Purveyor of Confusion

[thomas_t]

The evidence demonstrates otherwise:

On one end, you have Unitarians. On the other, maybe you have evangelicals. Then you have the Catholics. Get a representative from those three factions alone into a debate about the correct beliefs about salvation, while referencing Scripture, and watch what happens.

Which of these (3) alone are delivering 'false teachings', and why?

I don't know Unitarians ... and if Catholics still teach that individuals can reach salvation by doing good works... it would be false.

You claim the verse, which states 'in the age to come", still means some level of heaven for believers whom commit blasphemy.

No. I said you can't rule out that it is so. I didn't make a positive claim here. You did if I remember well.

 

[cvanwey]

I don't know Unitarians ... and if Catholics still teach that individuals can reach salvation by doing good works... it would be false.

Demonstrates my thread.... The authors of the Bible are the direct providers of confusion. We have multiple sects, teaching opposing assertions. All which thinks they are right. All can also use verses to directly demonstrate their specific conclusions as sound. Just as you are yourself....

You are making a positive claim. You think you are right. You claim they are wrong. If you can both use Scripture to support your claims, then how might we resolve this little pickle?

How about, again, we refer to Scripture for the answer? We can ask God, the direct influencing provider, of such verse. We can refer to many passages, as said from Bible verse, to get the answers we need.

Think about it @thomas_t ... Here we are squabbling over what Bible verses mean. You have your 'take', I have mine. Seems as though to ask God for a little clarification, is not too much to ask, is it? Especially when we are focusing on God, and God's Word. What is He really trying to tell us?

So I've asked you, at least 4 times now... In line with the following verses, Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23, can you please ask God to answer this simple request? Is salvation based upon faith alone? Or is it works? Or is it a little of both? Regardless of what the answer actually is, I'm sure God would be happy to give you the answer.

If not, why not? And if not, then what say-you about all the Bible verses I keep referencing above, for which you do not address, time and time again? Again, pray for the answer. What does He tell you?

 

[thomas_t]

The authors of the Bible are the direct providers of confusion.

No, I don't think so.
The Bible shouldn't be blamed for every time the Catholics issue a false teaching, I think. It's them, in my opinion. I'm not Catholic by the way. Neither should God be blamed for not being clear enough, I think, God merely spoke a simple language.

In my opinion, false teaching can't be backed up by the Bible.
You couldn't back up the crusades, for example.

Is salvation based upon faith alone? Or is it works? Or is it a little of both? Regardless of what the answer actually is, I'm sure God would be happy to give you the answer.

He already gave it. Romans 10:9-10.
The passage from Matthew 25 concerning the so-called sheep and goat judgement applies to groups, such as churches of nations. They are not conflicting, as I said.
Churches can't have faith in their hearts as they don't have a heart. They are a group and the Romans vers does not apply to them as it does to individuals.
However, churches have the power to do many good works. Those kind of works that are mentioned in Matthew 25. When they get saved as announced in Revelations 2, it is because of their deeds, I guess.

I did address all your verses.
Regards,
Thomas

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

But in looking at the verses you provided, they do not specify how to achieve salvation.

Yes they do. The whole New Testament positively screams it out: Faith in Jesus. Faith. Faith. Faith.

Not difficult unless you want to make it so. The path to Salvation starts with Jesus, ends with Jesus and has Jesus in the middle.

You want to know what to do to achieve salvation: Have faith in Jesus. Nothing else is REQUIRED, everything else is a consequence of that that ongoing choice.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

This is why I have difficulty believing you became a Christian, after reading the Bible.

Perhaps I'm just making it up? Maybe I've never read the Bible at all and just picking random verses out of the atmosphere in order to try and make an argument?

Or perhaps it is actually true and your inability to see that is the cause of the problem. I'm afraid your post implied that people who read the Bible would naturally fall away and I responded the opposite point that some people wouldn't, so now you you are saying that some people will be lost by reading the Bible. You've gone from implying all, to most to some. At least there is progress.

