Purveyor of Confusion

[cvanwey]

Careful, dcalling. This is a nitpicker trick. Yes, God's grace is able to cover for area's where we fall short, even when it comes to understanding what we need to repent for, and areas where we may not realize what we need to repent of, but, since God is no fool, he'll also expect us to repent in the areas where we do recognize problems.

But cvanwey isn't interested in an explanation that clears up the confusion; he thinks he's caught you in a gotcha-argument, replete with a smirky face just in case you didn't quite catch the condescension.



We're required to repent of the sin that we understand we need to repent of. Obviously, if we're unaware of a problem, then we won't realize it needs to be repented of, but why let good sense get in the way of a nitpick?



Another trick. If you, a human with incomplete understanding of all truth, who's still learning as you go cannot give the correct answer (and he's already practically bragged that there is no correct answer (see post#132) to a skeptic who's also already said that he's quite willing to jump to conclusions if people do not provide him with the answers he demands (see post#131), then he'll assume that repentance "almost" becomes futile, using you as the justification.

This is the kind of word game Cvanwey has been doing all through this thread.

'Fraid not... But nice try. You do need to answer @dcalling

Repentance is like the parsley on the plate. If you confess with your mouth, and merely repent that you are a sinner, and need saving, this could be considered enough, (like @thomas_t indicated), for the rest of your earthly days???? You are then apparently saved entirely?.?. So long as you profess your undying gratitude to Jesus, and vow to be a follower, this alone could be enough... And if it is, then 'morals' virtually go out the window. Belief and a vow to follow is enough. You will sin, no matter what however. You are then no longer required to continually repent, for each and every successive sin there-after. If you do decide to repent, great. If you don't, that's okay too, as you have already accepted the Lord's grace and are saved anyways. You are then no longer required to repent of every successive sin.... Hence, repentance = parsley.

But I'm really hoping @John Helpher will finally inform us all, as to the following:

1. Does Jesus deem you rich? If not, why not?
2. Does Jesus ask that the rich need to give away their possessions to be a follower? If not, why not?
3. Have you made an attempt to do this? If not, why not?
4. Does Jesus state it's virtually impossible for the rich to enter heaven? Assuming you agree He states this, then please again refer to the first question.

 

[thomas_t]

Then you must reconcile that a mass murdering child rapist, whom also believes Jesus died for his sins, can make an earnest death bed confession and possibly be saved.

these are the rules. The rules are clearly set.
Faith is enough.
Since Jesus is Lord, then He will take the rapist's sins on himself. Then it's on him to sort the issue out.
But God is almighty. He can do it.

Concerning blasphemy, I agree with @dcalling ... God will ensure that you won't do it as a Christian. There is a difference between blasphemy and using his name in vain, btw..

A christian, whom lies, is better to God, than a Hindu whom lies? Please! God hates all sin.

All lies aren't the same. The Christian somehow made it already to repent and confess. So this time, it may seem to be more likely for him to repent again.
A lie + the due apologies is ok, I guess.

 

[dcalling]

You stated that you cannot repent for all sin, for various reasons. I agreed. Hence, I guess God's grace/mercy takes place of the ones for which you fall short...? But in the same breath, you also state, "If you have not repented you are not saved".

You can't have your cake and eat it too sir

So, if you are not required to repent of all sin, as you can't, (and we agree), I then re-ask the prior question.... Where does God's grace start, and where does your requirement for repentance end?

If you cannot give me a hard answer, then this almost makes repentance superfluous. Meaning, irrelevant. What counts, apparently, is God's grace alone. Repentance is like parsley. It is not required, but maybe makes the plate pretty. The grace is like the main course, the repentance is like the parsley. You take away the main course, you have nothing. You take away the parsley, you can still eat.

But if repentance is more than parsley, than maybe you can give me the answer, as to how much repentance is necessary? Otherwise, seems as though you have a direct conflict with your prior statement "If you have not repented you are not saved".?.?.?.?

