GCM Home | Bible Search | Rules | Donate | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Christian Politics Forum / Re: Arm the Syrian rebels?
« Last post by Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Today at 03:44:19 PM »
Why would we give guns to these people?  They are not allies.

Jarrod
22
Theology Forum / Re: The Cross of Christ
« Last post by TruthScientist on Today at 03:34:44 PM »
Charlie24,

Quote
I will never wrap my head around something unscriptural. You simply don't believe in eternal security because you believe in doing, working your way to eternal life. That is not Bible SM.
First, your statement is a mischaracterization. 

Secondly, I am curious that when someone has a particular view, as you do here, faith alone, OSAS, that the very opposite is the only option.  Not only that but when someone explains the option you still stick to the strawman position instead of understanding what they are saying.  You will win the strawman argument every time.

However, we are not saved by faith as you hold, either faith alone which is an ourright denial of the text, as well as OSAS, which is a quite recent imposed theory upon scripture.  We are being saved



John 5:24  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

"hath everlasting life" This is present tense SM. It is here and now.

We are saved by grace through faith, not by anything we can do.

When you believe in obedience through doing for salvation the end result is total shipwreck.

OK Thad. you're right and the Apostle Paul in wrong. Paul was mistaken when he said we are saved grace through faith. I now see my error.

Let's make it Thad. 2:8-9 instead of Eph. 2:8-9.

It should read then: Thad. 2:8-9

For by grace are ye not saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.


Again, Charlie...you are acting like evolutionists when in debate against them...bait switching and using one passage that seems to give credibility to your "warring" instead of taking all of the evidence together and harmonizing it. Paul never taught cumulatively that you have eternal life through faith alone, that is a lie...but then again, you still can't seem to understand that salvation and eternal life are not the same thing.

Think on this...if both terms mean the exact same thing, then why are there two different terms? That makes absolutely no sense at all...

 ::preachit::

They may not be the same but you can not have one without the other...  no salvation, no eternal life...no eternal life, no salvation...  know eternal life, know salvation...  know salvation, know eternal life...  like a white perch and a speck is to a southerner...


I am not a southerner...so that reference doesn't register to me TS!

However, you are correct in saying that we cannot have eternal life without having salvation, but one can have salvation without having eternal life. Salvation was a one-time thing always addressed as a past event in one's life history...it happened, he was forgiven and cleansed from his past sin...but one's present sins are only forgiven if he remains abiding in covenant with God (I John 1:7).

You could have gotten saved 15 years ago and ceased to walk with God in the manner in which He decrees (covenant relationship) and not have eternal life today. Consistently the Scriptures teach that we need to "abide in Christ" in order to get anything from God...it does not say that we had to have abode in Him at some point in the past. It is always in the present tense...that means just what it says.

Blessings!


The salvation of which God promises is not eternal life with things being as described in Rev. 21:3,4 is not...  Being saved from the penalty of sin is life and not death...  no sin no death...


That is more false calvinistic teaching that is not according to the Scriptures. Here are the facts...if you want the Scriptural references let me know...

1.  sin separates us from God because God cannot look upon sin.
2.  the atonement is applied to our lives and our sins are forgiven and cleansed from us, not to give us eternal life, but so that God can now "look" upon us.
3.  from Genesis to Revelation, eternal life has always and only been given to those in personal relationship with God - union with God...there is no other way.
4.  Christ provided this atonement so that now we don't have to go out and kill an animal every time we sin, that is what free atonement means, it does not mean that     
      eternal life is given without conditions.
5.  sin is taken away, but one does not have eternal life until he comes to God (which salvation [cleansing from sin] now allows us to do) and enters into union with Him.

This is what the OT Scriptures teach concerning the atonement, and it is the same in the NT Scriptures...the ONLY difference between the atonement under the OT and the NT is that there was a one-time sacrifice for all sin for the rest of time, and that was Christ. Nothing else has changed.

Blessings!

1.  Sin is the reason we need to be reconciled...  God does not look upon sin lightly.  He sees everything...  He will judge what he sees in the way of sin... 

2.  atonement is a part of the process that occurs at our belief in the facts of the gospel...

3.  agreed...

4.  Atonement was because of what God said in Gen. 3:15...  the atonement is part of what allows us to live forever with God...   