How many times did you read it before you started to believe it? Was it instantly? Did it take a while?

I read the whole of the New Testament, one chapter a night 2 years before I became a Christian. I read other bits at various points both before and after and I had embarked on reading the whole NT at the point I became a Christian. At the point I became a Christian I was part way through Exodus.

So it took a while. More importantly I have lost count of the number of times I've read the New Testament from beginning to end. I'm overdue to do it again. The whole Bible I've done once beginning to end and then numerous times in pieces. I've done Torah twice independently.

And I certainly would agree that we lose some who read the Bible all the way through, but very few. The only times I have come across churches that discouraged reading the Bible they were invariably run like a cult with the leader telling everyone what to believe and reading/interpreting passages that supported their own version of Christianity. God encourages people to ask questions (to use their minds) to discuss the issues and to get answers. And in this day and age getting answers is far easier than when I first read my Bible (King James Version by the way, I wouldn't recommend it for reading purpose). If you don't understand it, it is possible now to go online and look at literal translations of Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek. To see what words actually mean and also to read commentaries and translation notes and even concordances to see how words are translated elsewhere.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

My objective isn't to change the mind of the person for which I engage upon, or even the ones whom participate. It's more-so intended for the ones on the fence, whom watch from the side-lines, and read these posts later. The ones whom do not have any skin in the game. -- And later read these responses without too much bias, if that's even possible

Well, it is arguable how successful you are. In my experience lazy people will go with the unanswered question, while enquiring people will follow the threads. So on your side of the fence are all the people who can't be bothered to look for answers

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Um, it is the claimed Bible we are speaking about here. Are you suggesting it is NOT based on actual events?

Yes and no. The Bible is made up of many genres not all of which one takes as literally true. When Jesus tells a parable about a certain man who was walking on the road, was there an actual man? If not then clearly this is not based on actual events. On the other hand the story of Jesus telling the story could well be based on actual events (and I maintain they were).

One only has to read the trial, death and resurrection accounts to see slight disparities. But that should tell the sensible person that none of them are absolutely true in detail, while being totally true in scope. In other words there is a set of events that happened and that some people have decided to record.

Same goes for the Old Testament. Is poetry absolutely true? When Proverbs personifies Wisdom as a woman, is it talking about an actual woman? Of course not. The genre is wisdom and it is making a point. Not the same as, say, the stories about David which are presented as historical.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Disagree...

Matthew 25:31-46 is a parable. It's literal conclusion, is that He separates the saved/unsaved, by Him judging how much they help others. The ones that do not perform to Jesus' satisfaction are thrown into hell. This is direct instruction on what is required, to stay out of hell.

Actually you haven't understood the purpose of the parable (the 'literal conclusion' as you put it). Basic hermeneutics is to understand it in its context. Who was it aimed at; who was the gospel written for? The answer is the same. The Jews. The same Jews who were convinced that wealth and power were a sign of God's favour and that the poor were not going to get to Heaven. Jesus turned that idea on its head.

Also this is not a direct instruction of anything. It is a parable. It is a guide not a rule. And the conclusion that this is about staying out of hell sounds like a very glass half empty approach.

 

[cvanwey]

No, I don't think so.
The Bible shouldn't be blamed for every time the Catholics issue a false teaching, I think. It's them, in my opinion. I'm not Catholic by the way.

How do you know the Catholic doctrines are wrong, the Unitarians doctrines are wrong, but [you] are right? Especially when you do not know all their beliefs? AGAIN, all believers, and non-believers alike, can reference or attribute differing verse(s) to amplify as THE way to salvation. What makes one more important, or higher ranking, than the next?

Neither should God be blamed for not being clear enough, I think, God merely spoke a simple language.

I guess you are going to need to elaborate on 'God spoke a simple language'????? If by 'simple', do you mean 'easy to understand?' Then no, not the case, as evidence by all the opposing and sincere denominations whom subscribe to differing soteriology. If by 'simple', you mean 'many verses not elaborated upon and left to conjecture', then yes; as evidence by many opposing denominations. Please elaborate?

