Part 2: OK... I still have these nagging questions:

[av1611jim]

Rufus_1611 (ME)
Rufus_1611 (ME)
Hope of Glory (ME)
Hope of Glory (ME)
(DHK response)
Accountable (ME)
Accountable (ME)
Accountable (ME)
Accountable (ME)
Accountable (ME)
James_Newman (ME)
(npetreley)
Accountable (ME)
James_Newman (ME)
Accountable (ME)
Accountable (ME)
Rufus_1611 (ME)
(DHK)
Accountable (ME)
(npetreley)
Rufus_1611 (ME)

And when you debate, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many posts.

:laugh:

(Mr. Roger's voice)

[Offensive statement removed] I KNEW you could boys and girls.:wavey:

 

[npetreley]

Don't say that I am misquoting you, becausing I am not.
You have just stated again that salvation is by works; it is doing stuff.

Again, don't let them duck this. They're con men. They try to position you as the liar when they say "we never claimed that salvation is by works!" But what they'll (deliberately) fail to mention is that they're only talking about one of the 3 or more salvations in which they believe. They're being deliberately disingenuous because they know you only believe in ONE salvation.

Pin them down. What they really mean is, "We never said SPIRIT salvation is by works (whispers) but we DID say SOUL salvation is ENTIRELY by works".

And what is soul salvation? A works-based "gospel" by which you MAY enter the kingdom if you work hard enough, OR end up in hell for 1,000 years if you don't. This is no gospel at all, and let anyone who preaches it be accursed.

 

[Accountable]

Again, don't let them duck this. They're con men. They try to position you as the liar when they say "we never claimed that salvation is by works!" But what they'll (deliberately) fail to mention is that they're only talking about one of the 3 or more salvations in which they believe. They're being deliberately disingenuous because they know you only believe in ONE salvation.

Pin them down. What they really mean is, "We never said SPIRIT salvation is by works (whispers) but we DID say SOUL salvation is ENTIRELY by works".

And what is soul salvation? A works-based "gospel" by which you MAY enter the kingdom if you work hard enough, OR end up in hell for 1,000 years if you don't. This is no gospel at all, and let anyone who preaches it be accursed.

So you are stating before all here that there is but one salvation?

I just want to hear you say it.


Also, your voo-doo curse doesn't work.
Is there one, two, three, etc.?

 

[TCGreek]

How many salvation are there in Scripture?

 

[Accountable]

How many salvation are there in Scripture?

That is what I'm asking.

 

[Lacy Evans]

How many salvation are there in Scripture?

Just one!

Acts 27:31 Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved.

OH . . . WAIT?


PS. I just got this funny image of npetreley in my head, ignoring everyone who disagrees with him, yelling, "Stay on the boat! Stay on the boat!"

 

[TCGreek]

Then one salvation it is.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Then one salvation it is.

Stay on the boat! Stay on the boat!

The gospel according to TCGreek.:laugh: (And Paul agrees!)

 

[standingfirminChrist]

When they can't prove their stance by Scripture, they always resort to idiocy.

 

[Lacy Evans]

When they can't prove their stance by Scripture, they always resort to idiocy.

That is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO rich!

 

[npetreley]

When they can't prove their stance by Scripture, they always resort to idiocy.

Resort to idiocy? How can you tell the difference? :laugh::laugh:

 

[Hope of Glory]

When they can't prove their stance by Scripture, they always resort to idiocy.

I know I resort to foolishness quite a bit.

1 Corinthians 1:18: For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

 

[DHK]

Stay on the boat! Stay on the boat!

The gospel according to TCGreek.:laugh: (And Paul agrees!)

And here is the other salvation (supposedly)

Originally Posted by Hope of Glory
You are saved by "believe". Unless you are born from above, you cannot see the Kingdom. (John 3:3) But, if you want to enter the Kingdom, you have to follow through with doing stuff. (John 3:5)

salvation by works.

 

[Mike Berzins]

...How about this?
Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
--There is absolutely nothing, no power, not in the present or in the future that will be able to separate me from God or his love. MEers have a hard time explaining that verse and have yet to explain it to me. If there is nothing that can separate me from God and his love how could the possiblility of a "Baptist Purgatory" even exist? That totally contradicts the Bible. It puts the ME'er's doctrine way out in left field....

Not too hard to explain that verse. The love of God, in one sense, is not separate from but actually present with a believer in hell.

