Latest activity

Fervent · Jul 4, 2025

chevyontheriver said:
I agree. Not directly. Indirectly though. The ones who go quoting long Bible quotes but we really know what they are trying to say and it isn't pretty and it isn't on target either. They want you to know that the Bible is against you. It's not. It's their interpretation of the Bible, something they learned from whoever propagandized them, of course, that is against you.

Yep...that's a pretty good summary of how it works. It's one of the main reasons that Protestantism is so fracturous...perspicuity of the Scriptures doesn't allow for honest disagreement or differing perspectives. It doesn't allow us to discuss the Scripture and agree to disagree. It's either lock-step agreement, or you are opposed not to their opinion but the Bible itself. It's not simply a doctrinal dispute, it's rebellion against the Word of God.

d taylor · Jul 4, 2025

A New Dawn said:
I have to disagree. In John 6, not only doe He say that none can come unless they are drawn, but that of all that God gives him (and He draws) He will lose none. So there is a disconnect between the verse you quoted and Christ’s words in John. I propose that the disconnect lies in that fact that while God wants everyone to be saved (as all parents would) the only ones that are actually saved are those He has elected to save. The rest will not be drawn or regenerated, and therefore will not even have a desire to be saved.

-

Show the verse that states people are elected to eternal life.

Hoping2 · Jul 4, 2025

BibleBeliever1611 said:
So are you saying that people become sinlessly perfect once they're saved?

"Saved" is kind of a misnomer, as the determination of our eternal end will only be determined on the day of resurrection from the dead.
I believe that if a man's turn from (repentance from) sin is real, he won't sin again.
As Acts 2:38 says the repentant-washed will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, (who won't dwell in a polluted temple), it seems only reasonable to say we can live without sin hence forth.

Hvizsgyak · Jul 4, 2025

The bottom line is that if you are gay or lesbian you can change your sexual orientation if you truly want to (if you truly want to achieve that and you are doing it because you love Christ with all your heart and want to do His will, it can be done). It is a very difficult process. You are giving up your life for Christ. No simple deed. You are going against everything this world is telling you is right. Christ is there for you and the Church should be there for you too. You will fall may times but you have to pick yourself back up and continue forward.

The state should not interfere with the process. The people involved with the conversion need to be extremely supportive of the person going through the conversion. It could fail and those involved will just have to let it go. It's the person going through the conversions choice, others will need to be supportive and hope for a better time next time.

Muhan · Jul 4, 2025

If whatever you do
Is in the blessing of the Lord
Then the battle
Is the Lord's.

But if whatever you do
Is not in the blessing of the Lord
Then the battle
Is your's.

Free2bHeretical4Him! · Jul 4, 2025

Aaron112 said:
Totally Wrong. ur is absolutely false. Totally Contrary to and Opposed to Jesus and to All Scripture.
Answering the false gospel is not only not required, it is not permitted. No conversation is permitted according to YHVH and Yashua's Word. No greeting them. No meal with them at all.

When did the LORD anoint you to be His prophet my brother? Perhaps you might take the time to share some Scripture to support your stance on what is or is not permitted?

Aaron112 said:
Difficult these days? Impossible on a forum filled with falsities that are not banned nor false teachers that cannot be banned. Even "Christian" or "Biblical" forums that allow those who bring or carry any false gospel end up promoting what is false , knowingly or unwittingly, I don't know.

If you are so unhappy here on CF, and think the owners are allowing such heretical views to be discussed, why not stay out of the “Controversial Theology” forum?

Aaron112 said:
Please stop. Nothing anyone can say or do destroys the need for the sacrifice of Yahshua the Messiah. The ones carrying a false gospel reject the sacrifice of Jesus, and cannot be helped.

I never stated anything could destroy the need for the sacrifice of Jesus. In fact, that is the very question I am trying to have my brother Hentenza answer? Perhaps you should spend less time telling grownups what they should and should not do.

blessings

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jul 4, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
I don't think in terms of rights, and I don't think the biblical corpus of literature expresses rights thinking either. We need to erase that philosophical error. Responsibility before the Lord is the prime value, not "rights awareness." This goes for both men and women.

Men often forget this , and they wonder why their prayers are hindered so often, with a boo-hoo here and a boo-hoo there.

