talk to me......end of story! AND snide little accusations will not work with me to get me to engage.....

 

[Macabeus]

Macaroni...there is no challenge....every time I engage you you twist, deceive, embellish and take what I say and apply it in a manner I never implied....then, double down, triple down, use deception and go off on a 5 day tangent of how right you are......I am not the only one you have done this to and exactly why many have you on ignore.....until you can be honest we are done...do not address me, engage me or even talk to me......end of story! AND snide little accusations will not work with me to get me to engage.....

I said John was not talking about two natures in 1 John 3 and you replied that "I didn't know what I was talking about" See post 101,655. Direct answer to my assertion that John was not talking about two natures in 1 John 3 was "pal, you don't know what you're talking about" Then you said you never applied the two natures teaching to John. That is not an embellishment, that is the truth.

Just like the fact that Argueless never accused you of lying to the Holy Spirit, he merely referred to your STANCE on the Holy Spirit. I have given documented proof of this many times, but you fail to acknowledge. I am not the one who is dishonest, you are.

 

[gb9]

I said John was not talking about two natures in 1 John 3 and you replied that "I didn't know what I was talking about" See post 101,655. Direct answer to my assertion that John was not talking about two natures in 1 John 3 was "pal, you don't know what you're talking about" Then you said you never applied the two natures teaching to John. That is not an embellishment, that is the truth.

Just like the fact that Argueless never accused you of lying to the Holy Spirit, he merely referred to your STANCE on the Holy Spirit. I have given documented proof of this many times, but you fail to acknowledge. I am not the one who is dishonest, you are.

the only thing you properly document is how an adult throws a childish temper tantrum every time you get proved wrong.

 

[Macabeus]

I was laughing at the fact that you went back to a verse that has been a source of disagreement....lighten up Mr. M. is just seemed a little ironic

Well, now DC is saying that he never said John was talking about two natures. See post 101,624. Isnt that ironic?

He asked me to show him where he attibuted the two natures teaching to John. Go read the post. He has denied the fact that he ever said that 1 John 3 was talking about two natures. So who besides you and Budman think 1 John 3 is talking about two natures?

 

[Macabeus]

Please observe these three posts.

Post 1

1 John 3:6-7 is not talking about two natures in the believer, one sinning and the other righteous. It is talking about people who are born of God and people who are not born of God. Anyone who reads the whole chapter (and book) in it's context can see that, unless a person is reading their own ideas into the text.

Post 2

Pal....you have no idea and exactly why MOST have you on ignore...your drivel and bather = deceit....PAUL was clear, so was JESUS.....the bible is replete of the conflict between the two natures, you are just too dense to grasp it.....

Post 3

MY original quote above... (in reference to post 2 above) SHOW where I applied it to JOHN....

a. I said that 1 John 3 was not talking about the new nature. In other words, I said that you can not apply the teaching of two natures to John's teaching in 1 John . It's right there in the first quote.

b. DC said "Pal you have no idea, and then proceeded to argue for the two natures in 1 John 3. Now if he denies this, REMEMBER, the second post above is a REBUTTAL to the first post that said 1 John 3 is not talking about the two natures.

c. Then DC denied applying the teaching of the two natures to John, ie the text of 1 John 3

Clear flip flop and denial of what he said in post two.

 

[Macabeus]

the only thing you properly document is how an adult throws a childish temper tantrum every time you get proved wrong.

I was not proven wrong. DC has now denied applying the two natures teaching to John. (see post 101,624)

MY original quote above....SHOW where I applied it to JOHN....

The "it" in this quote is the two nature teaching of the PAULINE CORPUS. DC has now denied that he ever applied the two natures teachings of the PAULINE CORPUS to John.


WHICH MEANS THAT HE IS ADMITTING THAT JOHN 3 IS NOT ABOUT TWO NATURES

So I have not been proven wrong.

 

[ralfyman]

Works and faith, as Jesus pointed out.

 

[gb9]

I was not proven wrong. DC has now denied applying the two natures teaching to John. (see post 101,624)

So I have not been proven wrong.

sure you have. undergrace proved you wrong, you could not refute her, so you jumped on some random thing doc said as a cover/distraction.

your games are not as clever as you think they are, just like your theology is legalism , if you say so or not.

 

[dcontroversal]

Works and faith, as Jesus pointed out.

Wrong.....faith alone for salvation....anything beyond that the results of the faith and salvation one already possesses eternally......nice try, but wrong on your part

 

[Macabeus]

the only thing you properly document is how an adult throws a childish temper tantrum every time you get proved wrong.

You cannot say that I was proven wrong until someone offers a successful defense of two natures teaching in 1 John 3, which has not been accomplished, and also no one offers a rebuttal to the statement below, You claim victory when NONE of you have offered an argument. Here is my interpretation of 1 John 3. As yet, none of you has offered an alternative interpretation, therefore all of you are still in default. It is foolish to claim victory, when none of you has even provided ANYTHING by way of a positon.

