Repent... or not.

[ChristianCenturion]

LOL, yes, you are correct. Your ability to end a debate because of a lack of debating skills is one that you use often and does work.

Who would have thought?

Yet another example of my point, thank you.
Now, before I am forced to withdraw from pursuing this line of discussion out of a sense of maturity, perhaps you would like to point out the actual supported fact in that post or provide the proof now that I ask. Otherwise your opinion is noted but you should be careful as to how you state it.

 

[xhristlives]

the fact of the matter is that unless we REPENT of our sins and have faih in CHRIST we will be damned- surely it is only natural to want to make up for an evil we may have committed against someone, otherwise our relationships with others will be damaged and we will lose our integrity
so repent and live a truer, and therefore more fulfilling life...

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Well, for starters, there's the "Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword" Christ; then there's the "turn the other cheek" Christ. There's the infinite forgiveness Christ and the burn 'em in the lake of fire Christ. There's Son-of-God Christ and I'm-just-a-man Christ. There's the Old Testament Stamp of Approval Christ and the Ditch the Old Testament Christ...

Christians who define themselves as "Followers of Christ" still find ways to disagree on who they're following and what it means to follow him.

And this is an excellent point. And I would say that it would be hard to comprehend all that and have it somehow all fit together. That is why it is a path of maturity and growing in Christ, all those do fit together and is why the worldly calls it foolishness.

A VERY small example: If my child is disobedient and I tap them on the bottom, you could say that I am an abusive parent. Another could say that the same action is the act of a loving parent. And another could say that I am arrogant in dominating over the child and yet another could say that I am preparing the child. All from a simple task and some have some truth to them in differing points of view. That is all a human example and I am in no way calling God abusive or arrogant, etc. but I have heard plenty of Atheists and Pagans state exactly that.

It all comes down to a matter of the heart. Those with the right heart become Christians because God calls them and opens their eyes. The others close their eyes and reject the call.

Hebrews 4:1-11
1Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. 3Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, “So I declared on oath in my anger, ‘They shall never enter my rest.’ ” And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. 4For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: “And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.” 5And again in the passage above he says, “They shall never enter my rest.”
6It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience. 7Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before: “Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.” 8For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. 9There remains, then, a Sabbathrest for the people of God; 10for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. 11Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.

 

[Spyr]

Yes. Behold! That which you seek.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=14201249&postcount=205

I wish the questions were all this easy to answer.

Thanks, I had seen that correction before but didn't see your reply.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Thanks, I had seen that correction before but didn't see your reply.

No, thank you.
I remembered to thank the one correcting my error in word usage, but I didn't go back and correct the post. I have now done so.

 

[Emmy]

Dear Christian Centurion,I agree wholeheartedly with Scottish John,as you do too,Jesus said it many times:"Repent,John the Baptist said it,and it makes perfect sense.Although Jesus took our sins away,we are still sinners,and unless we repent,it won`t do us much good,to follow Jesus.Repent,and be a new person to follow Jesus into Life.Sincere greetings from Emmy,a sister in Christ.

 

[Moncubus Gwazz III]

I don’t recall it being Gospel to pick and choose what scripture we honor.

Wait, isn't that what the Council of Nicea did when they composed the Holy Bible? Or do you also honour the Apocrypha?

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Wait, isn't that what the Council of Nicea did when they composed the Holy Bible? Or do you also honour the Apocrypha?

Yes, its exactly what was done.

Ghost

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Wait, isn't that what the Council of Nicea did when they composed the Holy Bible? Or do you also honour the Apocrypha?

I honor the scripture that I have and strive to live in accordance with the Spirit.
If you demand more, then we have an authority issue.

 

[Moncubus Gwazz III]

I honor the scripture that I have and strive to live in accordance with the Spirit.
If you demand more, then we have an authority issue.

I'm not demanding anything, I'm just thinking that it's somewhat ironic that you'd condemn choosing which scriptures to follow, while the creation of the Bible was just that.

(And if you want to look into the Apocrypha, I can link you to a translated version.)

 

[ScottishJohn]

Just been at a conference where the General Secretary of The Council of Ministries from the Church of Scotland did a lecture on the Wisdom tradition (Sophia) and quoted extensively from the apocrypha. was very interesting. He also pointed out that the oldest copies of the old testament available to us are in Greek not Hebrew and contain the apocrypha, whereas the hebrew copies which are much more recent do not. Interesting...

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I'm not demanding anything, I'm just thinking that it's somewhat ironic that you'd condemn choosing which scriptures to follow, while the creation of the Bible was just that.

(And if you want to look into the Apocrypha, I can link you to a translated version.)

It appears to me that you are stating that all of what could be scripture would have to be known and obeyed for someone to be a faithful follower of Christ. That would probably fall more on the lines of Jewish doctrine in faithful to God and even then, they are not held responsible for things beyond there control i.e. not having all of the scriptures.
Your understanding is that of an outsider. Although scripture is good for:

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

That does not mean that the entirety must be obtained in order to receive the Spirit. That would be a doctrine of 'works saves' or Jesus was not sufficient and that His promise of the Councilor was a meaningless promise. Both of which you will not find the majority of Christians agreeing with you.

You and along with Atheists seem to be contradicting yourselves in one stating that we should obey anything that might be called scripture and the other stating that we should test everything and accept nothing that doesn't pass human reasoning. The scripture that I have now has been tested by others and by me with the Spirit, what more needs to be done? The Gospel testifies of Jesus, receiving takes it from there. There is no 'set amount' of scripture to fulfill that and we are made whole in Him.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

It appears to me that you are stating that all of what could be scripture would have to be known and obeyed for someone to be a faithful follower of Christ.