So you want to advocate for a Christian vision of responsibility within a system that makes said Christian responsibility hard to put into practice?

I agree on the Christian basis that men should be held responsible but that doesnt matter if society has divorced men from this responsibility by allowing the woman to murder her child simply because its an inconvenience. You actually need to address the reality and propose solutions.

Would you be against men having rights over their child in the womb? What do you make of the fact that most men historically have not been able to pass on their genetics? You were saying that women aren't in control of reproduction but id maintain they are by the fact that they select who gets to pass on their genes. This has mostly been consensual as well.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jul 4, 2025

AV1611VET said:
Oh, really?

Academia believes God created the earth ex nihilo?

I don't know.

But in the example of this particular and singular thread, the comments and thoughts of one person are just that: the comments and thoughts of one person.

Aseyesee · Jul 4, 2025

CoreyD said:
I do look forward to living more than 3,000 years, but I'm not that old.
However, every one of us have entertained angels, only not in the way Paul referred to.
Angels have been watching humans for centuries, and have been entertained in one way or other.

The wicked angels are entertained when we do things that displeases God, and of course the faithful angles are entertained, when we do the opposite.
Jesus said, "there is more happiness in heaven because of one sinner who turns to God than over 99 good people who don't need to."

Since Jesus is teaching his people, by means of God's holy spirit John 14:15-21, we can be sure that angels do not pass our way, for us to 'entertain' them... that is, show hospitality to strangers who are not from this realm.
The means by which God spoke to his servants, has changed. Hebrews 1:1, 2

The last angel to visit this realm with a message, was between 70 and 90 A.D., when John received a visit from an angel sent by Jesus. Revelation 1:1
That angel did not visit individual members of the congregation, but rather, Jesus sent that angel to the last living apostle.
This is how Jesus, in imitation of his father, operates.

There is always a chosen servant to lead, whom God, as well as Jesus, communicates the message, and that servants feeds others. Jesus uses this exact method, as the scriptures show. Matthew 24:45-47

Exodus 33:11
Thus the LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.
Numbers 12:8

View attachment 367108

Whereas, all the selected men died out, the one remaining was solely given a message to dispense to all the congregations.
Revelation 1:1

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John,

View attachment 367109

This is where we are at present, in regards to the angels.
We entertain angels by listening to the messages they delivered.
Consider this interesting one...

Revelation 12:1, 2

1 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. 2 Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.

Revelation 12:3, 4

3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4 His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born.

View attachment 367113
The angel identifies the dragon....
Revelation 12:9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

However, he does not reveal the identity of the woman, and her child.
The angel does give us clues to their identity though. Those clues are found in the remaining verses of Revelation 12, coupled with Revelation 1:1, and other scriptures.

Some people think this woman is Eve, or Mary.
However, Revelation 1:1, and Revelation 12:13-17 rules out either of those.
This event does not take place until well after Jesus ascension.

God has visited me many times in this manner ...

Fervent · Jul 4, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
I don't think in terms of rights, and I don't think the biblical corpus of literature expresses rights thinking either. We need to erase that philosophical error. Responsibility before the Lord is the prime value, not "rights awareness." This goes for both men and women.

Men often forget this , and they wonder why their prayers are hindered so often, with a boo-hoo here and a boo-hoo there.

Thinking in terms of "rights" is precisely why abortion is an issue, as it becomes a question of mediating between competing "rights" between the right of bodily autonomy and the right to life. Which is why the discussion is unlikely to be productive, as both sides must diminish the reality of the claims of the other to pretend that rights are absolute and unassailable.

Such discussion is far more comfortable in humanistic individualism than it is in an ethic that emphasizes denying oneself and taking up our cross daily. As Paul stated, "Why not let yourself be wronged?"

Hoping2 · Jul 4, 2025

NewLifeInChristJesus said:
1 John 1:8 takes us back to my postulate... "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves" (1 Jn 1:8).

You can't see that verses 6, 8, and 10, are written of those who walk in darkness-sin ?
Doesn't verse 7 say ALL our sins can be washed away ?
Doesn't verse 9 say that we can be cleansed of ALL unrighteousness ?
Thanks be to God, I now walk in the light, which is God, in whom is no darkness-sin.
If one is in God, the light, there can be no sin on them either.

Hoping2 · Jul 4, 2025

SabbathBlessings said:
I hope you realize these two statements are in conflict

As you only "quoted" one line, I find your conclusion odd.