Let me clarify here:
1. Repentance is not a one time action, it is a one time stance. i.e. are you ready to repent for your sins? If God made you realize you have committed a sin, are you going to repent it?
2. Do you confess you are a sinner? Once you repent, you will realized that you are a sinner, the realization is also a part of repentance.
3. Are you start to listen to the Holy Spirit in you? i.e. do you feel the Holy Spirit/conscience got louder when you are doing sin? It will slowly chip away your sinning heart once you allow the Holy Spirit to work in your heart.

As I said again and again, God judge you by your heart. Repentance is about if you have a soft repent heart, and that heart is give to you by the grace of God. For that effect, you do need to continuously repent, due to your repentance heart.

A christian, whom lies, is better to God, than a Hindu whom lies? Please! God hates all sin. Hence, according to your model, 'morality' is virtually irrelevant. Unless you wish to argue that belief, in and of itself, is a moral construct?

Here is some addition to @thomas_t , sinners (liars) are treated the same by God, they are all hated by God since all sinners broke God's commandments. But liars who repent to God will. Check out how God forgive Nineveh in book of Jonah. It is like parent-kid situation, when 2 kid did something wrong, the parent will give a lesser punishment to the kid who repented, and continues punishment for the kid who is unapologetic (note, if the kid who repented continues to do evil, then the parent will question if the repent is real). Nineveh is eventually destroyed, as the repent is only temporary under threat.

 

[dcalling]

Careful, dcalling. This is a nitpicker trick. Yes, God's grace is able to cover for area's where we fall short, even when it comes to understanding what we need to repent for, and areas where we may not realize what we need to repent of, but, since God is no fool, he'll also expect us to repent in the areas where we do recognize problems.

Thank you John. I hope we can clarify things for cvanwey, but if his intentions are not pure, God can still use this to clarify things for other people, as all things work together for the benefit of the believers

 

[cvanwey]

these are the rules. The rules are clearly set.
Faith is enough.

Since Jesus is Lord, then He will take the rapist's sins on himself. Then it's on him to sort the issue out.
But God is almighty. He can do it.

1. If faith is enough, then you must ignore the verse, in particular (Matthew 25:31-46), where He explicitly states He will separate the saved and unsaved, solely by their works. How were you able to determine which verses mean more than others? How were you able to determine which verses are more important than others?

2. And again, if faith is enough, why do moral's even matter? Rapists can still rape. And furthermore, if faith is enough, and faith encompasses belief, seems as though, in part, God rewards people whom believe in Him, which the human cannot control anyways. 'Morals' are irrelevant. So why follow them? If God is going to take the 'sin' upon Himself anyways, whether you try or try not to sin, the result is still the same; as long you believe -- (which is something you cannot control)? Quite odd...

Concerning blasphemy, I agree with @dcalling ... God will ensure that you won't do it as a Christian. There is a difference between blasphemy and using his name in vain, btw..

If God makes sure you will not do it, then we've got problems....!

1. He is imposing upon your free will. God is taking you over. And if this is the case....
2. The Commandment does not need to be there, since God will not allow you to do it anyways.
3. There is no inherent difference between 'blasphemy', and taking the Lord's name in vein. The Bible clarifies this. And so does Christian Forum's own definition of the term. Please re-read all three verses in the Bible again (Mark 3:28, Matthew 12:31-32, Luke 12:10), along with the 2nd Commandment, and along with CF's definition.

You are making up your own rules to avoid the obvious.

I ask again...

How do you 'square' the idea, that faith is certainly not enough, especially for anyone whom have ever blasphemed the Holy Spirit, (whether it was accidental, or they were merely having a bad day, or other)? Again, it is deemed unforgivable by God Himself.

All lies aren't the same. The Christian somehow made it already to repent and confess. So this time, it may seem to be more likely for him to repent again.
A lie + the due apologies is ok, I guess.

Again, God hates all sin. Further, God deems all humans sinners.

And under your believed upon doctrine, none of it matters anyways. Why? Because as long as you believe, admit you are a sinner, and worship the correct deity, sins become irrelevant moving forward.