I would like to see someone offer a rebuttal to the statement below, without ad hominems or misrepresentations or personal attacks. Just attack the argument below, if you are able. I am sure that you will not be able to, because the interpretation below is based on rules of interpretation.

1 John 3:10 sums up what John is talking about in 1 John 3:6-9

1 John 3:10- 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.

No two natures in the believer. That is in Romans and Galatians, but not here. 1 John 3:6-10 is talking about two different sorts of people. Those who are born of God and those who aren't. Those who are children of God and because of the new nature practice righteousness, and those who are not born of God, and because they don't have a new nature practice sin. Nothing about two natures. Except only one nature of a Christian and one nature of a non-Christian. So simple, a child can understand, if one only reads the passage in context, without goggles of their own presupposition and tradition.

Not even Paul taught such a duality. He taught two natures, but not that one nature goes one way and we go another. He taught that we have two natures and we choose which nature to follow. If you live after the flesh, you will die, but if you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you shall live. And in another place, they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with it's affections and lusts. And in another place, walk after the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

So if Paul were to exegete 1 John 3, I am confident that he would not transpose the two natures teaching, taking them from one context and moving them to another (to 1 John 3) where there is no mention whatsoever of two natures. He would agree with 1 John 3:10 that says that verses 6-9 are speaking of a distinction between those who are of God and those who are not, ie- those who have been born of God and those who have not. This is the only interpretation the CONTEXT allows for.

Verse 10 shows that clearly and plainly

 

[ralfyman]

Wrong.....faith alone for salvation....anything beyond that the results of the faith and salvation one already possesses eternally......nice try, but wrong on your part

Both, as seen in Jesus' two greatest commandments.

 

[Macabeus]

sure you have. undergrace proved you wrong, you could not refute her, so you jumped on some random thing doc said as a cover/distraction.

your games are not as clever as you think they are, just like your theology is legalism , if you say so or not.

Where did UnderGrace prove me wrong? What are we talking about here? Which of my statement was proven wrong? I know I have posted NUMEROUS POSTS that she has failed to reply to, and I have answered EVERY ONE of her arguments.

And you think that "all is of Grace" is legalism? REALLY? OR is it that you and UnderGrace do not understand my position. You have erred MANY times before in representing other people's position. The Nazarene church misrepresentation comes to mind.

SO is an activity something you do? And are YOU SURE that faith is merely an activity? Or is it a product of and response to divine revelation, illumination, and drawing?

IN other words, is faith produced by the Grace of God?

Well, I would argue that LIFECHANGE is produced by the grace of God. And love is produced by the Grace of God. And perserverance is only by the Grace of God. And sanctification is by the Grace of God, and glorification is by the grace of God, and anything good we do is by the Grace of God, and fruit bearing is by the grace of God. EVERYTHING good is by the Grace of God.

Nothing I said is anti grace. I just believe we should gladly receive the whole package, whereas some think that grace is a buffet where everything except faith is optional. OK, perhaps that is true. But what they are missing out on

 

[dcontroversal]

Both, as seen in Jesus' two greatest commandments.

Listen Ralph.......works have no bearing on gaining, keeping or maintaining Salvation....Jesus was born, lived and died under the law which ratified the NEW Covenant....try context, understanding and being honest with the truth.......

 

[Macabeus]

sure you have. undergrace proved you wrong, you could not refute her, so you jumped on some random thing doc said as a cover/distraction.

your games are not as clever as you think they are, just like your theology is legalism , if you say so or not.

You are a proven misrepresenter of other people's position. You said the Church of the Nazarene states that one is not saved until they walk as Jesus walked.

but there is a division- you and your church teach that one does not receive salvation UNTIL they walked just as He walked.

Here is their articles of faith.

http://www.nazarene.org/articles-faith

You also said they never mentioned salvation in their articles, which is an outright lie.

 

[Macabeus]

sure you have. undergrace proved you wrong, you could not refute her, so you jumped on some random thing doc said as a cover/distraction.

your games are not as clever as you think they are, just like your theology is legalism , if you say so or not.

Sorry, but building an army of strawman and then burning them is not proving a person wrong. And UnderGrace never even addressed my position, she only addressed her faulty understanding of it.

 

[Macabeus]

Macaroni...there is no challenge....every time I engage you you twist, deceive, embellish and take what I say and apply it in a manner I never implied....then, double down, triple down, use deception and go off on a 5 day tangent of how right you are......I am not the only one you have done this to and exactly why many have you on ignore.....until you can be honest we are done...do not address me, engage me or even talk to me......end of story! AND snide little accusations will not work with me to get me to engage.....

UMMMM... this would be called bare assertions without documetation. When I accuse you of something, I provide DOCUMENTATION, not just bare assertions. And when I mistakenly misrepresent you (which I did ONCE due to a misunderstanding) I admit it and apologize.