the right religion

[kylixguru]

To deny that killed and not killed are equivalent is about the most logical thing imaginable.

? Do you mean illogical?

I am very familiar with the mental gymnastics used to attempt it. The greatest evil that can be done is to tell the truth with the exception of leaving out the very truth that saves. Satan copies God. He created a similar religion IMO that leaves out the portion of truth that makes all the difference and attempts to reconcile that are as useless as attempting to reconcile God with Satan which is the actual case here. God said died and Satan said did not die and you say both.

It's not that simple, cut and dry of an issue.
You should look into this in more detail.

Dividing fact from fiction is man's duty. Confusing the issue causing men to be unable to do so or causing them to attempt to reconcile the unreconcileable is Satan's. As in all war there is some success and some failure.

You are who has failed at reconciliation, not me.
If my understanding was sincerely received there wouldn't be an Armageddon boiling.
What we would have instead is a proper understanding of God's Kingdom and peace.

That is exactly why God raised him from the dead to show them they were wrong. IMO that is also why he didn't raise Muhammad.

Jesus being raised from the dead happened before he ever went to the cross.
The resurrection is being spiritually reunited with God and having spiritual life.
When Jesus was seen it was a spiritual body of flesh and bone that was witnessed.
What you think happened with Jesus, a physical resuscitation, wasn't the point.
Somehow, because you want some other fantasy to be true, you have missed the point.

I have considered what you and others have said on this issue over many many years. I reject it but that is not the issue. It is the methods you use and the fact that when tested you were incapable of conceding an issue that was not contentious or confusing in any way and selected for that purpose alone, but instead forced things into the parable that do not belong there to justify your contention.

This other matter you are alluding to is our one-on-one discussion where we are talking about the parable of the sower. You will find you are who is completely out in left field. Read my recent post in that thread. You are accusing me of what you are doing.

The issues are so clear and so many times stated in the Biblical narrative as well as being the dominant conclusion of the early church fathers and the commentators, as well as the only option that is even possible or logical as to be almost absolutely certain.

This doesn't answer my questions.
Why assume you are the only one who can interpret the Bible correctly?
What I see is also very clear to me as well.
So, what makes yours better than mine?

The problem is that context is not consistent with the Biblical context.

It is to me. Who made you the Biblical authority?

The parable of the good seed did not contain birds, kernels, wheat that died from the sun or wheat that did not remain wheat and was gathered into heaven.

I was talking about the parable of the sower, which is just before that second parable that addresses the exact same subject, only it introduces a further distinction so that how the first parable can be applied is more fully understood. Those parables are to be taken together in order to derive a more complete understanding.

You put that context there by making abstract agricultural implications the parable was not designed to allow for. I also believe you do that with the Bible as a whole.

What I do with the Bible as a whole is take all of what is said and merge it together in such a way that a well refined and disciplined understanding that is consistent with the whole can be derived.

How much debate is necessary for that?

That depends upon the level of care and discipline that is used.
If someone is totally closed-minded there is no amount of debate that can help.

I have typed and read many pages in this effort. I think that any resistance to your view is used as an appeal to sympathy or claims of injustice in that it is said to be a lack of care instead of a rejection of an well known and unjustified idea which is what it actually is. There is no biblical issue that I have spent even close to as much time researching and discussing. I know the verses that imply what you claim, I know the reasoning involved, I know the mentality usually responsable for it. I also know that the surface understanding of those verses is incorrect, that the grace alone verses far outnumber them and are much simpler and uncontestable, that both theories can't be true and that way more evidence points to grace alone. I gave you a chance to see if you had an argument that was capable of overcoming this and it wasn't.

You admit what you have done is gloss over other verses.
Every jot and every tittle of God's Word is significant and must be properly factored in.

They get scholars when they need bridges, buildings, historical discoveries, cures for disease, radiation studies, power plants, economic plans, or any other effort that needs the greatest competence available. The Bible is no different.

I allow God to be the judge of who is competent to perform His labors. So far as I am aware, religious scholars of Christianity today are no better than Jewish scholars were in the days of Jesus.

I never said they never made mistakes. If your theory defies scholarly conclusion the smart thing is to reevaluate your position not dismiss the experts. That is what you do if your precommitment to your theory is more important than the truth.

I was and am not operating based upon any precommitment.
I recognized at a point in my life that the vast majority of what I accepted as religious truth had not ever really been challenged by me in a critical way. So, I realized I was to a great extent simply passing on what had been floating around me as I grew up. While I had a sense that there was much truth and validity, there were other things that registered as flawed and others seemed so far out as to hold no practical value. Ultimately I received a witness that so far in life I didn't actually have a proper knowledge of things as God would have them be understood. So, I decided I would just wash away everything I thought I knew and start over from scratch, deliberately putting aside anything that could bias me. I surrendered totally to God and asked Him sincerely to enable me to understand Him and what He wished for others to understand as well that would enable all of the contention in religion to be resolved. This process has led to paradigm busting revelations of new ways to see and understand the Bible. My eyes have been opened to things that I never could have seen at all, unless I deliberately put aside all of my preconceived notions that were really just a product of what I absorbed from others around me.

You just made this up as well. When I was born again, the first thing I did was to buy a good Bible and avoid any discussions with any Christians or denominations about doctrine. I threw my vcr in the lake I lived by, and spent almost two years reading the Bible several times and studying the core issues and in prayer. I determined what I believed in a vacume. In fact I believe God stopped me from even asking the guy who led me to him about doctrine. I started to several times but felt like I shouldn't. He was a SDA and I now know he believes in things I do not. You have no way of knowing what you claim here even if true. The fact that you claim it as a fact when I know very well it is false is indicative of the way you think and why I reject your conclusions. As with this conclusion I think your theories were adopted by preference and then you attempted to make the Bible adapt the same way you would like to believe I am influenced by scholars so you tried to force reality to adapt. I dissagree in both cases. In the first I have all the scholars on my side (incidentally) and being that I am the greatest expert on me in the world I know for a fact your second claim is just completely false. My conclusions made in isolation were affirmed by the fact that in approx 95% of the cases the experts opinion matched my own. One time it doesn't is concerning a prophecy about some not dieing until they see him return in the Gospel. I dissagree with every commentary on it there is but I have no opinion myself either. People often get defensive abouttheir ideas and view attacks on the ideas personally. I hope you will not.

I was referring to where you are now. You give me the impression that to depart from the scholars is foolishness.
In this very post you advocated turning to the experts in civil engineering if I want a bridge or a building and said that things of the Bible are no different.

Well, I'm here to tell you that they are different and God is willing to work with and teach those who sincerely approach Him in complete humility and a willingness to accept what He reveals to them.

 

[1robin]

? Do you mean illogical?

Nope, but I understand it is confusing but I made sure it was correct. It is logical to deny that killed and not killed are equivalent. Read it agian it is hard to follow for some reason.

It's not that simple, cut and dry of an issue.
You should look into this in more detail.

I know the argument well and it has serious flaws.

You are who has failed at reconciliation, not me.
If my understanding was sincerely received there wouldn't be an Armageddon boiling.
What we would have instead is a proper understanding of God's Kingdom and peace.

No we would IMO opinion have a single belief that contained God's teaching and Satan's that you would have incorporated into one. The fact that armegeddon is necessary is because of Islam being opposed to Christ in the truest sense. Of all seven (I believe) nations Christ fights in the end all are Muslim.

Jesus being raised from the dead happened before he ever went to the cross.
The resurrection is being spiritually reunited with God and having spiritual life.
When Jesus was seen it was a spiritual body of flesh and bone that was witnessed.
What you think happened with Jesus, a physical resuscitation, wasn't the point.
Somehow, because you want some other fantasy to be true, you have missed the point.

Ressurection before death. That makes as much sense as the rest of your claims. I think you would be happier being a Baha'i. You sound just like them.

This other matter you are alluding to is our one-on-one discussion where we are talking about the parable of the sower. You will find you are who is completely out in left field. Read my recent post in that thread. Your are accusing me of what you are doing.

No we were discussing the good seed and you at some point switched to the sower without me knowing. You have been hoping around so much I lost track.