God hates all sin equally. Otherwise, how would you know which sin He hates more? You could start by looking at the 10 Commandments I guess... If you want to get technical, 'dishonoring your parents' is listed above or higher than 'murder.' But I doubt God deems talking back to your parents 'worse' than murder, does He? So until [you] can clarify how all sin is not just bad in general, and do have a ranking system, please do not make unfounded comments

But in your case, as long as you have selected the correct deity to worship, it's still okay anyways. Unless you blaspheme of course. Then ALL bets are off, no-matter-what...

Confusing...

 

[John Helpher]

Thank you John. I hope we can clarify things for cvanwey, but if his intentions are not pure, God can still use this to clarify things for other people, as all things work together for the benefit of the believers

Interestingly enough, I had similar thoughts a bit earlier. Cvanwey may present good practice for the rest of us.

 

[cvanwey]

Let me clarify here:
1. Repentance is not a one time action, it is a one time stance. i.e. are you ready to repent for your sins? If God made you realize you have committed a sin, are you going to repent it?
2. Do you confess you are a sinner? Once you repent, you will realized that you are a sinner, the realization is also a part of repentance.
3. Are you start to listen to the Holy Spirit in you? i.e. do you feel the Holy Spirit/conscience got louder when you are doing sin? It will slowly chip away your sinning heart once you allow the Holy Spirit to work in your heart.

As I said again and again, God judge you by your heart. Repentance is about if you have a soft repent heart, and that heart is give to you by the grace of God. For that effect, you do need to continuously repent, due to your repentance heart.

I touched on this in a follow up response to (post #141)... I'm going to augment a couple words, to more directly suit your given response.

Repentance is like the parsley on the plate. If you confess with your mouth, and merely admit that you are a sinner, and need saving, this could be considered enough, (like @thomas_t indicated), for the rest of your earthly days???? You are then apparently saved entirely?.?. So long as you profess your undying gratitude to Jesus, and vow to be a follower, this alone could be enough... And if it is, then 'morals' virtually go out the window. Belief and a vow to follow is enough. You will sin, no matter what however. You are then no longer required to continually admit or ask for forgiveness, for each and every successive sin there-after. If you do decide to repent further, great. If you don't, that's okay too, as you have already accepted the Lord's grace and are saved anyways. You are then no longer required to repent of every successive sin.... Hence, repentance = parsley.

And as I will say again, if you are judged by your 'heart', and God knows you will not repent of every sin committed, then repentance, in the sense of asking for forgiveness of every future sin, is no longer required.

It would be like a human telling God, 'I know I'm going to lie in the future, and a lie is bad.' But when the person lied to, asks you to apologize, you state, 'sorry, God already knows I'm a liar, I admitted this to Him, He has forgiven me, so we are good.' If you opt not to apologize to the one you lied to there-after, it's okay. You have already admitted you are a sinner to God, and God has forgiven you, as long as you believe, admit, and worship Him, and only Him.

Here is some addition to @thomas_t , sinners (liars) are treated the same by God, they are all hated by God since all sinners broke God's commandments. But liars who repent to God will. Check out how God forgive Nineveh in book of Jonah. It is like parent-kid situation, when 2 kid did something wrong, the parent will give a lesser punishment to the kid who repented, and continues punishment for the kid who is unapologetic (note, if the kid who repented continues to do evil, then the parent will question if the repent is real). Nineveh is eventually destroyed, as the repent is only temporary under threat.

If they are both Christians, they will still go to the -->same<-- Heaven. If one is not a Christian, then the lie doesn't matter regardless. That person is already going to hell. Either way though, it is irrelevant. A Christian will lie regardless. If God deems them Christians, they could lie every day, and as long as the person is considered a Christian, it's still okay. If they are not considered a Christian, it doesn't matter any ways. Hell, no matter what...

There is one heaven, and one hell. No levels exist, do they? One could repent of this one specific sin, and the other does not. But if they are both believers, admit they are sinners, and worship the same deity, God is either going to 'save' them or not. And again, there exists only two destinations, according to the Good Book.