5.  We return to God when we come to accept the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary, percecuted and crucified, was buried and rose again on the third day...
23
Preterist Forum / Re: Hello, is there anybody out there?
« Last post by Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Today at 03:31:37 PM »
The dispensationalists were right, but left.

::bueno::

Jarrod
24
So what. Do you really think salvation hinges on this one "Basic Doctrine"?   
25
Non-Traditional Theology / Re: Carlton Pearson's Beliefs
« Last post by Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Today at 03:23:54 PM »
Kind of a weird cross between Deism and all the "self-realization" hooey that's out there.

Jarrod
26
Theology Forum / Re: What "sealed with the Spirit" means...
« Last post by Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Today at 03:15:40 PM »
Quote
As with all pledges (or “security earnest”) such a pledge does not guarantee anything, it only holds the item so that no one can buy it from underneath the purchaser, but if the purchaser fails to keep his end of the conditions (payments) then the property is forfeit and returns to the owner. In this case, the Spirit of God is given as a pledge, pending the believer’s continued abiding in the covenant. If the believer continues in the covenant until he passes into eternity, then he will receive the fullness of the Spirit in heaven. Receiving that fullness is completely dependent upon the believer’s remaining in the covenant by meeting their covenant responsibilities (walking in obedience to God’s commandments of the New Covenant in Christ).
You haven't comprehended what an earnest payment is, apparently.  If the purchaser does not make payment, not only does he forfeit the property which he had intended to buy, but he also forfeits the amount he put in pledge, to the seller.

This is the very definition of guarantee, although guarantee has been so misused and abused in modern commercials as to become almost meaningless.  I hear many people "guarantee" this that and the other thing, but they pledge nothing but their word.  That is no guarantee.  A real guarantee requires a guarantor, which is to say that somebody pledges some kind of asset securing their performance.

Let's have an example.  I recently attempted to buy a parcel of land.  With my offer to seller I sent a check for $1000.  That's an earnest payment.  If I had succeeded in purchasing the land, it would have applied towards the purchase price.  If my offer was accepted, but I reneged and backed out of the sale, I would have forfeit a grand, and the seller would have kept it.

So if we all agree that the earnest payment which God has given is His Holy Spirit, there is just one question left...

Can God forfeit His own Spirit?  It would be necessary for Him to forfeit the earnest, in order to cancel the purchase.

Jarrod
27
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/11/25/burn-this-bitch-down-michael-browns-stepfather-shown-encouraging-ferguson-riots/20998980/
Nov 25th 2014 2:44PM
By RYAN GORMAN

New footage has emerged from Ferguson appearing to show Michael Brown's stepfather encouraging protestors to riot.

Louis Head is shown on the video wearing a green "I am Mike Brown" shirt while shouting to an angry mob shortly after the Ferguson grand jury chose against indicting police officer Darren Wilson for killing the unarmed teen.

"Burn this [censored] down! Burn this bitch down!" Head shouts to the increasingly unruly mob.
28
Theology Forum / Re: What is the meaning of Luke 15:11-24?
« Last post by Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Today at 02:50:02 PM »
Quote
The timing is different than that of an adoption.  Shall we separate the adoption from the marriage?  Are there two things to talk about here?

Adoption occurs at the outset of our life in Christ, being a "birth" of sorts.  It is an event that pertains to individuals, as they "believe unto salvation."

Following the earlier example of the marriage, it is spoken of about as the betrothal stage (present) which will be consummated later in heaven (future). The same follows with the adoption in the new covenant...those who are in the "process" of adoption today (present) and that adoption will be finalized in the consummation in heaven for those who make it (future).
I want to cede this point, about the timing of the adoption.

In searching my Bible, I found that "the adoption" is only referred to in those words by Paul, and that he is consistent to referring to it as a future event, of which we have only "a downpayment," "an earnest," and "the firstfruits," all of which explicitly refer to the sealing of the Spirit.

The Johannine books and Paul allude to the same teaching with the phrase "sons of God" and "offspring" (same words in Greek) where the believer is "made" or "called" such a child.  The timing is very explicit in 1John 3:2 (though you may need to drill into the Greek to get a clear picture).

Quote from: SwordMaster
Quote
And the terms of this covenant are to believe God, in the same way that "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to Him for righteousness."

