Between two Robbers...

[Van]

Two fallacies are commonly found around the cross of Christ, on the one hand, Easy Believism and the claim it is easy to find the narrow way that leads to life, and on the other hand, Impossible Believism and the claim the lost cannot find the narrow way that leads to life.

Both are unbiblical false doctrines and should be discarded based on a study of God's word.

Matthew 7:13-14
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

 

[Tsalagi]

Two fallacies are commonly found around the cross of Christ, on the one hand, Easy Believism and the claim it is easy to find the narrow way that leads to life, and on the other hand, Impossible Believism and the claim the lost cannot find the narrow way that leads to life.

Both are unbiblical false doctrines and should be discarded based on a study of God's word.

Matthew 7:13-14
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

It is an unbiblical false doctrine to read eternal salvation into Matthew 7:13-14, especially given its parallel in Luke 13:24. This has already been explained at length.

 

[Van]

It is an unbiblical false doctrine to read eternal salvation into Matthew 7:13-14, especially given its parallel in Luke 13:24. This has already been explained at length.

Your nullification of scripture after scripture is complete rubbish.

Matthew 7:13-14
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

One path leads to "destruction" which is what happens to those who do not find "eternal life." Thus this passage does indeed teach few find eternal life and rest take the path to destruction.

 

[Tsalagi]

Your nullification of scripture after scripture is complete rubbish.

Matthew 7:13-14
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

One path leads to "destruction" which is what happens to those who do not find "eternal life." Thus this passage does indeed teach few find eternal life and rest take the path to destruction.

Salvation is not something we strive to enter into (Luke 13:24), that would be salvation by works. The context of Matthew 7 and Luke 13 is how believers should live, not how unbelievers should get saved.

Ignoring context is a good way to "nullify" Scripture, so let's not do that.

 

[Van]

Salvation is not something we strive to enter into (Luke 13:24), that would be salvation by works. The context of Matthew 7 and Luke 13 is how believers should live, not how unbelievers should get saved.

Ignoring context is a good way to "nullify" Scripture, so let's not do that.

Nullifiers of scripture use the "not in context" canard to claim a verse does not mean what it says. Complete rubbish.

Matthew 23:13 -“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

The you cannot seek God because that means your salvation is works based, rather than faith based is complete rubbish.

And the bogus view you can ignore everything in a passage because the "context" relates to something else is twaddle. Scripture means what it says.

Mark10:23
And Jesus, looking around, *said to His disciples, “How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!”

Pay no attention to those who cast truth away, and make up falsehoods like the lost are not to strive to enter.

 

[robustheologian]

Nullifiers of scripture use the "not in context" canard to claim a verse does not mean what it says.

This does happen a lot. Don't get me wrong, context is key but I've seen the whole "not in context" ploy thrown at verses that are independent in nature.

 

[Tsalagi]

Nullifiers of scripture use the "not in context" canard to claim a verse does not mean what it says. Complete rubbish.

Matthew 23:13 -“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

I see. So you believe it was in the power of the scribes and Pharisees to shut off salvation from people, and prevent people from being saved? Wow. People will be in the lake of fire because they were prevented by other people from being saved - that's your belief?

The you cannot seek God because that means your salvation is works based, rather than faith based is complete rubbish.

That may be, but the verb we are talking about in Luke 13:24 is not "seek," it is "strive" - agonizomai. Jesus used the word in John 18:36 to say that if this world were His kingdom His servants would "fight" to keep Him from being betrayed to the Jews. The notion that we must "fight" to enter into salvation is a better candidate for your rubbish description.

And the bogus view you can ignore everything in a passage because the "context" relates to something else is twaddle. Scripture means what it says.

We are not "ignoring everything in a passage" by interpreting Jesus' words in context; quite the opposite. The "bogus view" would be to ignore everything in a context because a phrase or two can be used to prooftext a pet theological belief.

"Scripture means what it says." Fine, here's some Scripture: "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink" (John 6:65). Ignore the context and explain what that means.

 

[Tsalagi]

This does happen a lot. Don't get me wrong, context is key but I've seen the whole "not in context" ploy thrown at verses that are independent in nature.

Example?

 

[Van]

This does happen a lot. Don't get me wrong, context is key but I've seen the whole "not in context" ploy thrown at verses that are independent in nature.

Thanks, when two independent observers see the same thing, it is likely not imaginary.

 

[Van]

I see. So you believe it was in the power of the scribes and Pharisees to shut off salvation from people, and prevent people from being saved? Wow. People will be in the lake of fire because they were prevented by other people from being saved - that's your belief? SNIP

Why do you ask me questions but do not answer my questions.

And what does Matthew 23:13 teach, since you claim Jesus did not mean what He said?

Folks, no answers will be forthcoming.

 

[Yeshua1]

Two fallacies are commonly found around the cross of Christ, on the one hand, Easy Believism and the claim it is easy to find the narrow way that leads to life, and on the other hand, Impossible Believism and the claim the lost cannot find the narrow way that leads to life.

Both are unbiblical false doctrines and should be discarded based on a study of God's word.