 

[cvanwey]

Interestingly enough, I had similar thoughts a bit earlier. Cvanwey may present good practice for the rest of us.

Your practice starts here : This is like the 10th request...

1. Does Jesus deem you rich? If not, why not?
2. Does Jesus ask that the rich need to give away their possessions to be a follower? If not, why not?
3. Have you made an attempt to do this? If not, why not?
4. Does Jesus state it's virtually impossible for the rich to enter heaven? Assuming you agree He states this, then please again refer to the first question

 

[cvanwey]

Thank you John. I hope we can clarify things for cvanwey, but if his intentions are not pure, God can still use this to clarify things for other people, as all things work together for the benefit of the believers

Or maybe, you can instead start by telling all believers how (Mark 3:28, Matthew 12:31-32, Luke 12:10), the 2nd Commandment, and CF's own definition of 'blasphemy' somehow does not over-take all other claims from the Bible; rendering them all null and void? Meaning, Faith, works, love, your 'heart', etc., all does not matter --- as soon as you accidentally commit blasphemy.

And how can I state this? Well, God states such an offense is unforgivable. Pretty clear.

And please tell us further, how God will not allow Christians to take the Lord's name in vein? Further, how this makes any sense? Because If God does not allow Christians to blaspheme, then why issue the necessity to list it as the 2nd Commandment? A non-believer is already going to disregard all the Commandments as mere written works from humans, and not God anyways.

So until you start making sense, yes, the rest reading here are going to see that maybe [you] are instead attempting to rationalize attributes from the Bible, instead of 'making sense' of them.

Remember, I'm asking for clarification, as the Bible authors seem to issue or offer conflicting messages.

*******************

I'm here doing exactly what is the intent of this forum arena, which is to challenge the Christian faith. What is YOUR intention?

 

[dcalling]

I touched on this in a follow up response to (post #141)... I'm going to augment a couple words, to more directly suit your given response.

Repentance is like the parsley on the plate. If you confess with your mouth, and merely admit that you are a sinner, and need saving, this could be considered enough, (like @thomas_t indicated), for the rest of your earthly days???? You are then apparently saved entirely?.?. So long as you profess your undying gratitude to Jesus, and vow to be a follower, this alone could be enough... And if it is, then 'morals' virtually go out the window. Belief and a vow to follow is enough. You will sin, no matter what however. You are then no longer required to continually admit or ask for forgiveness, for each and every successive sin there-after. If you do decide to repent further, great. If you don't, that's okay too, as you have already accepted the Lord's grace and are saved anyways. You are then no longer required to repent of every successive sin.... Hence, repentance = parsley.

Merely admit is not enough, repentance is deeper than that, i.e. you heart knows it is wrong and when you try to do it again your heart will tell you no, it is wrong, and you will be doing sins less and less. There are criminals who plainly admit they are doing bad things but won't repent.

You either repented or not. You either saved or not.

And as I will say again, if you are judged by your 'heart', and God knows you will not repent of every sin committed, then repentance, in the sense of asking for forgiveness of every future sin, is no longer required.

It would be like a human telling God, 'I know I'm going to lie in the future, and a lie is bad.' But when the person lied to, asks you to apologize, you state, 'sorry, God already knows I'm a liar, I admitted this to Him, He has forgiven me, so we are good.' If you opt not to apologize to the one you lied to there-after, it's okay. You have already admitted you are a sinner to God, and God has forgiven you, as long as you believe, admit, and worship Him, and only Him.

If they are both Christians, they will still go to the -->same<-- Heaven. If one is not a Christian, then the lie doesn't matter regardless. That person is already going to hell. Either way though, it is irrelevant. A Christian will lie regardless. If God deems them Christians, they could lie every day, and as long as the person is considered a Christian, it's still okay. If they are not considered a Christian, it doesn't matter any ways. Hell, no matter what...