SabbathBlessings said:
This isn't about all days being the Sabbath, you are adding to God's Word by indicating this means we keep all days like the Sabbath when that is not what God said written and spoken by God. Exo 20:8-11 We should be living holy lives everyday which means obeying God's commandments everyday, which also means obeying God the way God said, not what we think we know better.

This is about keeping every day holy.

SabbathBlessings said:
There is no Scripture that says we can make ourselves holy or sanctify ourselves Isa 66:17

Right, as it is Jesus Christ's blood that sanctifies-makes us holy.

SabbathBlessings said:
and there is no Scripture that says we do not need ongoing sanctification,

Once the sanctifying blood has been applied to us, how can more blood make us more holy ?
Either one is holy, or they are unholy !

SabbathBlessings said:
so would be really difficult to be made holy by God by refusing what He says, in His own Words how He sanctifies us..

Yeah, I think of that every time I deal with those opposed to water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins.
Thar is where His sanctifying blood is applied, to the truly repentant.

SabbathBlessings said:
While we are made holy though His blood, it also means to die of self and be re-born in Him.

OK.

SabbathBlessings said:
But if we are still clinging to sin, which is breaking God's law 1 John 3:4 breaking one we break them all even in the NC James 2:11-12. Its why Jesus taught repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, because we are to confess our sins and forsake them Pro 28:13 through our love and faith in Jesus and by His power we can keep His commandments the way He said John 14:15-18 but if we refuse to allow God to be God to define sin and His own commandments and how they are to be kept which is given by His own personal Testimony and shown through the life of Jesus , this makes one an enmity to God Rom 8:7-8

If one is still clinging to sin, it shows that their repentance from sin was a lie to God, and worthless.

SabbathBlessings said:
I would consider looking at v14 for the context of Col 2;16-17 because the way you are interpreting this to mean the weekly Sabbath commandment is that God was against man from Creation

Actually, v 16-17 are the result of v14, and you have put the cart in front of the horse.
The Law is gone now, and we are to be led by the Spirit.
Following ordinances for thousands of years made nobody holy.
Why keep flogging a dead horse ?
The new way, covenant, testimony, is summed up with...love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind, and love your neighbor as you love yourself.
But keeping only one day a week holy is subterfuge against Christ, who died and rose so we could be holy everyday.

SabbathBlessings said:
Exo 20:11, when He made the Sabbath for man Mark 2:27 not to be contrary and against - God in His own words said it was meant to bless Isa 56:2 and sanctify Eze 22:12. Many don't realize this but with this interpretation its really an attack on the character of God, that God is not a God of love and at His perfect Creation made His holy Sabbath to be contrary to man, when God made everything according to His perfect will before sin entered.. No wonder why we are warned about how we interpret Paul's writings, it actually came with a salvation warning 2 Peter 3:16

Men of the OT, to whom the Law was given, could not be sanctified permanently.
They needed continual reminders and rites to fulfil in order to be deemed holy by others.
Now, we can be realy holy, and in the eyes of God.

SabbathBlessings said:
There is also no Scripture that abrogated one of God's personally written commandments- God's own Testimony Exo 31:18

Are you still commanding circumcision too ?

SabbathBlessings said:
Psa 93:5 Your testimonies are very sure; Holiness adorns Your house, O LORD, forever.
The word used here is
'âman
aw-man'
A primitive root; properly to build up or support; to foster as a parent or nurse; figuratively to render (or be) firm or faithful, to trust or believe, to be permanent or quiet; morally to be true or certain; once (in Isa_30:21; by interchange for H541) to go to the right hand: - hence assurance, believe, bring up, establish, + fail, be faithful (of long continuance, steadfast, sure, surely, trusty, verified), nurse, (-ing father), (put), trust, turn to the right.

No wonder we are told

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

I thank God for the NEW Covenant, wherein man can be holy all the time, without the 400 Laws he is unable to fulfil.

Landon Caeli · Jul 4, 2025

ViaCrucis said:
I think you should have a good long conversation with your priest, probably one that involves and results in a lot of prayer, repentance, and self reflection.

This is, arguably, the strangest statement another Christian has said to me here on Christian Forums. I'm treating you as a Christian brother and pointing you to Jesus, and you response is outrage?