This doesn't answer my questions.
Why assume you are the only one who can interpret the Bible correctly?

I never did which is why I am the only one who has mentioned expert opinion and commentary. You are the one in a personal vacume.

What I see is also very clear to me as well.
So, what makes yours better than mine?

The only thing that can be used to attempt settle an issue at this point is proffesional opinion. So you dismiss that because you must.

It is to me. Who made you the Biblical authority?

God. Actually I would not be so certain but when you add in the virtually universall conclusions of modern day scholars, early church fathers, respected commentators, and the concensus among believers as a whole it is pretty likely you are the one who is mistaken. If you believe that killed and not killed are the same and ressurection happens before death in Christs case then I am not suprised you would dissagree with simple Biblical teachings.

I was talking about the parable of the sower, which is just before that second parable that addresses the exact same subject, only it introduces a further distinction so that how the first parable can be applied is more fully understood. Those parables are to be taken together in order to derive the complete understanding.

This is the first thing you have said so far that I have found meaningfull. I will re-evaluate that in this light. I knew this and it does not affect the issue but it might affect my comments of your comments.

What I do with the Bible as a whole is take all of what is said and merge it together in such a way that a well refined and disciplined understanding that is consistent with the whole can be derived.

Then why do you dissagree with all the experts who have done this for a living for the past two thousand years?

That depends upon the level of care and discipline that is used.
If someone is totally closed-minded there is no amount of debate that can help.

I think that is far more true concerning you than me but I am pretty certain after all these years in what I believe.

You admit what you have done is gloss over other verses.
Every jot and ever tittle of God's Word is significant and must be properly factored in.

No I did not. In fact the ones that oppose my understanding were scrutinised more carefully. The ones in James in particular. That is why I know the surface understanding is not correct.

I allow God to be the judge of who is competent to perform His labors. So far as I am aware, religious scholars of Christianity today are no better than Jewish scholars were in the days of Jesus.

That is a strange thing coming from someone who claims to be a Christian. Being a Christian means you know the Jews were wrong when they killed Christ and know that modern scholars who acknowledge Christ are correct. I do not get it.

I was referring to where you are now. You give me the impression that to depart from the scholars is foolishness.

Nope but to dismiss them is.

In this very post you advocated turning to the experts in civil engineering if I want a bridge or a building and said that things of the Bible are no different.

No I said their competance concerning the Bible is no less than when building bridges. They are called because 99 out of 100 times they will build a better bridge than you. The same is probably true with the Bible, at least there is no reason to think it isn't. Many of their claims have been studied and have survived for hundreds of years in face of scrutiny. Have yours?

 

[kylixguru]

Nope, but I understand it is confusing but I made sure it was correct. It is logical to deny that killed and not killed are equivalent. Read it agian it is hard to follow for some reason.

In any case, I knew what you meant.

I know the argument well and it has serious flaws.

I disagree.

No we would IMO opinion have a single belief that contained God's teaching and Satan's that you would have incorporated into one. The fact that armegeddon is necessary is because of Islam being opposed to Christ in the truest sense. Of all seven (I believe) nations Christ fights in the end all are Muslim.

Islam is in opposition to the infidels of "the Book".
You may want to drop in and visit the thread I started on the Hidden Book that is woven throughout all holy writ. This is also the same thing as what is called the "sealed portion".

Ressurection before death. That makes as much sense as the rest of your claims. I think you would be happier being a Baha'i. You sound just like them.

I am talking about spiritual resurrection, which so far as I can tell, the Baha'i do have a correct understanding of.

No we were discussing the good seed and you at some point switched to the sower without me knowing. You have been hoping around so much I lost track.

I was always discussing the parable of the sower and the addendum to it of the good seed.
Don't imply a switch on my part unless I made some kind of an explicit agreement and then violated that agreement.

I never did which is why I am the only one who has mentioned expert opinion and commentary. You are the one in a personal vacume.

You bring up "expert" commentary because you are beholden to them. I am not.
I respect them and will hear them out, but I am not beholden to them.

The only thing that can be used to attempt settle an issue at this point is proffesional opinion. So you dismiss that because you must.

That's relying upon the arm of flesh.
Is all that needs to happen is for me to understand you and for you to understand me and then each of us can at that point make a sound judgment of the validity of things.
If you continue to contort what I try and get you to understand and you put up all kinds of barriers and insist I am saying something I am not, then we cannot accomplish anything productive. You carried on over and over claiming I said wheat becomes something else and I clarified over and over what I was really trying to say and you just continued on and ignored my clarifications. That's where the break down is.

God. Actually I would not be so certain but when you add in the virtually universall conclusions of modern day scholars, early church fathers, respected commentators, and the concensus among believers as a whole it is pretty likely you are the one who is mistaken. If you believe that killed and not killed are the same and ressurection happens before death in Christs case then I am not suprised you would dissagree with simple Biblical teachings.

If you do not understand the resurrection Jesus brought as a spiritual one, then why do Christians go on dying physically?
Why aren't we inundated with people who simply cannot be physically put to death?
Why didn't Peter come back to physical life after he was crucified?

This is the first thing you have said so far that I have found meaningfull. I will re-evaluate that in this light. I knew this and it does not affect the issue but it might affect my comments of your comments.

Then why do you dissagree with all the experts who have done this for a living for the past two thousand years?

Because none of them knew what I know.
If someone can reach the point of confirming to me that they actually understand what I understand and then show where I am mistaken, then I'll gladly accept correction. So far, I have yet to encounter anyone with a modicum of patience and generosity to get to a point where they could make a valid assessment of what I know. People find it easy to reject what they assume I know but when I know they don't understand me then they shouldn't be surprised if their rejection has no teeth.

I think that is far more true concerning you than me but I am pretty certain after all these years in what I believe.

I was too before God humbled me by telling me that I was primarily just a product of what I had absorbed from others.

No I did not. In fact the ones that oppose my understanding were scrutinised more carefully. The ones in James in particular. That is why I know the surface understanding is not correct.

So then why do you constantly make it a grace only or works only argument?
You are at an extreme that discounts any responsibility on our part to uphold our part of the covenant.
I acknowledge both grace and my individual responsibility as all of holy writ touches upon the subject.

That is a strange thing coming from someone who claims to be a Christian. Being a Christian means you know the Jews were wrong when they killed Christ and know that modern scholars who acknowledge Christ are correct. I do not get it.

My point is, the scholars can all get it wrong. They did before and in my assessment of things they are again.

Nope but to dismiss them is.

I've said before I can often find some good things in what they say.
What I refuse to do is make myself beholden to them, which is what you seem to think I should be doing.

No I said their competance concerning the Bible is no less than when building bridges. They are called because 99 out of 100 times they will build a better bridge than you. The same is probably true with the Bible, at least there is no reason to think it isn't. Many of their claims have been studied and have survived for hundreds of years in face of scrutiny. Have yours?

Mine are only a few years old.
So far nobody outside my immediate family seems to even want to sincerely consider them.

 

[1robin]

In any case, I knew what you meant.

Then why did you force me type all that, and this?

I disagree.

I was pretty sure you would.

Islam is in opposition to the infidels of "the Book".
You may want to drop in and visit the thread I started on the Hidden Book that is woven throughout all holy writ. This is also the same thing as what is called the "sealed portion".

I have debated Muslims and seen every debate I can find on them. I reject the Quran completely. I am being serious. Are you a Baha'i? This is their bread and butter and demands the same distortion of scripture as your position. Actually maybe even worse.

I am talking about spiritual resurrection, which so far as I can tell, the Baha'i do have a correct understanding of.

I knew it.

I was always discussing the parable of the sower and the addendum to it of the good seed.
Don't imply a switch on my part unless I made some kind of an explicit agreement and then violated that agreement.

No you were not. I posted many statements that were specifically talking about only the weeds that you and I made.

You bring up "expert" commentary because you are beholden to them. I am not.
I respect them and will hear them out, but I am not beholden to them.

No I am not and no you do not. They all agree with my position yet you ignore them and assert your own. I normally use them as the only hope of settleing a deadlocked issue. It never works, you guys even though you all believe contradictory things all believe you know better than anyone.