There is one heaven, and one hell. No levels exist, do they? One could repent of this one specific sin, and the other does not. But if they are both believers, admit they are sinners, and worship the same deity, God is either going to 'save' them or not. And again, there exists only two destinations, according to the Good Book.

Don't know about hell, that is just a place without God, so not sure if it has levels. Bible does indicate in heaven the reward is different.
1 Corithians 3, 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

 

[dcalling]

Or maybe, you can instead start by telling all believers how (Mark 3:28, Matthew 12:31-32, Luke 12:10), the 2nd Commandment, and CF's own definition of 'blasphemy' somehow does not over-take all other claims from the Bible; rendering them all null and void? Meaning, Faith, works, love, your 'heart', etc., all does not matter --- as soon as you accidentally commit blasphemy.

And how can I state this? Well, God states such an offense is unforgivable. Pretty clear.

And please tell us further, how God will not allow Christians to take the Lord's name in vein? Further, how this makes any sense? Because If God does not allow Christians to blaspheme, then why issue the necessity to list it as the 2nd Commandment? A non-believer is already going to disregard all the Commandments as mere written works from humans, and not God anyways.

So until you start making sense, yes, the rest reading here are going to see that maybe [you] are instead attempting to rationalize attributes from the Bible, instead of 'making sense' of them.

Remember, I'm asking for clarification, as the Bible authors seem to issue or offer conflicting messages.

*******************

I'm here doing exactly what is the intent of this forum arena, which is to challenge the Christian faith. What is YOUR intention?

You are confusing about blasphemy with blasphemy against the Holy spirit. God never stated "God states such an offense is unforgivable." other than Mark 3 Interlinear Bible, which is to Holy Spirit only.

You need to present a better argument, else it seems you are trying to deliberately throw in confusion (or pretend you are not clear against rather straight logic).

 

[thomas_t]

1. If faith is enough, then you must ignore the verse, in particular (Matthew 25:31-46), where He explicitly states He will separate the saved and unsaved, solely by their works.

ah no, didn't ignore anything. Anybody will be judged by their works. Those who repented (including baptism) are members in a new community: the Christians. They normally go to church. The church will take you along to good deeds. (That's my take, at least).

1. He is imposing upon your free will. God is taking you over. And if this is the case....

you do write intelligent things. But again: if God sees that there is someone who will resort to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit after conversion... he wouldn't grant him faith to begin with, I think.
Look, this again is my theology. @John Helpher will call that legalistic again. But here, it merely serves to show you: there is always a way to reconcile two things in the Bible.

How do you 'square' the idea, that faith is certainly not enough, especially for anyone whom have ever blasphemed the Holy Spirit, (whether it was accidental, or they were merely having a bad day, or other)? Again, it is deemed unforgivable by God Himself.

you've made a valid point. But for people who don't believe in God's exitence it is impossible to do the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit thing. There is nothing to square here.
If you blasphemed the Holy Spirit after conversion... then you have a problem, indeed.

 

[cvanwey]

Merely admit is not enough, repentance is deeper than that, i.e. you heart knows it is wrong and when you try to do it again your heart will tell you no, it is wrong, and you will be doing sins less and less. There are criminals who plainly admit they are doing bad things but won't repent.

You either repented or not. You either saved or not.

Repentance, regardless of whatever 'definition' you wish to place upon it, will not ever keep you from sinning further. As long as you are alive, you will always be a sinner, according to God. Hence, no matter how sincere you are, no matter how hard you try, the sin will not cease, until you die. Your every impure thought, your every action, all which does not please God, is all considered 'sin'. And as we know, thought crime is just as 'bad' as a real crime apparently, according to Jesus. And since you cannot control your thoughts, we are all sinners regardless. But nice try

I stand firm, all you are required to do, for 'repentance', as a Christian, is to admit that you are a miserable human being, in need of grace for salvation. Future attempts to not sin is neither necessary nor possible. Yes, you can ask God for forgiveness, but once you admit you are a worthless piece of human debris, in need of redemption/grace, and always will be, you have then apparently fulfilled this specific request of God. (i.e) committing to 'faith'. But then, we still need to reconcile other verses, such as...