Again, go have a long conversation with your priest. You need it. You need Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

What a moronic, post. You're on perma-block. Don't ever talk to me again.

pasifika · Jul 4, 2025

Brightfame52 said:
Jn 6:44

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

No man can come here means no man has the ability to come to Christ. That cancels out the myth that man has a freewill,

It also means that no man has the ability to believe on Christ for Salvation. Because Christ equates believing on Him with coming to Him. Jn 6:64-65

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

What about those Jesus says to them Jn 5:40

40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Thats answered in Jn 6:44 they simply will not come because they cannot come unless the Power of God draws them and makes them willing

Ps 110:3

3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

If and when one comes to believe on Christ willingly, the credit goes to Gods Power !

freewill? We are slaves! either to Sin or Righteousness. Have a great day everyone!

dlamberth · Jul 4, 2025

AV1611VET said:
We've already been over this, chief.

And you went 404 during the conversation.

I remember having extensive conversations with you, several times over, about where one finds truth in God's own creation.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jul 4, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
Men can lie and fail to be what they said they would be for a woman. So, don't give me this crap that men should be exonerated and summarily dismissed without repercussions for the part they've played in the problem.

Women control reproduction? That has to be the stupidest, most ignorant thing I've ever heard.

Would you be willing to give men rights over their children in the womb? Do you think most sex is non consensual for women? That they are unaware of the consequences and are mostly subject to rape or sexual assault?

lucypevensie · Jul 4, 2025

Mashed eggs are terrific.

EGGS

lucypevensie · Jul 4, 2025

Stickers and tattoos?

Clare73 · Jul 4, 2025

Xeno.of.athens said:
I appreciate your reply, and I can see we’re coming at this from different angles. You’re right to point out that a law about mothers doesn’t apply to someone who isn’t one. That’s just common sense. But I think the deeper question isn’t about legal applicability—it’s about moral responsibility within the Body of Christ.
You said, “My sin is not reckoned to every member of the body of Christ.” And strictly speaking, that’s true—we’re each accountable before God for our own actions. But Catholic teaching also insists that sin has a social dimension. It’s not just about me and my private conscience. When I sin, even in secret, I wound the Body. When I act unjustly, or fail to act when justice calls, the whole community suffers—even if no one sees it. That’s what we mean by social sin.

Where do we find this "wounding" of the spiritual body of Christ in the NT?
Is Jesus' arm too short?

Where do we find this "social sin" in the NT?

Xeno.of.athens said:
Now, I know the word “personally” can be doing a lot of heavy lifting in these conversations. If by “personally” we mean “not legally bound,” fair enough. But if we mean “not morally implicated,” then I’d gently push back. Because in the Church, we’re not just individuals with private moral compasses—we’re a communion. And conscience, while deeply personal, is never meant to be private in the sense of isolated or self-referential. It’s meant to be formed—by Scripture, by tradition, by the teaching of the Church, and by the lived witness of the faithful.
That’s not to deny the primacy of conscience. The Church has always upheld it. But it’s a formed conscience that binds—not just a sincerely held opinion. As the Catechism says, “A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful” (CCC 1783), and forming it is the work of a lifetime. It’s not about outsourcing our moral judgement, but about rooting it in something deeper than our own preferences.

So no, your sin isn’t automatically mine. But if I see injustice and say nothing, if I benefit from structures that harm others and do nothing, then I’m not just uninvolved—I’m complicit. That’s not about guilt-tripping; it’s about solidarity. It’s about being the Body of Christ in more than name.

Happy to keep the conversation going if you’d like to explore how this plays out in practice—especially when conscience and Church teaching seem to clash. That’s a real tension, and one worth wrestling with.

PS: I can't help but say, your terse replies and their avoidance of the substance of the matter is a bit personally frustrating.

lucypevensie · Jul 4, 2025

Do you care for oranges?

ORNGS

Fervent · Jul 4, 2025

The question isn't whether we can come to Christ through a willful decision, all of Christendom is in agreement that it is God's initiative that brings us to the foot of the cross. To deny as much is to embrace Pelagianism, which has been expressly anathematized multiple times. The salient question is whether that initiative is resistable or not, a question of "free won't" more than "free will". Do all who God draws beckon the call, or does God allow men to effectively resist His influence?

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page