...If I make my bed in hell behold thou art there. Psalms 139:8

He that spareth the rod hateth his son, but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. Proverbs 13:24


So the chastening of the believer in hell is actually a manifestation of God's love, in one sense, like the rod applied to a child's backside is a manifestation of love.


Perhaps you take the love of God in Romans to mean another sense, like it is used here:

What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? I Corinthians 4:21

In this verse, a chastening rod is seen as a contrast to love.

The verse then can be explained by saying that there is nothing that can ultimately separate us from the love of God. This type of language is often implied in scripture. For example when Jesus Christ promised that not a hair of a believer's head would perish, he implied that the hair would not ultimately perish, that is on the last day believers will all have new bodies with a full head of hair, without one strand having ultimately perished in the end. He was not saying that a believer could never temporarily lose his hair by, for example being burned at the stake. Just that ultimately he would have all his hair.

A believer can temporarily suffer consequences for his sin both here and in the millennium. But ultimately, the believer will be delivered on the last day, by grace through faith alone.

Why do you think a believer can temporarily suffer consequences for his sin in this life, and that does not negate the sufficiency of the blood of Christ, yet if one says that a believer temporarily suffers consequences for sin in the millennium, that means that one is somehow denying the sufficiency of the blood of Christ?

This is the question that I have never seen answered.

 

[DHK]

Not too hard to explain that verse. The love of God, in one sense, is not separate from but actually present with a believer in hell.

...If I make my bed in hell behold thou art there. Psalms 139:8

Your logic is not logic but illogic; and your theology is found wanting. In fact plain ridiculous. You try to prop up ME theology by using the poetical language of a Psalm of David to suggest that David was in Hell! How absurd!! David was not in Hell--not the Hell that you envision.

He that spareth the rod hateth his son, but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. Proverbs 13:24

And this has to do with what? Do you like red herrigs? What has it to with either the love of God or being separated from it for all eternity. All chastening ends during our earthly lifetime.

So the chastening of the believer in hell is actually a manifestation of God's love, in one sense, like the rod applied to a child's backside is a manifestation of love.

What have you been reading (or smoking) Since when do believers go to hell. I suppose it is a possiblity in Islam. Are you a Muslim in disguise. If so you need to re-register and tell the truth on your profile. Believers (Biblical believers) do not go to hell. One is saved from the penalty of sin--Hell. Jesus died for that very purpose. Do you not believe the gospel??

Perhaps you take the love of God in Romans to mean another sense, like it is used here:


What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? I Corinthians 4:21

In this verse, a chastening rod is seen as a contrast to love.

Complete nonsense! Paul expresses attitude not chastisement. Will he come in the spirit of meekness? The "spirit of meekness expresses the attituded of meekness. BTW, there is no othere sense to take love. Love means love. Agape love is divine love. Nothing can keep me from God and the love of God. If you don't believe that I feel sorry for you. It would be good for you to start believing the Bible instead of the lies of a man.

The verse then can be explained by saying that there is nothing that can ultimately separate us from the love of God. This type of language is often implied in scripture.

Is this your allegorization again? Are you taking an absolute statement of the Word of God and saying that it can mean something else. "This type of language is often implied..." It wasn't implied. It was a direct absolute statement which you denied. Either you believe that nothing will separate us from the love of God as the Word states, or you don't. Which is it?

For example when Jesus Christ promised that not a hair of a believer's head would perish, he implied that the hair would not ultimately perish, that is on the last day believers will all have new bodies with a full head of hair,

Pure nonsense! You don't even quote the verse in context. He said that not a hair would perish without his knowledge. He was stressing his omnipotence, not your foolishness.

without one strand having ultimately perished in the end. He was not saying that a believer could never temporarily lose his hair by, for example being burned at the stake. Just that ultimately he would have all his hair.

Read above. That is not what he said at all. I feel sorry for you. This is what the Bible says about such as yourself when you continue to do what you are doing.

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

A believer can temporarily suffer consequences for his sin both here and in the millennium. But ultimately, the believer will be delivered on the last day, by grace through faith alone.

The last day in this context is the rapture. At that day he will receive his glorified body and can no more suffer even during the MK. Your ME doctrine is bogus and holds no water.

Why do you think a believer can temporarily suffer consequences for his sin in this life, and that does not negate the sufficiency of the blood of Christ, yet if one says that a believer temporarily suffers consequences for sin in the millennium, that means that one is somehow denying the sufficiency of the blood of Christ?