"15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds. Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder."

This goes right back to Luke 14:25-33. How do you know God does not deem you rich, and how do you know God does not need for you to attempt to follow this assertion?

I do agree with one of your statements above, however... You are either saved, or not, (if) Christianity is true. So, let's forge ahead and figure out what the authors of the Bible deem as being worthy of salvation, shall we? It's going to be a long and bumpy ride, I'm afraid....

Don't know about hell, that is just a place without God, so not sure if it has levels.

Oh, let me point you in the right direction then, as you again appear mistaken or confused. Apparently, the authors of the Bible state it's the place where you will go and burn for eternity:

Revelation 20:13-14, Revelation 21:8, Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:49-50, Matthew 25:41, Mark 9:43

Bible does indicate in heaven the reward is different.
1 Corithians 3, 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

I'm going to use your own prior 'argument' here against you... "this is a parable, not a Commandment".

 

[cvanwey]

You are confusing about blasphemy with blasphemy against the Holy spirit. God never stated "God states such an offense is unforgivable." other than Mark 3 Interlinear Bible, which is to Holy Spirit only.

You need to present a better argument, else it seems you are trying to deliberately throw in confusion (or pretend you are not clear against rather straight logic).

I'm afraid simply saying nuh-uh is not going to be a sufficient rebuttal here. Nor, did you even attempt to address my counter point(s). Hence, I will regurgitate them all below.... Please reply appropriately, otherwise, no one will likely take your responses seriously.

1. The 2nd Commandment again, (as I assume that since you are a Christian, these are of relevance for you?): "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain".

2. We then have 3 distinct verses, which state such an action, (again see Commandment #2), is unforgivable: (Mark 3:28-30, Matthew 12:31-32, Luke 12:10)

***************

And now please answer the prior (post #149)

And please tell us further, how God will not allow Christians to take the Lord's name in vain? Further, how this makes any sense? Because If God does not allow Christians to blaspheme, then why issue the necessity to list it as the 2nd Commandment? A non-believer is already going to disregard all the Commandments as mere written works from humans, and not God anyways.

Furthermore, it's as if you are stating, that once you are a Christian, God removes your free will, by not allowing you to do something.

 

[John Helpher]

Look, this again is my theology. @John Helpher will call that legalistic again. But here, it merely serves to show you: there is always a way to reconcile two things in the Bible.

Instead of basing your argument on your theology, why not base it on the teachings of Jesus? Jesus never said that we don't need to perform good works, or that good works don't matter. He said the opposite, over and over again. "Why do you call me 'Lord', but do not obey me"?

 

[cvanwey]

Instead of basing your argument on your theology, why not base it on the teachings of Jesus? Jesus never said that we don't need to perform good works, or that good works don't matter. He said the opposite, over and over again. "Why do you call me 'Lord', but do not obey me"?

Your response is confusing.

Anyone can call themselves a Christian. Anyone can make the claim. You can claim you know what God wants. So again, how do you know you are excluded from one of Jesus's teachings (i.e.)?

1. Does Jesus deem you rich? If not, why not?
2. Does Jesus ask that the rich need to give away their possessions to be a follower? If not, why not?
3. Have you made an attempt to do this? If not, why not?
4. Does Jesus state it's virtually impossible for the rich to enter heaven? Assuming you agree He states this, then please again refer to the first question.

 

[John Helpher]

Anyone can call themselves a Christian.

Which is why it's so important to measure using the teachings of Jesus as the standard.

You can claim you know what God wants.

No, there's no need to claim. Just look at Jesus' teachings to know what God wants.

So again, how do you know you are excluded from one of Jesus's teachings (i.e.)?

The teachings of Jesus are meant for those who want to be a part of God's kingdom. Only those who are not interested in the values and principles of his Kingdom are excluded, and even then only by their own choice.