That's relying upon the arm of flesh.
Is all that needs to happen is for me to understand you and for you to understand me and then each of us can at that point make a sound judgment of the validity of things.
If you continue to contort what I try and get you to understand and you put up all kinds of barriers and insist I am saying something I am not, then we cannot accomplish anything productive. You carried on over and over claiming I said wheat becomes something else and I clarified over and over what I was really trying to say and you just continued on and ignored my clarifications. That's where the break down is.

So to rely on a man is no good. The BIble was entirely penned by men. I guess that it is out for you then. Fortunately I think God still uses men like he always has to clarify and reveal his will. You know the same way he said he would by the commissioning of pastors, leaders, and teachers. You know the ones he said to listen to but that you won't because your ideology trumps all wisdom.

If you do not understand the resurrection Jesus brought as a spiritual one, then why do Christians go on dying physically?

I never said it wasn't spiritually. In fact I even think I made the exact point you just did to illustrate it recently. It does not help you. He can't be spiritually resurrected until he was spiritually dead (in hell) that did not occur until he physically died. You know the exact same way it happens with us to which he was supposed to be an example to. If he is dieing spiritually then ressurected spiritually, then physically and only then taking away the keys to hell how is that an example to me?

Why aren't we inundated with people who simply cannot be physically put to death?
Why didn't Peter come back to physical life after he was crucified?

Why not get an answer to a question before you draw incorrect conclusions again.

Because none of them knew what I know.

Yeh the whole two thousand years of Christians are blind and you were given the answer so you could argue on forums about it. Write a respected commentary and then say this.

If someone can reach the point of confirming to me that they actually understand what I understand and then show where I am mistaken, then I'll gladly accept correction. So far, I have yet to encounter anyone with a modicum of patience and generosity to get to a point where they could make a valid assessment of what I know. People find it easy to reject what they assume I know but when I know they don't understand me then they shouldn't be surprised if their rejection has no teeth.

Isn't it your job to make it clear.

I was too before God humbled me by telling me that I was primarily just a product of what I had absorbed from others.

I have no access to that and so far no reason to assume it is an accurate claim. I am not saying I know you are wrong either. I leave those false claims to my opponents.

So then why do you constantly make it a grace only or works only argument?
You are at an extreme that discounts any responsibility on our part to uphold our part of the covenant.
I acknowledge both grace and my individual responsibility as all of holy writ touches upon the subject.

Grace renders merit impotent. There is no merit possible unless grace is not grace and then you have left Christianity. It is the truth for many reasons but the impossability of any counter system is a good one.

My point is, the scholars can all get it wrong. They did before and in my assessment of things they are again.

They usually do not all get it wrong on this many scriptures. They have had hundreds of years to refine and scrutinise this stuff. It still stands. Which by the way means it's opposite (your claims) still falls.

I've said before I can often find some good things in what they say.
What I refuse to do is make myself beholden to them, which is what you seem to think I should be doing.

Keeping on saying it won't make it any less false.

Mine are only a few years old.
So far nobody outside my immediate family seems to even want to sincerely consider them.

No your claims are very old. They have surfaced throughout the history of Christianity. Eespecially in some versions of Catholacism. Just as in Christ's ressurection proving the Jews wrong so in Luther, Wycliffe, and others God has proven the Catholics wrong. You just have a slightly different, and unfortunately less valid method of justifying it. For some reason this statement got to me. I will tommorrow try and help you understand the philisophical and theological problems with the idea it's self and quit hammering you on your methods. OK?

 

[kylixguru]

So to rely on a man is no good. The BIble was entirely penned by men.

This is why you fail to understand it.
You do not hold God is its author.
This is why you fall back on men as your last resort instead of its true author.

I guess that it is out for you then. Fortunately I think God still uses men like he always has to clarify and reveal his will. You know the same way he said he would by the commissioning of pastors, leaders, and teachers. You know the ones he said to listen to but that you won't because your ideology trumps all wisdom.

Those you view as pastors, leaders, and teachers do not have authority from God to stand in those offices.
These are men who attended man-made seminaries and receive man-made credentials.

I never said it wasn't spiritually. In fact I even think I made the exact point you just did to illustrate it recently. It does not help you. He can't be spiritually resurrected until he was spiritually dead (in hell) that did not occur until he physically died. You know the exact same way it happens with us to which he was supposed to be an example to. If he is dieing spiritually then ressurected spiritually, then physically and only then taking away the keys to hell how is that an example to me?

I did touch on that to some extent.
There is a difference between having a valid commission from God and transgressing against it and being born in a state of ignorance.
But, I don't think it will be helpful to go into the nitty gritty of that right now.

Why not get an answer to a question before you draw incorrect conclusions again.

Huh?
That's what I've done is sought and received an answer, from God.

Yeh the whole two thousand years of Christians are blind and you were given the answer so you could argue on forums about it. Write a respected commentary and then say this.

Not necessarily everyone, but it is the weeds that are dominating things and have been for a very long time.

Isn't it your job to make it clear.

If someone is deaf and blind to it and they are unwilling to consider that they are being such, there is nothing I can do for them. If they actually exercised some faith and belief, then I am confident I could heal them and open their eyes and their ears.

I have no access to that and so far no reason to assume it is an accurate claim. I am not saying I know you are wrong either. I leave those false claims to my opponents.

Huh? This comment doesn't make sense to me.

Grace renders merit impotent. There is no merit possible unless grace is not grace and then you have left Christianity. It is the truth for many reasons but the impossability of any counter system is a good one.

You are who imposes these extremist notions.
This is an example of how you willfully blind yourself.
Saying this entirely forces you to gloss over every passage calling for obedience.

They usually do not all get it wrong on this many scriptures. They have had hundreds of years to refine and scrutinise this stuff. It still stands. Which by the way means it's opposite (your claims) still falls.

I'm not saying they are 100% wrong.
I have made a landmark discovery they have not yet considered.
I am still in the process of absorbing the full impact of it all.
At some point it will become a well known and well developed argument.
Some will see the light and truth in it and accept it and others will hold to the precepts of men and traditions of their fathers and reject it.

No your claims are very old. They have surfaced throughout the history of Christianity.

You don't even hardly have a scratch on the surface of what I know.
You have hardly no idea what things I have experienced to confirm what I know.
Listen to yourself. Look at how you are totally blinding yourself.

Eespecially in some versions of Catholacism. Just as in Christ's ressurection proving the Jews wrong so in Luther, Wycliffe, and others God has proven the Catholics wrong. You just have a slightly different, and unfortunately less valid method of justifying it. For some reason this statement got to me. I will tommorrow try and help you understand the philisophical and theological problems with the idea it's self and quit hammering you on your methods. OK?

Suit yourself.

 

[Astravalon]

Then why did you force me type all that, and this?

Pssst -- 1robin -- we have free will, remember. No one can force us to type stuff on here.

 

[1robin]

Pssst -- 1robin -- we have free will, remember. No one can force us to type stuff on here.

Hey that is no fair!!! You changed avatars and snuck up on me. Why have you gone to the religion-free theist label? I thought you were Hindu. I know my points are good but surely you did not switch because of our conversation did you?

 

[1robin]

This is why you fail to understand it.
You do not hold God is its author.
This is why you fall back on men as your last resort instead of its true author.

I used penned instead of composed specifically to avoid or head off any bogus attempts to insinuate that God is not the ultimate author. Didn't help. I know what you will say so well I plan for it and you do it anyway. It is like trying to put a cat in a trash can. To believe the Bible we must trust both the men who recorded it and the God who inspired it.

Those you view as pastors, leaders, and teachers do not have authority from God to stand in those offices.
These are men who attended man-made seminaries and receive man-made credentials.

There are God commissioned servants and fake servants.

Not necessarily everyone, but it is the weeds that are dominating things and have been for a very long time.