Not so. The new covenant, like the old, is a Redemptive covenant, and is not entered into simply by faith (and by the way, Abraham didn't just believe, he also had to walk in obedience to God or God would not bring about what He had promised to him - Gen. 18:19)...redemptive covenants are always conditional, and if the conditions are not met then the person ceasing to meet them are "cut off" from the family of God.
I'm not sure if it's just a technicality, or we're having semantic issues.  The New Testament is pretty explicit on this.  James 2 and Galatians 3 spell it out in exactly these words.

[Gal 3:6-7 KJV] 6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

[Jas 2:21-24 KJV] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.


It seems perhaps you are caught up in the whole belief vs obedience debate.  This is no debate to me, since I define belief to include obedience.  "Believing in" something avails nothing.  "Believing on" someone is everything.

If we want to be very technical, God's demand in all of the covenants is for righteousness, but God has accepted belief for righteousness, both in Abraham's case, and in the case of the believer.  I don't think we're far off saying that the requirement, then, is to believe God.

Jarrod
29
I never know how people can tell if a dream is from God or if it it is just a dream. We all dream a lot, although we often don't remember them. Some people will say they had a 'prophectic dream' but how do they know it wasn't just their minds sorting stuff out in their sleep?
30
Theology Forum / Re: The Cross of Christ
« Last post by skeeter on Today at 02:05:11 PM »
skeeter said...


Now we are getting somewhere...Red here is now saying that he agrees with what I have been saying all along, but he likes to play games. I have from the beginning stated that we have eternal life presently...right now...but that we do not have the consummation of eternal life because that is yet future, which he states "is obvious." So either he changed his mind and neglected to tell us, or he was just flaming me all this time trying to get me going...

Blessings! 

Quote
did you think eternal life was in the past?  or even in the present for a living person?
   

The Scriptures are clear, skeeter...one has eternal life presently if he is in covenant relationship with God, and there is a consummation of eternal life in heaven in the future for those who remain abiding in covenant with God.
I know eternal life is in the future...
is that what you were trying to say? I must have been distracted by the 'tone' of your post.

Quote
What about Christianity makes you like you are?  It made me a lot nicer person.

What are you talking about? What you put in red print? It is true, he said what I have been saying all along, and now admits it...so all of the times before when he was arguing a negative point...did he just have a brain lapse, or was he just playing games? The facts speak for themselves, if you don't believe it then go back and look in the archives where he rebutted the very point he is now claiming. I said nothing that was mean or rude, and if you took it that way then that's on you, not me...or are you now playing games too?
Most of your posts are worse than just mean or rude.   There isn't any other way to take them.
I wouldn't bother looking up what he said.  I don't  'listen' to what you say, the nastiness is too loud.  He might be wrong but you'll never get thru to him (or me or anyone) with what you think you are saying. 

________________

skeeter said...


Now we are getting somewhere...Red here is now saying that he agrees with what I have been saying all along, but he likes to play games. I have from the beginning stated that we have eternal life presently...right now...but that we do not have the consummation of eternal life because that is yet future, which he states "is obvious." So either he changed his mind and neglected to tell us, or he was just flaming me all this time trying to get me going...

Blessings! 

Quote
did you think eternal life was in the past?  or even in the present for a living person?
   

The Scriptures are clear, skeeter...one has eternal life presently if he is in covenant relationship with God, and there is a consummation of eternal life in heaven in the future for those who remain abiding in covenant with God.
I know eternal life is in the future...
is that what you were trying to say? I must have been distracted by the tone of your post.

Quote
What about Christianity makes you like you are?  It made me a lot nicer person.

What are you talking about? What you put in red print? It is true, he said what I have been saying all along, and now admits it...so all of the times before when he was arguing a negative point...did he just have a brain lapse, or was he just playing games? The facts speak for themselves, if you don't believe it then go back and look in the archives where he rebutted the very point he is now claiming. I said nothing that was mean or rude, and if you took it that way then that's on you, not me...or are you now playing games too?
Most of your posts are worse than that - there isn't any other way to take them.
I wouldn't bother looking up what he said.  I don't  'hear' what you say, the nastiness is too loud.  He might be wrong but you won't communicate that  to him (or me or anyone) with that  'tone'.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10