The thing that's stopping you from appreciating the teachings of Jesus for what they are is that you're a skeptic, not in the sense that you're an explorer of difficult concepts, but rather a person who's made himself impervious to any kind of sense in the teachings of Jesus. This was demonstrated by your questions about forsaking all and working for love vs working for money.

I've told you a few times now that the lesson, or spirit, behind those teachings is to cause people to share with one another, but you don't see that. You only see a teaching which would cause people to be wretched worms squirming in the dirt. To you, the teachings of Jesus are not good news, but rather some kind of oppressive list of contradictory statements.

It is as Paul said, when he explained that carnal minded people just won't get it. The teachings of Jesus are like a different language to you, which is why you're so often confused and just can't seem to accept genuine answers when they come your way.

 

[cvanwey]

ah no, didn't ignore anything. Anybody will be judged by their works. Those who repented (including baptism) are members in a new community: the Christians. They normally go to church. The church will take you along to good deeds. (That's my take, at least).

I'm afraid your response looks inconsistent. Let's again look at your claim to salvation - (Romans 10:9-10). Let's now compare/contrast (Matthew 25:33-46).

If Jesus only referred to adjacent statements, assertions, and phrases, which merely exclusively parallel verse in Romans, like John 3:16-18 for instance, I'm with you! I would then have to concede your point....

HOWEVER, in other verses, He states He will separate the saved/unsaved by how much they help others. CONFLICT.

The verse in Romans does not mention 'helping others'. And likewise, verse in Matthew does not mention anything about 'faith'. BUT, they both give the conclusion, as to what human needs to do to be saved, and not condemned. We have mutually exclusive claims here.... If you decide to add the two together, you are inventing your own conclusion, as I would doubt Jesus would choose to remain ambiguous; especially when we are speaking about something as important as your eternal soul. So which one is it???? Either the author is giving conflicting accounts for your salvation, or Jesus is being less than concise with His messages.... And again, in regards to something this important, seems as though the messages should at least remain consistent.

If He was instead just speaking about something mundane, sure, no need to squabble...

you do write intelligent things. But again: if God sees that there is someone who will resort to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit after conversion... he wouldn't grant him faith to begin with, I think.

Thank you!

However, where does the Bible state this? Please remember what I'm doing, verses what you may be doing. I'm pointing to a verse(s), then pointing to another verse which conflicts with that verse. I'm demonstrating that the providers/authors of the Bible write passages, which conflict with one another. And I do not recall a verse stating something to the affect of..."if God sees that there is someone who will resort to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit after conversion... he wouldn't grant him faith to begin with"

And even if there was such a verse, the verses stating it is unforgivable would still render pointless to mention. The Bible applies to Christians. Meaning, Christians will try and adhere to His Word(s).

Second, like I stated prior, even true-blue Christians can have a bad day, and slip. What about them? Are you telling me, if they have a bad day, they are not a true Christian?

And furthermore, why would God grant [anyone] grace, since God deems all humans perpetual sinners?

Look, this again is my theology. @John Helpher will call that legalistic again. But here, it merely serves to show you: there is always a way to reconcile two things in the Bible.

I would agree Christians might continually attempt to reconcile two mutually exclusive opposing made points in the Bible. The question remains, are these reconciliations 'sound'?

I claim they are not. You, somehow, claim they are. To be continued

you've made a valid point. But for people who don't believe in God's exitence it is impossible to do the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit thing. There is nothing to square here.

Correct, to tell non-believers not to call the non-believed agent a bad name, would be like asking you not to call the tooth fairy a name It's pointless or not useful to even mention...

If you blasphemed the Holy Spirit after conversion... then you have a problem, indeed.

Does this mean you have changed your stance above? That if believers slips, and calls Jesus a name, they are damned forever? OR, or you sticking with the prior assertion, that a true Christian will not ever do that, which begs the question again, why mention not to do it, if they wont ever do it anyways?

 

[cvanwey]

Which is why it's so important to measure using the teachings of Jesus as the standard.