Please show that Mathew Henry, Wesley, Clement, Ignatius, or Polycarp got it all wrong and you who are not a Church father, never wrote a respected commentary, and whose work has not been scrutinized by hundreds of Christians and scholars are actually right. If I had a theory that Newton and Einstein said was wrong I might retain it but would seriously doubt it. If the majority of my theories are countered by Physics, mathematics and the majority of well-respected physicists that have actually produced professionally in their fields I certainly would not insist I was right and they were all wrong.

If someone is deaf and blind to it and they are unwilling to consider that they are being such, there is nothing I can do for them. If they actually exercised some faith and belief, then I am confident I could heal them and open their eyes and their ears.

You said that no one outside some members of your family believes you. Are you actually going to act like the entire rest of the world is wrong and stupid and you who God has not given any commission or manner of influence are right. When God let's or empowers you to do what Wesley, Polycarp, Paul, or Billy Graham did then your comments might have influence. Declaring everyone else wrong and too stupid to see how brilliant you are is desperate and futile.

Huh? This comment doesn't make sense to me.

I have not mentioned much in the way of my supernatural experiences with God nor have I detailed much about the miracles I feel God used to settle the grace issue for me with you. The reason I haven't is you have no access to them and therefore no reason to find them meaningful. I have seen hundreds of people all swear they are prophets or have been given messages by God claiming completely contradictory things. They can't all be from God and especially when their claims contradict the ones I and most scholars hold they have no power to persuade and are not worth the effort.

You are who imposes these extremist notions.
This is an example of how you willfully blind yourself.
Saying this entirely forces you to gloss over every passage calling for obedience.

There is nothing extreme about the definition of grace. If grace exists merit is meaningless. If merit is necessary then grace is meaningless. Two contradictory claims to truth can't possibly both be right even if through intellectual gymnastics they are declared to be complementary. They are not complimentary and one negates the other. I do not gloss over obedience and have stated many times it is crucial in all ways except salvation. How did that man with no works get to heaven if this was false.

I'm not saying they are 100% wrong.
I have made a landmark discovery they have not yet considered.
I am still in the process of absorbing the full impact of it all.
At some point it will become a well-known and well developed argument.
Some will see the light and truth in it and accept it and others will hold to the precepts of men and traditions of their fathers and reject it.

There is not a single thing you have considered or discovered that has not been thoroughly hashed out hundreds of years ago. As I have said your position is a very old one and has been considered by vast numbers of godly men and scholars. It didn't work then and nothing has changed.

You don't even hardly have a scratch on the surface of what I know.

The fact that there were insurmountable problems with the small amount we have discussed rendered any additional efforts pointless.

You have hardly no idea what things I have experienced to confirm what I know.
Listen to yourself. Look at how you are totally blinding yourself.

Neither do you have any idea what I have experienced and can't know. The difference is I recognize this and you think you are right and the world wrong and can't understand why I do not agree. Amazing. Your declarations about my relationship to scripture is unknowable to you and is only the desperate result of what an unjustified position that is countered by the Bible and it's experts make necessary. I think every lunatic in history (not implying you are one) has thought they were right and everyone else wrong.

 

[kylixguru]

I used penned instead of composed specifically to avoid or head off any bogus attempts to insinuate that God is not the ultimate author. Didn't help. I know what you will say so well I plan for it and you do it anyway. It is like trying to put a cat in a trash can. To believe the Bible we must trust both the men who recorded it and the God who inspired it.

I'm glad you have clarified your statement. It does help.

There are God commissioned servants and fake servants.

Glad you agree.

Please show that Mathew Henry, Wesley, Clement, Ignatius, or Polycarp got it all wrong

I'm not saying "they got it all wrong". I'm saying their level of understanding represents a lesser level of spiritual glory than what shall come later on. It started out at the "fish" level and progressed to creatures on the dry land and ultimately culminates with the very image and likeness of God in "man" and those of that level of glory are given to sit upon the throne of God. I am trying to open your view to understand the spiritual glory that attends this level of things.

and you who are not a Church father, never wrote a respected commentary, and whose work has not been scrutinized by hundreds of Christians and scholars are actually right.

Patience please. I just barely made the discoveries a few years ago and I am still absorbing the full impact of it.
Newton didn't invent calculus and get it established in less than 5 years time.

If I had a theory that Newton and Einstein said was wrong I might retain it but would seriously doubt it.

Good luck trying to convince Newton he was wrong about optics and calculus. He experienced and observed them to be true first-hand.

If the majority of my theories are countered by Physics, mathematics and the majority of well-respected physicists that have actually produced professionally in their fields I certainly would not insist I was right and they were all wrong.

It would depend upon whether you were actually operating from a position of first-hand proven knowledge or speculation. If you knew something was true based upon first-hand personal experience, who could convince you otherwise?

You said that no one outside some members of your family believes you. Are you actually going to act like the entire rest of the world is wrong and stupid and you who God has not given any commission or manner of influence are right.

Well, other than no more than 10 people, I have not spoken of these things as yet. I put a few blurbs on some other groups too, but no substantive responses came either way.

When God let's or empowers you to do what Wesley, Polycarp, Paul, or Billy Graham did then your comments might have influence. Declaring everyone else wrong and too stupid to see how brilliant you are is desperate and futile.

I don't believe anyone is too stupid, nor do I think I have ever used that kind of language.

What I have observed is very few people are actually generous enough to first carefully understand before they start throwing a wet blanket on my discovery.

When someone cannot confirm to me that they actually really understand what I am proposing, they shouldn't be too surprised if their rejection of it doesn't bear much sway with me.

I have not mentioned much in the way of my supernatural experiences with God nor have I detailed much about the miracles I feel God used to settle the grace issue for me with you. The reason I haven't is you have no access to them and therefore no reason to find them meaningful. I have seen hundreds of people all swear they are prophets or have been given messages by God claiming completely contradictory things. They can't all be from God and especially when their claims contradict the ones I and most scholars hold they have no power to persuade and are not worth the effort.

Yes, that is understandable.
In my case you specifically asked why I am not beholden to scholars.
That is one reason why that gives you an understanding of what motivates me.
I don't tell you such things because I want you beholden to me.
I want for you to have your own genuine experiences so that you are beholden to God.

There is nothing extreme about the definition of grace. If grace exists merit is meaningless. If merit is necessary then grace is meaningless.

I have clarified this previous so I won't repeat my argument here.
You have it grossly over simplified and are glossing over many passages to do so.

Two contradictory claims to truth can't possibly both be right even if through intellectual gymnastics they are declared to be complementary.

Every passage of scripture has merit and needs to be taken together as a whole in order to assured you are developing consistently with God's Word. I don't look at this process of combining the meanings of all passages into a unified whole as an unnatural contortion of things for my own benefit.

They are not complimentary and one negates the other. I do not gloss over obedience and have stated many times it is crucial in all ways except salvation.

I am talking about attaining Eternal Life.

How did that man with no works get to heaven if this was false.

He took the time to know what it was and where it was and took step after step on the straight and narrow path that got him there.

There is not a single thing you have considered or discovered that has not been thoroughly hashed out hundreds of years ago.

I have hardly scratched the surface so don't be so quick to assume.

As I have said your position is a very old one and has been considered by vast numbers of godly men and scholars. It didn't work then and nothing has changed.
The fact that there were insurmountable problems with the small amount we have discussed rendered any additional efforts pointless.

What made our one-on-one discussion difficult is your contortion of my position and from imposing an expectation upon me I wasn't fully privy to and from you being more interested in discrediting me than actually understanding me.

Neither do you have any idea what I have experienced and can't know. The difference is I recognize this and you think you are right and the world wrong and can't understand why I do not agree. Amazing. Your declarations about my relationship to scripture is unknowable to you and is only the desperate result of what an unjustified position that is countered by the Bible and it's experts make necessary. I think every lunatic in history (not implying you are one) has thought they were right and everyone else wrong.

I don't disagree that lunatics have been among us.

I have simply tried to answer your questions in a frank and transparent manner.

I have stated earlier and will do so again that I only ask to be carefully heard and considered. I am not looking for anyone to become beholden to me and I certainly do not recommend anyone should be beholden to any other man, even your cherished scholars.