In my opinion, false teaching can't be backed up by the Bible.

In regards to salvation alone, many denominations ascribe to differing means to salvation. Again, until you study all denominations, and all their claims to salvation, your assertion is unfounded.

He already gave it. Romans 10:9-10.
The passage from Matthew 25 concerning the so-called sheep and goat judgement applies to groups, such as churches of nations. They are not conflicting, as I said.
Churches can't have faith in their hearts as they don't have a heart. They are a group and the Romans vers does not apply to them as it does to individuals.
However, churches have the power to do many good works. Those kind of works that are mentioned in Matthew 25. When they get saved as announced in Revelations 2, it is because of their deeds, I guess.

I did address all your verses.
Regards,
Thomas

Unfortunately, you did not @thomas_t I've asked you 4 or 5 times now, in accordance with Scripture (Matthew 7:7, etc etc etc), to ask God for the definitive answer. You ignore, and/or refuse. I've given you the many verses to clear up this manor. But you refuse. You've given your reason(s) why you feel Matthew 25:31-46 is not applicable, just as I have given you the reason(s) why I see it as purely applicable.

So again, can you ask God for me, in line with Scripture? I find it very hard to believe that God would be offended by you asking God to clarify His given Word?

 

[cvanwey]

Yes they do. The whole New Testament positively screams it out: Faith in Jesus. Faith. Faith. Faith.

Not difficult unless you want to make it so. The path to Salvation starts with Jesus, ends with Jesus and has Jesus in the middle.

You want to know what to do to achieve salvation: Have faith in Jesus. Nothing else is REQUIRED, everything else is a consequence of that that ongoing choice.

Great. Let's see where this goes

 

[cvanwey]

Perhaps I'm just making it up? Maybe I've never read the Bible at all and just picking random verses out of the atmosphere in order to try and make an argument?

Or perhaps it is actually true and your inability to see that is the cause of the problem. I'm afraid your post implied that people who read the Bible would naturally fall away and I responded the opposite point that some people wouldn't, so now you you are saying that some people will be lost by reading the Bible. You've gone from implying all, to most to some. At least there is progress.

ALL I said in my initial post, is that if professed Christians, whom have not read the Bible, were to read the Bible, you would come away with less believers. I can attest to this... me

 

[cvanwey]

Yes and no. The Bible is made up of many genres not all of which one takes as literally true. When Jesus tells a parable about a certain man who was walking on the road, was there an actual man? If not then clearly this is not based on actual events. On the other hand the story of Jesus telling the story could well be based on actual events (and I maintain they were).

One only has to read the trial, death and resurrection accounts to see slight disparities. But that should tell the sensible person that none of them are absolutely true in detail, while being totally true in scope. In other words there is a set of events that happened and that some people have decided to record.

Same goes for the Old Testament. Is poetry absolutely true? When Proverbs personifies Wisdom as a woman, is it talking about an actual woman? Of course not. The genre is wisdom and it is making a point. Not the same as, say, the stories about David which are presented as historical.

Let me elaborate... I'm aware of 'poetry', 'parables', etc...

But let's start with Genesis. Was the flood a literal event? Seems as though we could devote 100 pages to this question alone; demonstrating possible confusion

 

[cvanwey]

Actually you haven't understood the purpose of the parable (the 'literal conclusion' as you put it). Basic hermeneutics is to understand it in its context. Who was it aimed at; who was the gospel written for? The answer is the same. The Jews. The same Jews who were convinced that wealth and power were a sign of God's favour and that the poor were not going to get to Heaven. Jesus turned that idea on its head.

Also this is not a direct instruction of anything. It is a parable. It is a guide not a rule. And the conclusion that this is about staying out of hell sounds like a very glass half empty approach.

Regurgitated from post #280:

31 - When Jesus returns
32-33 - He will separate the saved from the unsaved; saved = right, unsaved = left
34 - The ones to the right, come with me
35 - 36 Because you helped me
37 - 39 The ones to right responded, "Jesus, we did not help you"
40 - Jesus states "no silly, by helping others, you helped 'Me' - it's a metaphor guys, get with the program"
41 - 43 - Jesus tells the ones on the left, you did not help, so I'm sending you guys to burn

etc.......