He does negate the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. That is where you are wrong. Christ paid the penalty for all of our sins. This doctrine you fail to see, and you deny by your belief in ME. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Mike Berzins]

He does negate the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. That is where you are wrong. Christ paid the penalty for all of our sins. This doctrine you fail to see, and you deny by your belief in ME. You can't have it both ways.

I don't have time to answer this entire post now, but I hope you will respond in a more meaningful way to this point then you did above. I will try to restate it to be clear.

1. Jesus Christ's blood completely pays for my sin. Yet I still can suffer temporary consequences in this life for my sin, even though I am bought by the blood of Jesus.

2. Jesus Christ's blood completely pays for my sin. Yet I still can suffer temporary consequences during the millennium for my sin, even though I am bought by the blood of Jesus.

How does #1 not negate the sufficiency of the blood of Christ for my sin, yet #2 does negate the sufficiency of the blood of Christ for my sin?

Again, I have never seen an answer to this question.

If you don't know the answer, the Christian thing to do would be to just admit as much.

 

[Amy.G]

I don't have time to answer this entire post now, but I hope you will respond in a more meaningful way to this point then you did above. I will try to restate it to be clear.

1. Jesus Christ's blood completely pays for my sin. Yet I still can suffer temporary consequences in this life for my sin, even though I am bought by the blood of Jesus.

2. Jesus Christ's blood completely pays for my sin. Yet I still can suffer temporary consequences during the millennium for my sin, even though I am bought by the blood of Jesus.

How does #1 not negate the sufficiency of the blood of Christ for my sin, yet #2 does negate the sufficiency of the blood of Christ for my sin?

Again, I have never seen an answer to this question.

If you don't know the answer, the Christian thing to do would be to just admit as much.

Here's a question I have never seen an answer to by kingdom accountability folks:

By whose righteousness will you enter the kingdom?

 

[Hope of Glory]

Not too hard to explain that verse. The love of God, in one sense, is not separate from but actually present with a believer in hell.

...If I make my bed in hell behold thou art there. Psalms 139:8

He that spareth the rod hateth his son, but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. Proverbs 13:24


So the chastening of the believer in hell is actually a manifestation of God's love, in one sense, like the rod applied to a child's backside is a manifestation of love.

This is one of those things that has been answered over and over and over, but they don't like the answer, so they say, "You never answered it!"

Why do you think a believer can temporarily suffer consequences for his sin in this life, and that does not negate the sufficiency of the blood of Christ, yet if one says that a believer temporarily suffers consequences for sin in the millennium, that means that one is somehow denying the sufficiency of the blood of Christ?

This is the question that I have never seen answered.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer beyond, "I just don't see how!"

 

[Hope of Glory]

Here's a question I have never seen an answer to by kingdom accountability folks:

By whose righteousness will you enter the kingdom?

Then you should read. It has been answered repeatedly by several different people.

Of course, npetreley turns around and lies about it, then a few others jump on the bandwagon.

 

[Amy.G]

I don't have time to answer this entire post now, but I hope you will respond in a more meaningful way to this point then you did above. I will try to restate it to be clear.

1. Jesus Christ's blood completely pays for my sin. Yet I still can suffer temporary consequences in this life for my sin, even though I am bought by the blood of Jesus.

2. Jesus Christ's blood completely pays for my sin. Yet I still can suffer temporary consequences during the millennium for my sin, even though I am bought by the blood of Jesus.

How does #1 not negate the sufficiency of the blood of Christ for my sin, yet #2 does negate the sufficiency of the blood of Christ for my sin?

Again, I have never seen an answer to this question.

If you don't know the answer, the Christian thing to do would be to just admit as much.

I have answered it. There is no point in discipline/chastisement after death. The whole purpose of discipline is to change the direction of the child. When you spank your child it's not just a punishment like a prison sentence is it? Aren't you trying to stop that child from making the same bad choice again? You want that child to stop and think before he disobeys you again, right? Discipline is for shaping the will of the child and conforming his will to your will. This is why we are disciplined by God, for our will to be conformed to His will.
But once we die, the conforming is over. We are at once in the presence of the Lord where there is NO sin and NO temptation TO sin. What would be the purpose of God disciplining you to conform your will to His, when there is no more possibility of sin and rebelliouness? That makes God a punisher instead of a loving Father.