Are [you] truly attempting to apply the direct 'teachings of Jesus'? You have not answered one way or the other?

No, there's no need to claim. Just look at Jesus' teachings to know what God wants.

Are [you] truly attempting to apply the direct 'teachings of Jesus'? You have not answered one way or the other?

The teachings of Jesus are meant for those who want to be a part of God's kingdom.

Are you attempting to take part? You have yet to answer. See below...

Only those who are not interested in the values and principles of his Kingdom are excluded, and even then only by their own choice.

Are you really interested? If so, maybe you can then justify your 'faith', by answering the repeated questions, per Jesus's 'direct teachings' in Luke 14:25-33, just for starters? Maybe Jesus refers to your current rendition of claims as empty??? See below...

The thing that's stopping you from appreciating the teachings of Jesus for what they are is that you're a skeptic, not in the sense that you're an explorer of difficult concepts, but rather a person who's made himself impervious to any kind of sense in the teachings of Jesus. This was demonstrated by your questions about forsaking all and working for love vs working for money.

I disagree. I'm a skeptic, in part at least, because we appear to have mutually exclusive claims presented from the authors of the Bible. And such inconsistencies have yet to be straightened out. And further, I asked God, many times years ago, to give me the wisdom to rectify these discrepancies, and appear to have not received any type of answer what-so-ever? Hence, years later, I'm now here, as a skeptic. But lets get back to you, since I'm at least getting some type of response(s) (at least), in speaking with [you] now. And since you seem to claim you know, let's keep this dialogue going for now... See below....

I've told you a few times now that the lesson, or spirit, behind those teachings is to cause people to share with one another, but you don't see that. You only see a teaching which would cause people to be wretched worms squirming in the dirt. To you, the teachings of Jesus are not good news, but rather some kind of oppressive list of contradictory statements.

Nope. That is not what Luke 14:33 says. It states "33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples." Again, it does not instead mean - 'sharing means caring.' This is you 'spinning' the verse

You said it earlier yourself. You stated that God sees possessions as a direct adversary to Him. Hence, here, He wants you to give up your possessions to demonstrate you are a true blue Christian follower. And since I doubt you are doing this, maybe God deems you as not a true blue Christian; but instead, full of empty words? How do you know????

So again, I ask you... Have you given up all possessions? If not, why not? How do you know you are exempt from this direct assertion?

It is as Paul said, when he explained that carnal minded people just won't get it. The teachings of Jesus are like a different language to you, which is why you're so often confused and just can't seem to accept genuine answers when they come your way.

I'm sorry, but I do not see [your] current answers as genuine Please answer now, as I have asked about a dozen times now. I'll give you a little nudge, for starters...

1. Does Jesus deem you 'rich'? (He might. How would you know...? You can't, that's my point)
2. Does Jesus ask that the rich need to give away their possessions to be a follower? (Yes He does, in Luke. Moving on to question 3 then...).
3. Have you made an attempt to do this? (Not only have you likely not attempted to genuinely do so, you are instead attempting to 're-define' the given assertion to state something it does not mean to state.)
4. Does Jesus state it's virtually impossible for the rich to enter heaven? (Yes He does, Matthew 19:24. So maybe comply with Jesus's teaching, so He does not deem you a rich man, whom hoards any/all possessions for which He deems as direct adversaries to Him. And if you do not make a genuine effort, then how can you call yourself a follower?).

 

[John Helpher]

And further, I asked God, many times years ago, to give me the wisdom to rectify these discrepancies, and appear to have not received any type of answer what-so-ever?

Did you hear the one about the guy who was drowning? He asked God to save him. A short time later, a boat came along asking him to board, but the man said, "No, I'm waiting for God to save me". Soon after that, a rescue helicopter drop a rope ladder for him, but again he refused, valiantly waiting on God. Not long after that a man in a row boat happened by and offered the man a flotation device. In frustration the man cast it away angrily saying he was faithfully waiting on God to save him. Finally, the man drowned and when he stood before his creator, he... wait, never mind. I think you know how this one goes.