Even as a Christian, this parable looks to send the message that helping others IS the criteria for which Jesus will judge you. Thus, at BEST, to support [your] position, it's a combo of faith and works. But then the question becomes... How much faith, how much works?

And at worst, meaning, for all the ones whom read this passage and scratch their heads - (both Christians or just curious onlookers), it's quite possible Jesus' meter-stick for salvation is based upon humans helping other humans. -- Which is not necessary a 'bad' thing, in 'my book.'

The 'bad' part remains, is that we have confusion, from both believers and 'nitpickers', whom might be here to merely chastise Chapter and Verse.

 

[thomas_t]

AGAIN, all believers, and non-believers alike, can reference or attribute differing verse(s) to amplify as THE way to salvation.

here we disagree. Noone finds a verse saying that works can save an indiviual person. Even if the Catholic church claims otherwise: they are not Biblical authority to me.

You ignore, and/or refuse.

When Bible is clear in a matter, I refuse to ask God a second time about it. I won't ask him "God, did you really mean Romans 10:9-10 as written in the Bible?"
so no, I won't ask him this question.
I stay with my opinion that false teaching can't be backed up and that differences in doctrine exist because of fals teacher. That is the reason.
The Bible uses simple words both when it comes to linguistics and also when it comes to put it simple. Many things that are not 100% necessary to know for everybody .. are left to conjecture, as you say. I think this is because God wanted it to be so.
Lack of clarity, for example, exists when it comes to the question who the "Israel of God" is, Galatians 6:16.
But there are other matters more important than that. In my opinion, when God leaves something to conjecture... it is better to turn away from that topic to deal with the more important one: salvation of individuals. as we are doing here

 

[cvanwey]

here we disagree. Noone finds a verse saying that works can save an indiviual person. Even if the Catholic church claims otherwise: they are not Biblical authority to me.

Just because they are not the Biblical authority to [you], does not mean they cannot support their position, using verse. The same with all other denominations, whom profess salvation; by way of faith alone, faith + works, grace, faith + works + grace, other....

If you assert 'they' are wrong, you need to demonstrate why they are wrong. And you already admitted you cannot do that. Why? You already admitted you are not familiar with Unitarians, just for starters. And this was virtually the first opposing denomination I mentioned. Just think if I started to go down the list of all the others, whom profess salvation, by differing means than yours.?.?.? All of which, likely reference the same Book of Scripture.

When Bible is clear in a matter, I refuse to ask God a second time about it. I won't ask him "God, did you really mean Romans 10:9-10 as written in the Bible?"

Okay. How about Matthew 12:32? You asserted that this verse leads to conjecture. In line with Matthew 7:7, etc, can you ask Him to clarify what He meant there? If not, then your response above does not follow?

I will refresh your memory. The verse eludes to the notion that Christian blasphemers of the Holy Spirit are also unforgiven in the 'next age'. I state the 'next age' is hell. You state it's still heaven, but maybe a lesser heaven. Can you ask God about this one?

Again, I do not see why God would mind, if we are merely trying to clarify a verse. Especially one of seemingly grave importance.

The Bible uses simple words both when it comes to linguistics and also when it comes to put it simple. Many things that are not 100% necessary to know for everybody .. are left to conjecture, as you say. I think this is because God wanted it to be so.

So again, when God states to 'speak against', in Matthew 12:32, where God does not clarify what constitutes such an unforgivable sin exactly, God chose to remain ambivalent there? Meaning, 'speak against' is completely open to interpretation? Seems odd? We are only speaking about an unforgivable sin here?

But there are other matters more important than that. In my opinion, when God leaves something to conjecture... it is better to turn away from that topic to deal with the more important one: salvation of individuals. as we are doing here

Seems as though, if we leave Matthew 12:32 to 'conjecture', we do not know if salvation is even possible? Maybe to 'speak against' the Holy Spirit, in any general capacity, negates Romans 10:9-10?