I have learned through gut wrenching experience that you cannot even trust a man that you know is a prophet of God who receives "thus saith the Lord" revelations.

 

[1robin]

I'm glad you have clarified your statement. It does help.
Glad you agree.

Of course there are exceptions, but it is logical to think that if God gave some great clarity concerning issues as central to Christianity as salvation he would not then only give that guy a few person audience on a forum. I would instead think he would likely allow them to record massive, detailed, and respected commentaries or large ministries.

I'm not saying "they got it all wrong". I'm saying their level of understanding represents a lesser level of spiritual glory than what shall come later on. It started out at the "fish" level and progressed to creatures on the dry land and ultimately culminates with the very image and likeness of God in "man" and those of that level of glory are given to sit upon the throne of God. I am trying to open your view to understand the spiritual glory that attends this level of things.

Are you inserting an evolutionary principle into the Bible or comparing the two? I didn't get it. The oldest books of the Torah are extremely complex. The teachings in the new testament are not really any more advanced complexity wise. God as he deals with us must conform to time to some degree which means that different things can be revealed as others have becoming understood are superseded. I however do not see any opportunity of any future revelation that concerns getting to heave. The OT went from the beginning to Christ. The NT went from Christ until a time in which the issue of heaven and hell are settled. There may be additional revelation but it will not concern salvation that issues conclusion is decided in revelations.

Patience please. I just barely made the discoveries a few years ago and I am still absorbing the full impact of it.
Newton didn't invent calculus and get it established in less than 5 years time.

I agree with the principle if not the comparison. Until you do achieve something like a Newton status and recognition I would not expect others to drop everything they have learned talking to an unknown guy in a forum.

Good luck trying to convince Newton he was wrong about optics and calculus. He experienced and observed them to be true first-hand.

So did the apostle's. You seem to credit Newton with extraordinary competence as you should why then do you deny that to anyone no matter how respected that disagrees with you. I have noticed people have a standard for everything else and a separate one for the Bible.

It would depend upon whether you were actually operating from a position of first-hand proven knowledge or speculation. If you knew something was true based upon first-hand personal experience, who could convince you otherwise?

There is no equivalence. Unless you have died and went to heaven plus while there God himself explained everything to you then you have not experienced it first hand.

Well, other than no more than 10 people, I have not spoken of these things as yet. I put a few blurbs on some other groups too, but no substantive responses came either way.

I would suggest either old school Catholics or Baha'i. Protestants will eat you up except for maybe the COC. Why don't you subject you ideas to some low level scholars just to get some feedback. I spent years and years understanding and confirming in many ways my understanding before I risked recommending it to anyone. There is too much at stake.

I don't believe anyone is too stupid, nor do I think I have ever used that kind of language.

Maybe I misunderstood your implication. Regardless you implied they have some deficiency either of intellect or what's more offensive, spirituality that makes you their superior.

What I have observed is very few people are actually generous enough to first carefully understand before they start throwing a wet blanket on my discovery.

When you get into a forum arena, many times you are dealing with very committed people and ones who have seen countless new people show up give strange ideas, refuse to admit they are strange, reject scholars and imply they are just so smart or spiritual that everyone else is incapable of getting it, and cling to their pet idea in the face of absolute refutation. It becomes easy to spot and we at least me lose some patience over time. That is why I try and identify a motivation or method early. Some of this is my fault and un Christian but most of it is experience. Besides your ideas are not new they have existed since about 400AD. You just offer a slightly modified aspect in a few places.

When someone cannot confirm to me that they actually really understand what I am proposing, they shouldn't be too surprised if their rejection of it doesn't bear much sway with me.

I understand and you are without doubt saying that what Christ did and our adoption of it is not sufficient and must be added to by our efforts. I reject the premise and underlying dynamic. I have debated the issue countless times. It is not critical if I give a perfect critique of each detail you mention because I know the conclusion is not justified. Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Yes, that is understandable.
In my case you specifically asked why I am not beholden to scholars.
That is one reason why that gives you an understanding of what motivates me.
I don't tell you such things because I want you beholden to me.
I want for you to have your own genuine experiences so that you are beholden to God.

I have had three miracles that concern the resolution of this issue it’s self or firmly believe I have. They agreed with the scholars, theologians, the plain reading of the text, the philosophy of salvation, and logic and reason. In the face of all that why would I adopt the views of a stranger? I understand very well that our subjective experiences, personal understanding, and commitment to a position are a wash and cancel each other out. The only thing left that has any capability to settle the issue is independent expert testimony. Of course you reject that because you must but without it or something similar there is no way to settle the issue except reason and philosophy which I appealed to in my post in the other thread. I will see if that has any chance when you respond.

I have clarified this previous so I won't repeat my argument here.
You have it grossly over simplified and are glossing over many passages to do so.

You say grace and works or obedience. The point is that that is self-contradictory. If grace is involved then it requires no merit. If merit is involved it requires no grace. Unless you can divide salvation into sections (something surely even you wouldn’t attempt that) it is one or the other. It is equivalent to saying something is a square circle. If it's one it can't possibly be the other. If it's both then neither term applies.

Every passage of scripture has merit and needs to be taken together as a whole in order to assured you are developing consistently with God's Word. I don't look at this process of combining the meanings of all passages into a unified whole as an unnatural contortion of things for my own benefit.

Many times I see quantity used in place of quality. I usually find that a bad point is kept from serious scrutiny by jumping all over the place and using so many vague scriptures that none can be resolved. I do not see this done by you to a great extent but by people who make your claims constantly. Familiarity reveals patterns and tactics over time.

I am talking about attaining Eternal Life.

Grace is the word used to describe our gaining of eternal life in countless simple, plain, and point blank verses. It cannot be combined with anything we produce and still be grace. The ones used for defense of works or merit salvation are far more ambiguous, far less numerous, and much less convincing. I at one time had two books that contained the verses used for each in debate.

He took the time to know what it was and where it was and took step after step on the straight and narrow path that got him there.

Where did you learn this? He is not known to be mentioned in any other verse. This verse does not contain any such claims. In fact the very opposite is what is stressed. He did nothing (no step, no thought, no action) that was Godly and survived the refiner's fire. He was stripped of everything except his relationship to Christ. He had nothing left to offer for salvation with the exception of what Christ did. Yet he was saved. I can't help but see this as another example of reading in what ever you need.

I have hardly scratched the surface so don't be so quick to assume.

I meant the conclusion not the method. If the conclusion is known to be false the method is irrelevant.

What made our one-on-one discussion difficult is your contortion of my position and from imposing an expectation upon me I wasn't fully privy to and from you being more interested in discrediting me than actually understanding me.

I specifically stated the intention to concentrate on the one parable. You obviously understood because that is what you did until that led no where and then you switched. My reasons are also irrelevant.

I don't disagree that lunatics have been among us.

Why should I not conclude you are not in the false teaching category when you disagree with what I have spent 20 years concluding, what I believe God showed me supernaturally, what most experts have concluded, what the early church fathers believed, what has made necessary ( I believe with good reason) your reading things into verses like the one above, and what is the most consistent and philosophically possible? That is all in the "lunatic" category so to speak. What is in the " not lunatic" category that I can verify in your case? Again I am using lunatic hypothetically not personally.

I have learned through gut wrenching experience that you cannot even trust a man that you know is a prophet of God who receives "thus saith the Lord" revelations.

Isn't this exactly what you are claiming for yourself?

 

[Astravalon]

Hey that is no fair!!! You changed avatars and snuck up on me. Why have you gone to the religion-free theist label? I thought you were Hindu. I know my points are good but surely you did not switch because of our conversation did you?

LOL! Sorry about that.

No, and I don't consider myself Hindu, even though Lord Krishna is what I consider the most appealing representation of God I have come across, and so I envision Him along those lines.

As I had indicated at the end of post 2483, I found out soon enough that I would be as much of a heretic in Hinduism as I turned out to be in Christianity, so I make it a point to steer clear of any institutionalized religions label. "Theist" seemed to be a good fit, basic yet not locking me into any particular mindset beyond "Yeppers, I believe there's a God". It more easily keeps up with my ever-evolving spiritual journey.