Matthew 7:13-14
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Only the sheep know his voice and shall follow Him to the narrow way, the rest shall stay lost in their sins!

 

[Van]

Only the sheep know his voice and shall follow Him to the narrow way, the rest shall stay lost in their sins!

So you do not answer questions, but spew nonsense like the few who found the path to life were saved before they found the way. Totally denial of scripture!!

Two fallacies are commonly found around the cross of Christ, on the one hand, Easy Believism and the claim it is easy to find the narrow way that leads to life, and on the other hand, Impossible Believism and the claim the lost cannot find the narrow way that leads to life.

Both are unbiblical false doctrines and should be discarded based on a study of God's word.

Matthew 7:13-14
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

 

[Yeshua1]

So you do not answer questions, but spew nonsense like the few who found the path to life were saved before they found the way. Totally denial of scripture!!

Two fallacies are commonly found around the cross of Christ, on the one hand, Easy Believism and the claim it is easy to find the narrow way that leads to life, and on the other hand, Impossible Believism and the claim the lost cannot find the narrow way that leads to life.

Both are unbiblical false doctrines and should be discarded based on a study of God's word.

Matthew 7:13-14
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

So Jesus was spewing nonsense when he told us that His sheep know His voice and follow Him, while others do not?

 

[Van]

So Jesus was spewing nonsense when he told us that His sheep know His voice and follow Him, while others do not?

So when you spew nonsense that is contradicted by Jesus, He is the one missing the mark. Got it.

 

[Tsalagi]

Why do you ask me questions but do not answer my questions.

You have yet to type a question mark anywhere up to this point in the thread. "Ye have not because ye ask not."

And what does Matthew 23:13 teach, since you claim Jesus did not mean what He said?
Folks, no answers will be forthcoming.

I'm not the one changing Jesus' words from "kingdom of heaven" to eternal salvation, my friend. That's you.

Answer my question and I will gladly answer yours.

 

[Van]

You have yet to type a question mark anywhere up to this point in the thread. "Ye have not because ye ask not."
I'm not the one changing Jesus' words from "kingdom of heaven" to eternal salvation, my friend. That's you.
Answer my question and I will gladly answer yours.

Now who lacks an understanding of context.

This individual chose not to indicate which TULIP views He rejects.
Both Easy Believism and Impossible Believism are unbiblical false doctrines. and no amount of personal disparagement will alter that reality.

 

[Tsalagi]

Now who lacks an understanding of context.

This individual chose not to indicate which TULIP views He rejects.
Both Easy Believism and Impossible Believism are unbiblical false doctrines. and no amount of personal disparagement will alter that reality.

I clearly answered your TULIP question in the Redemption thread (#65). Unsurprisingly you do not seem to have understood any part of that post, especially the numerous Scriptures which refute your faulty understanding of faith and righteousness, just as here you obviously don't understand what the kingdom of heaven is. All of us should be cautioned by John 9:41. Adios, kimosabe.

 

[Van]

I clearly answered your TULIP question in the Redemption thread (#65). Unsurprisingly you do not seem to have understood any part of that post, especially the numerous Scriptures which refute your faulty understanding of faith and righteousness, just as here you obviously don't understand what the kingdom of heaven is. All of us should be cautioned by John 9:41. Adios, kimosabe.

Pay no attention to this poster. Here is where He indicated which of the five points of the TULIP he disavows, from post #65:

Scripture supports the five points only if the adjectives are removed.

So with that clear answer, which ones does Tsalagi disavow? Who knows? So the claim of "clearly answered" is yet another falsification.

Does anyone think that any scripture, contextually considered, refute my understanding of "faith" and "righteousness?"

Next Tsalagi claims faith credited by God as righteousness is not "righteous faith." I kid you not.

 

[Van]

Returning to topic:
Two fallacies are commonly found around the cross of Christ, on the one hand, Easy Believism and the claim it is easy to find the narrow way that leads to life, and on the other hand, Impossible Believism and the claim the lost cannot find the narrow way that leads to life.

Both are unbiblical false doctrines and should be discarded based on a study of God's word.

Matthew 7:13-14
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

 

[Tsalagi]

Pay no attention to this poster. Here is where He indicated which of the five points of the TULIP he disavows, from post #65: "Scripture supports the five points only if the adjectives are removed."
So with that clear answer, which ones does Tsalagi disavow? Who knows? So the claim of "clearly answered" is yet another falsification.

Here is the answer written with a bigger Crayola. What are the adjectives? Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints. If Scripture teaches these points only without the modifiers, what have I said? "Scripture supports depravity, election, atonement, grace, and perseverance." Scripture does not support these concepts as distorted by Calvinists through adding the adjectives above. Get it?

Does anyone think that any scripture, contextually considered, refute my understanding of "faith" and "righteousness?"
Next Tsalagi claims faith credited by God as righteousness is not "righteous faith." I kid you not.

Saving faith is never said to be "credited by God" anywhere in Scripture. Pressing statements about other kinds of faith into service for one's own private interpretation, and teaching others so, is a serious error. You rest your claims on what the Bible says about Abraham's faith, yet when challenged you cannot show how those biblical statements relate to his salvation or ours in any way.