 

[thomas_t]

Okay. How about Matthew 12:32? You asserted that this verse leads to conjecture. In line with Matthew 7:7, etc, can you ask Him to clarify what He meant there? If not, then your response above does not follow?

I see your point. What happens to those who committed the unforgivable sin... is conjecture indeed I think.
But man is not the judge. Jesus is. Let him decide. It's his business. I think it best to focus more on our business (preaching the Gospel and/or get saved).
This is at least my suggestion.
So now you said it is an issue of grave importance. One could lose a daughter to a drunk driver.
My stance here: before you have sex with someone... you know that this can lead to children... but you also know that here in this world you can't be sure that your children will reach the age of 18.
There're illnesses, terrorism, everything.
It belongs to the rules of the post-fall creation that anybody can die anytime. So you know that if you have a daughter... it's possible that she can die early. As sad as it is.
So when you know all of this beforehand... why is the issue of whether or not you still can be admitted to heaven if you blaspheme the Holy Spirit ... why is that an issue of grave importance, as you say? I'd rather call it a speciality.
Let the Lord decide, I propose.
Driving drunk is horrible though and needs to stop, here we agree.

One thing is sure, though. One passage cannot negate the other. Theoretically, it could very well be that Matthew 12:32 and Romans 10:9-10 apply to different groups as @dcalling suggested. If they do overlap in a sense that saved people who committed the unforgivable sin exist... then it's conjecture on our part as to know what the restrictions are that (saved) people face when they have committed the unfogivable sin.

 

[dcalling]

One thing is sure, though. One passage cannot negate the other. Theoretically, it could very well be that Matthew 12:32 and Romans 10:9-10 apply to different groups as @dcalling suggested. If they do overlap in a sense that saved people who committed the unforgivable sin exist... then it's conjecture on our part as to know what the restrictions are that (saved) people face when they have committed the unfogivable sin.

Just to clarify, I believe that if you are a true believer, you WON'T blasphemy the Holy Spirit (i.e. lie about God's character after you know God).

And if you are not a believer, you CANT blasphemy the Holy Spirit, as you still don't know God, so you can't lie about God (i.e. at this state you are only assuming).

So the only thing that can blasphemy against Holy Spirit is devil, who know God's character and still lies about God. So I believe blasphemy has a different meaning when applied to Holy Spirit. i.e. check Strong's Greek: 988. βλασφημία (blasphémia) -- slander, in Greek the word means slander, switch the right for wrong.

 

[cvanwey]

I see your point. What happens to those who committed the unforgivable sin... is conjecture indeed I think.
But man is not the judge. Jesus is. Let him decide. It's his business. I think it best to focus more on our business (preaching the Gospel and/or get saved).
This is at least my suggestion.
So now you said it is an issue of grave importance. One could lose a daughter to a drunk driver.
My stance here: before you have sex with someone... you know that this can lead to children... but you also know that here in this world you can't be sure that your children will reach the age of 18.
There're illnesses, terrorism, everything.
It belongs to the rules of the post-fall creation that anybody can die anytime. So you know that if you have a daughter... it's possible that she can die early. As sad as it is.
So when you know all of this beforehand... why is the issue of whether or not you still can be admitted to heaven if you blaspheme the Holy Spirit ... why is that an issue of grave importance, as you say? I'd rather call it a speciality.
Let the Lord decide, I propose.
Driving drunk is horrible though and needs to stop, here we agree.

One thing is sure, though. One passage cannot negate the other. Theoretically, it could very well be that Matthew 12:32 and Romans 10:9-10 apply to different groups as @dcalling suggested. If they do overlap in a sense that saved people who committed the unforgivable sin exist... then it's conjecture on our part as to know what the restrictions are that (saved) people face when they have committed the unfogivable sin.

@thomas_t . First of all, thank you for engaging.