There's also the link back in post 2517 that I shared earlier in our conversation, which goes more in depth as to what it is I believe and how I got there, including a link to my blog, The Divine Dance, which has even more info.

 

[kylixguru]

I have had three miracles that concern the resolution of this issue it’s self or firmly believe I have. They agreed with the scholars, theologians, the plain reading of the text, the philosophy of salvation, and logic and reason. In the face of all that why would I adopt the views of a stranger?

Well, for starters, you still seem to have a contorted view of what I am suggesting so at this point I hope you reject what you think I'm trying to say.
If you reach the point where I can confirm you truly understand how I read those parables, then I only ask for you to make it a matter of your own personal process of knowing what is true and what isn't for yourself.
What if you also have not been understanding the scholars as well?
What if when you finally get what I'm saying and then you go back to see what the scholars were trying to say that you find more agreement than you expected to find?
I don't know if such will be the case or not, but that's what you just may find.
As I've said before, I consider the efforts of scholars to be very rich and fruitful soil to tap into, but that you also need to be willing to hold them in question to a degree as well. God, through the Holy Spirit, is who should be your final arbiter of what is true and what isn't and we all have many things to learn and grow and develop in by way of the ministration of the Holy Spirit.

I understand very well that our subjective experiences, personal understanding, and commitment to a position are a wash and cancel each other out.

I am not so sure they cancel one another out.
I believe your experiences were genuine and that they have helped you get closer to God.

The only thing left that has any capability to settle the issue is independent expert testimony.

Well, until I sense you actually get what I'm talking about and see it in the context that I do, there cannot be a resolution on the matter. So far you seem more interested in discrediting me than understanding me.

Of course you reject that because you must but without it or something similar there is no way to settle the issue except reason and philosophy which I appealed to in my post in the other thread. I will see if that has any chance when you respond.

I don't appreciate the insinuation that I am not a person capable of sound reasoning.

I have a clear understanding of what Eternal Life in the Father's Kingdom is and I reason from that point of view. This point of view has been carefully formed by paying close attention to what Jesus taught, as well as basing it upon the foundation of God's law.

I understand the new Covenant we look forward to as being a covenant with the Father. He is the Husband and we are the Bride. For the time being, we are merely bidden to this wedding as the betrothed bride to be who needs to be preparing herself and making herself ready so that she is a pure, clean, worthy and fit Bride for God.

It truly is a marriage and we shall indeed have duties and responsibilities we will need to prepare ourselves for to give the appropriate level of service and honor to our Husband. It is only by the grace of God that I shall have the ability to participate in this new covenant. No matter how many works I ever did could never have made up for the estranged position I am in by being of the seed of the House of Israel.

Just as God had His part to do so that I could be lawfully eligible to be remarried to Him, I too need to take the process of entering into a new covenant with sincerity, fidelity and preparation so that the marriage is a happy and a successful one. That is all I am saying, along with saying it's a good idea to know when and where you need to be to actually attend this wedding.

You say grace and works or obedience. The point is that that is self-contradictory. If grace is involved then it requires no merit. If merit is involved it requires no grace. Unless you can divide salvation into sections (something surely even you wouldn’t attempt that) it is one or the other. It is equivalent to saying something is a square circle. If it's one it can't possibly be the other. If it's both then neither term applies.

It's a covenant that involves two parties who are eligible to start with and then who mutually approve of the duties and responsibilities both parties of the covenant must uphold with integrity.

It's God's grace that you are eligible and it's up to you to prepare to be someone God will receive into covenant. He is not obligated to take a bride that just views Him as a sugar-daddy and who has no real intentions of being an honorable wife.

 

[kylixguru]

Many times I see quantity used in place of quality. I usually find that a bad point is kept from serious scrutiny by jumping all over the place and using so many vague scriptures that none can be resolved. I do not see this done by you to a great extent but by people who make your claims constantly. Familiarity reveals patterns and tactics over time.

I often see people who lack the generosity to truly understand one another and so there are various efforts made to try and get by despite the fact that one person at least is refusing to understand and acknowledge the points being made by the other side.
This can lead to many tactics that ultimately are just more of a waste of time.
If someone wants to be right more than they want to first understand, then things are hopeless.

Grace is the word used to describe our gaining of eternal life in countless simple, plain, and point blank verses. It cannot be combined with anything we produce and still be grace.

The grace component can clearly be understood and appreciated in what it accomplishes for us.
I believe if you had a healthier understanding of what the new covenant really entails, you wouldn't find what I say to be "impossible". You would simply view me as someone who takes my promise of betrothal to become a Bride to the Father as a truly believing person who looks forward to being the best possible Bride that I can be. You would say: "This person truly believes in the promise of the Gospel because they show their faith by preparing and by advocating that others prepare as well."

The ones used for defense of works or merit salvation are far more ambiguous, far less numerous, and much less convincing. I at one time had two books that contained the verses used for each in debate.

It isn't a grace vs. works contest where one has to win out over the other. Grace is what it is, and, thankfully, it has been offered. It makes us eligible for remarriage to God in a new covenant. Everything beyond that is simply putting real stock in the prospect of being a Bride to the Father and having a happy union with Him. If you feel the need to call that works, fine, but it's just taking the promise seriously and being responsible about it.

Where did you learn this? He is not known to be mentioned in any other verse. This verse does not contain any such claims. In fact the very opposite is what is stressed. He did nothing (no step, no thought, no action) that was Godly and survived the refiner's fire. He was stripped of everything except his relationship to Christ. He had nothing left to offer for salvation with the exception of what Christ did. Yet he was saved. I can't help but see this as another example of reading in what ever you need.

I am not addressing the general salvation from death and hell that ultimately comes about, which is a result of and the focus of what those in the Kingdom of God accomplish.
I am talking about receiving Life Eternal in the Father's Kingdom that is only attainable by those who follow the straight and narrow path that leads to Life Eternal.

I meant the conclusion not the method. If the conclusion is known to be false the method is irrelevant.

I wasn't talking about the method or the conclusion.
I'm simply saying you have yet to fully understand the nature, scope and basis of my discovery. Therefore, if you form a prejudice against it and reject it based upon partial understanding and partial reasoning, you aren't going to register much of an influence on me.
I don't think its wise of you to snap judge something in a hasty way based upon presumptions.

I specifically stated the intention to concentrate on the one parable. You obviously understood because that is what you did until that led no where and then you switched. My reasons are also irrelevant.

I didn't switch. I stayed in the parable of the sower and the good seed.
I wasn't aware that you only wanted to focus on the parable of the good seed alone.
I was taking them both as being together touching upon the same thing.

Why should I not conclude you are not in the false teaching category when you disagree with what I have spent 20 years concluding, what I believe God showed me supernaturally, what most experts have concluded, what the early church fathers believed, what has made necessary ( I believe with good reason) your reading things into verses like the one above, and what is the most consistent and philosophically possible? That is all in the "lunatic" category so to speak. What is in the " not lunatic" category that I can verify in your case? Again I am using lunatic hypothetically not personally.

Well, that is all your prerogative.
I think I'm being pretty patient and reasonable with you.
What do you have to lose by actually trying to properly understand me before you conclude anything?

Isn't this exactly what you are claiming for yourself?

No, I am not claiming that for myself.
I do not receive "thus saith the Lord" oracles.
I am not in the office and authority of the Elias/Elijah.

 

[1robin]

LOL! Sorry about that.

No, and I don't consider myself Hindu, even though Lord Krishna is what I consider the most appealing representation of God I have come across, and so I envision Him along those lines.

As I had indicated at the end of post 2483, I found out soon enough that I would be as much of a heretic in Hinduism as I turned out to be in Christianity, so I make it a point to steer clear of any institutionalized religions label. "Theist" seemed to be a good fit, basic yet not locking me into any particular mindset beyond "Yeppers, I believe there's a God". It more easily keeps up with my ever-evolving spiritual journey.

There's also the link back in post 2517 that I shared earlier in our conversation, which goes more in depth as to what it is I believe and how I got there, including a link to my blog, The Divine Dance, which has even more info.

Don't be sorry. Now that you remind me I do recall that you did not consider yourself a Hindu. I will add that in a Hindu thread here that I asked I think three Hindu's about freewill and I think they all believed it it existed to a varying degree. What is the point in debate without free will? Anyway good to hear from again.

 

[1robin]

Well, for starters, you still seem to have a contorted view of what I am suggesting

I believe you are saying that something in addition to grace and grace alone is needed. It does not matter what else it is and no one can ever state specifics anyway. I reject anything outside of my faith in Christ's merits.

If you reach the point where I can confirm you truly understand how I read those parables,

Your reading something in addition to grace is implied by them. It does not exist in either.

What if you also have not been understanding the scholars as well?

It is pretty desperate to suggest I missunderstood a dozen scholars, the church fathers, and the Bible. That it actually says the exact opposite in every case from what it plainly seems to to me.

What if when you finally get what I'm saying and then you go back to see what the scholars were trying to say that you find more agreement than you expected to find?

A scholar who exhaustively points out that not a single thing we will ever do apart from believe will ever help us get to heaven is pretty hard to missunderstand.

I don't know if such will be the case or not, but that's what you just may find.

You may find out one day that the Earth is square. I do not see the merit in such statements.

As I've said before, I consider the efforts of scholars to be very rich and fruitful

Then why do you have confidence in a theory they do not support.

God, through the Holy Spirit, is who should be your final arbiter of what is true and what isn't and we all have many things to learn and grow and develop in by way of the ministration of the Holy Spirit.

Who said that is not what I use. I have said it was a dozen times so far. I use scholars to break ties or attempt to.

I believe your experiences were genuine and that they have helped you get closer to God.

Then why is it you reject what my experiences, expert opinion, the only philisophic possability, a plain reading od simple verses, and early Church doctrine all say is the truth?

Well, until I sense you actually get what I'm talking about and see it in the context that I do.

How much more than you are adding to grace is necessary for me to understand. If you said the Sun is cold I do not care what your method is the Sun is hot.

I don't appreciate the insinuation that I am not a person capable of sound reasoning.

If reason dicatates for instance that the Sun is hot and yet you declare it is cold then my statement that the solution only exists in reason and logic is still accurate. It also implies that your methods must lie outside of that. It is a logical deduction that concerns this arguement not a universal description. To say that what we recieve as a gift for free must then be maintained by effort or merit is illogical and unreasonable. Please stop with all the appeals to victumhood or sympathy. I may be blunt at times but I am far more patient and empathetic that many ideas deserve. People many times have an emotional attachment to an ideology and view an attack on it as an attack on them.

I have a clear understanding of what Eternal Life in the Father's Kingdom is and I reason from that point of view.

Then why have I and the vast majority not concluded the same things.

I understand the new Covenant we look forward to as being a covenant with the Father.

The new covenant already exists. All Biblical covenants are began with Blood (I do not know why) and the new one (New Testament/covenant) began when he shed his. We are immediately adopted into that covenant when we are born again. It does not come later after we have earned what he gave as a gift.

He is the Husband and we are the Bride. For the time being, we are merely bidden to this wedding as the betrothed bride to be who needs to be preparing herself and making herself ready so that she is a pure, clean, worthy and fit Bride for God.

Since God's standard is absolute perfection how can we attain this perfection by effort. We can't, you can't, and no one ever will. That is why Christ's rightousness and perfection is credited to our account legally by his substitutionary death. So we are perfect legally in God's eyes. No one has ever attained perfection in any other way. If I followed you or anyone else around on your best day I could find a hundred ways you do not make the cut.

It truly is a marriage and we shall indeed have duties and responsibilities.

When is it that you say this happens? This side of the grave you will fail. All will fail to perfectly meet that expectation which you haven't and can't describe in detail.

It is only by the grace of God that I shall have the ability to participate in this new covenant.

Grace does not empower any action. Grace is an abstract concept. It is to recieve Heaven without merit. It does not make you able to become perfect and perfectly obey any standard.

No matter how many works I ever did.

Then what is it that you keep insisting I must do in addition to what Christ did to get to heaven? Whatever that is, is a work. One of the reasons I do not spend too much time anymore on these issues is that your position is so unjustified that it leads to strange and contradictory statements like this one. That statement literally destroys any position that requires anything in addition to what is a free gift and which you hold. Of course you cannot allow that and so it almost becomes an insane discussion.

I too need to take the process of entering into a new covenant with sincerity., fidelity and preparation so that the marriage is a happy and a successful one. and where you need to be to actually attend this wedding.

These analogies are gettin pretty far afield. What does where have to do with salvation? Is there somewhere I can go that salvation isn't. Jesus said he would never leave nor forsake us and that settles it for me. You say many things and that includes claims that make Jusus statement here a lie. He isn't going to hell so how can I or any Christian that has Christ in his heart? This is getting redundant.

It's a covenant that involves two parties who are eligible to start with. and then who mutually approve of the duties and responsibilities both parties.

Explain how this does not equal works. You can't but you will attempt it anyway and once again it will wind up in vague nonsense. No matter what package you put it in. No matter what parables and ambiguous verses are warped and stretched to do so, it all adds up to works, works, works. continued below:

 

[1robin]

It's God's grace that you are eligible and it's up to you to prepare to be someone God will receive into covenant.

Once again illogical and contradictory. Grace means to recieve what I did not merit. Why are you saying, I must earn what I was given without merit? Or I get it by grace but must keep it by merit. This is rediculous, it doesn't make any sense. It never has, It never will, and no matter how it is dressed up still makes most of the Bible contradictory and God a liar. You are saying the same thing over and over. You change it's clothes and packaging but you are still saying the sun is cold.

He is not obligated to take a bride that just views Him as a sugar-daddy and who has no real intentions of being an honorable wife.

Once taken he is. That is why he hates divorce and only allowed because we are weak. He is not. How do these sermons overcome the fact that the Bible say the Holy Spirit is given as the gurantor of our salvation. You IMO have adopted a conclusion and have resorted to missinterpreting very ambiguous verses and parables and in addition must either ignore or completely add to, remove from, or just make up things concerning clear simple verses to maintain a preferred and pre-adopted conclusion. I do not think that anyone that had a born again experience would adopt this position. I have never known one to do so. In fact this theology is by and large a product of spiritually dead denominations and people that focus far more on ceremony, works, and tradition and ignore the influence of the Holy Spirit. If there was a meter for spirituality it would show that as it increases the percentage of believers in works would decrease and vice versa. The God that would act the way you suggest is cruel and impotent. If true he hid that teaching under layers of clear verses that suggest grace is enough. He has missled the vast majority of billions of Christians and is egotistical and malevolent. I have no desire to spend eternity with a God that would institute the system that you describe.

 

[kylixguru]

I believe you are saying that something in addition to grace and grace alone is needed. It does not matter what else it is and no one can ever state specifics anyway. I reject anything outside of my faith in Christ's merits.

The Bible has plenty to say about what is expected of the Saints.

Your reading something in addition to grace is implied by them. It does not exist in either.

It exists. It is by grace that the Word of God was offered to you such that you could foster the growth of a new spirit within you.
It clearly says that you must protect, nourish and devote yourself to this spiritual creation within you or that it can wither and die or fail to produce the fruit that will qualify you for harvest.

It is pretty desperate to suggest I missunderstood a dozen scholars, the church fathers, and the Bible. That it actually says the exact opposite in every case from what it plainly seems to to me.

Well, you don't really seem to understand me so it's no stretch of my imagination to consider you are not understanding much around you but what you want for yourself.

A scholar who exhaustively points out that not a single thing we will ever do apart from believe will ever help us get to heaven is pretty hard to missunderstand.

And what is implied by "believe"?
Can a person really say they believe if they do not take any actions upon those beliefs?

You may find out one day that the Earth is square. I do not see the merit in such statements.

Don't be so ridiculous.

Then why do you have confidence in a theory they do not support.

Why are you so dense minded?
I said you may even come to find out you didn't fully understand them either.

Who said that is not what I use. I have said it was a dozen times so far. I use scholars to break ties or attempt to.