But please, please, address my request. I've asked at least (5) times now, and you have skipped right over it... In regards to the Biblical verses on blasphemy, you state it is less-than-clear. In line with God's instruction(s), He can be asked for clarification here (i.e.)

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye. shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh. findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened"

"If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”

"Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."

"And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."

"In that day you will no longer ask me anything. Very truly I tell you, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name."

As listed above, you can ask Him what Matthew 12:32 is referring to exactly. Do Christian blasphemers go to a lesser heaven, or hell; (or), is the verse referencing something all together different?

I've tried to ask Him, and the request remains unanswered. Maybe you, the claimed truly faithful, might have better luck. A matter of fact, God guarantees you will be answered.

Please ask Him to clarify or elaborate upon this verse. With God's simple interjection, we can solve this little mystery.

 

[SPF]

@thomas_t . First of all, thank you for engaging.

But please, please, address my request. I've asked at least (5) times now, and you have skipped right over it... In regards to the Biblical verses on blasphemy, you state it is less-than-clear. In line with God's instruction(s), He can be asked for clarification here (i.e.)

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye. shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh. findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened"

"If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”

"Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."

"And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."

"In that day you will no longer ask me anything. Very truly I tell you, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name."

As listed above, you can ask Him what Matthew 12:32 is referring to exactly. Do Christian blasphemers go to a lesser heaven, or hell; (or), is the verse referencing something all together different?

I've tried to ask Him, and the request remains unanswered. Maybe you, the claimed truly faithful, might have better luck. A matter of fact, God guarantees you will be answered.

Please ask Him to clarify or elaborate upon this verse. With God's simple interjection, we can solve this little mystery.

Would you actually accept his explanation of what the verse means if he supplied an answer? Or would you simply retort that someone disagrees with him and that therefore God isn't clear? Why not just make the actual point you're trying to make?

Let's make it simple. The correct interpretation is X. Now what?

 

[cvanwey]

Would you actually accept his explanation of what the verse means if he supplied an answer?

If I knew the passage was from God, and not some human's interpretation of what the author meant, I would at least accept the answer. And depending on the answer, I would then reserve my own right to assess if this command adhered to other verses in Scripture. Now, would [my] assessment really matter? Well, prolly not to God.

Or would you simply retort that someone disagrees with him and that therefore God isn't clear?

If it was indeed verified that God was the authentic author of such verse, and He continued to remain elusive and undefined in this threat, then my point would remain... Being, that God chooses not to clarify His threat. Which results, as seen below, in confusion. Which may also cause many to worry about committing such an offense. -- Especially if they believe they may have already...

Why not just make the actual point you're trying to make?

I thought I had. Let me try again...

Some assertive and threatening verses in Scripture seem not to clarify the actual rules of engagement. God cares not to assure such verse(s), especially of this importance level, are explained clearly.

However, God seems to have no problem giving details, regarding other assertions, when He so chooses. But in something this seemingly important, (i.e.) 'committing an unforgivable sin', for which God will never forgive, God allows such definition(s) to remain virtually undefined.

And as I asked @thomas_t , seems as though God has provided a direct remedy to the above. Believers can pray for clarification; in line with the many verses I have offered; which explicitly state He will answer/respond.

Thus far, @thomas_t has chosen to avoid this direct request. Maybe you can pick up where he has left off? Can you, as a true believer, ask God to clarify this verse?

And once we get God's answer, we can then know the answer to the riddle I posed long ago....

Does blasphemy negate faith? If so, then 'faith' is not enough.

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

The point about 'blasphemy', in regards to Matthew 12:32, is that the [author] speaks in ambivalence. Hence, we have confusion. (i.e.)

me - The verse tells believers/non-believers/all-in-between that once you 'speak against' the Holy Spirit, game over. You cannot be redeemed. Faith will then not save you. Nothing will.

'Thomas' - The verse tells believers that they will still go to heaven, but maybe not be given all privileges. Or, it is left to conjecture and not clarified.

'Dcalling' - Unbelievers cannot, and true believers just won't.

Maybe we are all wrong. Let's wait for God's input....