Ok, good to know you do use the Holy Spirit as your final arbiter.
A person who operates in accordance with the Holy Spirit seeks first to understand before they rebut, so I will be expecting that of you from now on.
If I sense a spirit of self-righteousness and that you are just trying to discredit me, I will know you are actually being truth's adversary.

Then why is it you reject what my experiences, expert opinion, the only philisophic possability, a plain reading od simple verses, and early Church doctrine all say is the truth?

Because my conscience bid me to dig deeper and to clear myself from the precepts of men so that I could truly get at the truth. And, when I received new information in this process, I got confirmation from God that they are correct.
It's not so much that man is 100% wrong. They just don't have 100% correct understanding. I got as far as what was available and it wasn't enough to satisfy me so I went directly to God to get answers to what I wanted to know that I believed I needed to know. That started me on a path of discovery that took me on an amazing journey that continues. I am still trying to come to terms with the flood of information that has come to me in the past few years.

How much more than you are adding to grace is necessary for me to understand. If you said the Sun is cold I do not care what your method is the Sun is hot.

It's hot relative to us because it actually is so, not because you say so.
You have yet to establish in a substantive way your presumption that being saved by grace is a forever and ever without end permanent condition that the recipient can not do anything about and that there is nothing they can do to draw back from it and fall from grace.
Yet, though you lack any substantive support for that, you filter all that I say as if my understanding must conform to your narrow-minded and over-simplified interpretation of salvation by grace and grace alone forever and ever without any possibility of an end.

If reason dicatates for instance that the Sun is hot and yet you declare it is cold then my statement that the solution only exists in reason and logic is still accurate.

The problem here is you do not have solid reasoning to substantiate your presumption of what salvation is.
Just as you do to the Bible, you are over-simplifying the issue at hand.

It also implies that your methods must lie outside of that. It is a logical deduction that concerns this arguement not a universal description. To say that what we recieve as a gift for free must then be maintained by effort or merit is illogical and unreasonable.

It is not illogical to take care of and make proper use of a gift that is given.

Please stop with all the appeals to victumhood or sympathy.

Classic statement of an abusive person.
Stop giving me cause to appeal to sympathy.

I may be blunt at times but I am far more patient and empathetic that many ideas deserve.

I don't mind you being blunt.
What I don't like is unsubstantiated slur against my person.

People many times have an emotional attachment to an ideology and view an attack on it as an attack on them.

I do a pretty good job of telling the difference.
You clearly went below the belt on that last one.

Then why have I and the vast majority not concluded the same things.

Perhaps because they are satisfied with what they have or they are not interested to start with.

The new covenant already exists. All Biblical covenants are began with Blood (I do not know why) and the new one (New Testament/covenant) began when he shed his. We are immediately adopted into that covenant when we are born again. It does not come later after we have earned what he gave as a gift.

So the 10 virgins were already wives to the Bridegroom? Of course not.

Christianity is the "good news" that the nation of Israel will in due time be restored and have God as their King and Husband. It is also "good news" that the doors to be included in this are open to the Gentiles. Christianity is the vehicle God ordained to make the promise of participation in such accessible. It is the betrothal stage of progression.

 

[kylixguru]

Since God's standard is absolute perfection how can we attain this perfection by effort. We can't, you can't, and no one ever will.

I disagree. God expects us to keep the provisions of the laws and statutes that He gives the people to live by. As long as we are sincere and doing our best and repenting of our honest mistakes then we are forgiven and washed clean. But, if the people altogether turn away from them and do not repent, then God deems them as adulterous and punishes them accordingly. He already did it before with the Mosaic Covenant and the new Covenant will also have the very same expectations of fidelity.

Don't turn perfection into some silly and impossible thing either.
We can abide the covenant perfectly just as any healthy marriage works.

That is why Christ's rightousness and perfection is credited to our account legally by his substitutionary death.

His death simply made us eligible. He paid our debt off, so to speak.

So we are perfect legally in God's eyes.

We are perfectly eligible, but we must be prepared to be a good and honorable wife too.

No one has ever attained perfection in any other way. If I followed you or anyone else around on your best day I could find a hundred ways you do not make the cut.

Of course you could nit pick me until you were blue in the face, but none of it would matter if my love for and devotion to my Lord was pure and true, such that I would repent of all of my missteps.

When is it that you say this happens? This side of the grave you will fail. All will fail to perfectly meet that expectation which you haven't and can't describe in detail.

It comes when the advent of the Father comes here to live with us and to rule and reign personally in His Kingdom.

For those who have died in the faith with the promise between Jesus and the Father's Kingdom, they shall obtain a resurrection when the Kingdom has been established in victory. But, contrary to your point, for some small few, they will actually attain to this within their lifetime and shall become the seed stock that the Father's Kingdom shall be sired from. This will be a brand new Creation that they are the Patriarchal and Matriarchal heads of. This is why when the Kingdom obtains the victory it is said at the same time "and there was a new heavens and a new earth".

The Kingdom of the Father is the Kingdom spoken of in Day 1 of the Creation account. Those few who are recipients of Eternal Life shall be the progenitors of an entirely new cycle of Creation.These are perfected and sanctified souls who truly put into practice the teachings that Jesus gave them, as well as accepting the additional truths that God would make available at the time of the Father's advent.

Grace does not empower any action. Grace is an abstract concept. It is to recieve Heaven without merit. It does not make you able to become perfect and perfectly obey any standard.

I was speaking in terms of eligibility.

Then what is it that you keep insisting I must do in addition to what Christ did to get to heaven? Whatever that is, is a work. One of the reasons I do not spend too much time anymore on these issues is that your position is so unjustified that it leads to strange and contradictory statements like this one.

Strange and contradictory compared to what?
The only thing I see in competition with it is your presumption that nobody can ever fall from grace, which has no actual explicit support from anywhere in holy writ.

That statement literally destroys any position that requires anything in addition to what is a free gift and which you hold. Of course you cannot allow that and so it almost becomes an insane discussion.

My eligibility to be able to be remarried to God in a new covenant was because of something He did that I could never have done anything about no matter how hard I tried. If you make it into anything more than that, you are looking for pure fantasy.

These analogies are gettin pretty far afield. What does where have to do with salvation?

Where did the 5 unwise virgins who were promised (betrothed) end up because they failed to have oil in their lamps?
The doors were shut and they were out there somewhere lost because they didn't see well enough to know where to go.

Is there somewhere I can go that salvation isn't.

You can be shut out from the very wedding you were to participate in as a bride.
You can opt to ignore the invite to the wedding feast.

Jesus said he would never leave nor forsake us and that settles it for me.

Right. On the day of the wedding he will be standing there.
What do you expect him to do about those betrothed who pull a no-show?

You say many things and that includes claims that make Jusus statement here a lie. He isn't going to hell so how can I or any Christian that has Christ in his heart? This is getting redundant.

You believe you have Christ in your heart, but what I see at this time in your heart is a fantasy notion that God has prostrated Himself to those who want Him to be their Eternal sugar-daddy.

Explain how this does not equal works.

I don't have to. Marriage with God is not having Him as your personal sugar-daddy.

You can't but you will attempt it anyway

No, I won't. I will show you my belief and faith by my preparations to be an honorable and responsible wife to my Lord. You are more than welcome to call that works if you feel you must, but it won't in the slightest deter me from acting upon those motivations in my heart to show this level of devotion to my soon to be Lord.

and once again it will wind up in vague nonsense. No matter what package you put it in. No matter what parables and ambiguous verses are warped and stretched to do so, it all adds up to works, works, works. continued below:

It simply adds up to living faith and true love and a desire to honor my Lord.

 

[Muffled]

But that's as far as a human constable and armed guard could take it. God, however, has far more power to remedy the situation, and in the most efficient and constructive manner in keeping with Him being Love itself.

Then I suppose He's not as much against sin as many of His followers make Him out to be, or perhaps there's really no such thing as 'sin' in the first place.

I believe your supposition to be incorrect. I believe God is against sin but wishes to accomplish the eradication of it by a change of heart in the individual. I believe that might take a lot of time but God has eternity and patience.