No that's not what he is saying at all, and I don’t think its easy to interpret what he is saying that way either. What he is saying is that on the one hand you are saying that it is not our place to decide what scriptures to follow and what scriptures not to, yet when he points out that the history of our religion includes a very obvious case of doing exactly that we see a dazzling display of verbal tap dancing on your part about why that is different.

That does not mean that the entirety must be obtained in order to receive the Spirit. That would be a doctrine of 'works saves' or Jesus was not sufficient and that His promise of the Councilor was a meaningless promise. Both of which you will not find the majority of Christians agreeing with you.

Interesting but irrelevant as it does not come close to addressing his point. You stated that it is not our place to decide which scriptures to follow and which not to, he gave you an example of exactly that occurrence that we do accept. He didn’t say anything about scriptures we have not obtained or “works saving”. he was talking about scriptures that Christians did have access to that we cut out of the cannon because you openly stated it is not our place to do that. Now could you address his actual point and stop obfuscating perhaps?

Ghost

 

[ChristianCenturion]

No that's not what he is saying at all, and I don’t think its easy to interpret what he is saying that way either. What he is saying is that on the one hand you are saying that it is not our place to decide what scriptures to follow and what scriptures not to, yet when he points out that the history of our religion includes a very obvious case of doing exactly that we see a dazzling display of verbal tap dancing on your part about why that is different.

Before you start throwing out accusations and claiming 'tap dancing', perhaps you should address that general Christian doctrine is repent, accept, receive. If you are trying to claim that Christianity is not being in accordance with the Spirit and Grace given, then you don't take issue with me - yours is a bigger fight.

Interesting but irrelevant as it does not come close to addressing his point. You stated that it is not our place to decide which scriptures to follow and which not to, he gave you an example of exactly that occurrence that we do accept. He didn’t say anything about scriptures we have not obtained or “works saving”. he was talking about scriptures that Christians did have access to that we cut out of the cannon because you openly stated it is not our place to do that. Now could you address his actual point and stop obfuscating perhaps?

Ghost

Perhaps you should stick to the fact that it is an accepted foundation that there is procedure and authority established in the early Church and it is acceptable to test what is and is not from God on an accountability basis. Of course there will be those that try to make it mean what they want and drift from the Truth, there are examples of those in Revelation. While you are at it, perhaps you should produce the evidence as to why 'what has been left out' should be considered scripture. The scripture that we Christians DO agree upon supports what we have today. If you wish to promote some other type, be my guest. But it will probably require you to do so in another area. Or more to the point, perhaps you would like to tell of your motivation that justifies your whole point with this. What is it that you say Christians aren't doing or what is it that you don't like about the scripture in the contemporary Bible?

Another nice little fact that you may wish to consider is that Christianity doesn't depend on me being able to force someone to understand... that would be a lesson learned from the Inquisition.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Before you start throwing out accusations and claiming 'tap dancing', perhaps you should address that general Christian doctrine is repent, accept, receive. If you are trying to claim that Christianity is not being in accordance with the Spirit and Grace given, then you don't take issue with me - yours is a bigger fight.

There you go with your Tap dancing again. I am not trying to argue against the notion that Christian doctrine is about repentance, no where in my post does it imply I am and I think you know that. I am trying to get you to give a civil answer to the posters civil question.

Perhaps you should stick to the fact that it is established that there is procedure and authority established in the early Church and it is acceptable to test what is and is not from God on an accountability basis. Of course there will be those that try to make it mean what they want and drift from the Truth, there are examples of those in Revelation. While you are at it, perhaps you should produce the evidence as to why 'what has been left out' should be considered scripture.

More tap dancing. I am not trying to make an argument for or against including the apocrypha I am trying to get you to answer the plain and simple question that another poster asked you because I am tired of seeing you hand wave away all debate with the “I don’t expect you to understand” gambit. He pointed to an apparent inconsistency in your argument and I want to see what you have to say on the point. He asked you a question, so him the curtsey of answering it, that's all we ask.

The scripture that we Christians DO agree upon supports what we have today. If you wish to promote some other type, be my guest.

I do not wish to promote some other type and I neither stated or implied otherwise. I want to see you answer the mans question, i know what my answer would be had he asked it of me, I want to see your take on it.

Or more to the point, perhaps you would like to tell of your motivation that justifies your whole point with this.

Certainly I can answer that. My motivation is to see sensible and mature debate on issues, minus the hand waving, tap dancing and ignoring of questions I see all to often on the internet. Another poster made a point and you blatantly misrepresented his point. I am interested in seeing you answer his question.

What is it that you say Christians aren't doing or what is it that you don't like about the scripture in the contemporary Bible?

Nothing what so ever, I like the scriptures we have, but that's not the issue. Another poster asked you how you reconcile your two apparently irreconcilable arguments. On the one hand you say that as Christians we do not get to select the scripture we follow and on the other hand you accept that in the past we have decided what scripture is cannon and what is not. It is perfectly legitimate for that poster to expect you to explain yourself and I simply want to se you respect his right to ask you to do so.

Another nice little fact that you may wish to consider is that Christianity doesn't depend on me being able to force someone to understand... that would be a lesson learned from the Inquisition.

Utterly irrelevant, no one is asking you to force some one to understand, you were asked a simple question and asked for a simple answer, give him the answer and if he does not understand it or accept it then all well and good. you however seem to be avoiding answering his question because you have pre-supposed he won’t understand it. give the man some credit and do him the courtesy of explaining your point.

Ghost

 

[ChristianCenturion]

There you go with your Tap dancing again. I am not trying to argue against the notion that Christian doctrine is about repentance, no where in my post does it imply I am and I think you know that. I am trying to get you to give a civil answer to the posters civil question.



More tap dancing. I am not trying to make an argument for or against including the apocrypha I am trying to get you to answer the plain and simple question that another poster asked you because I am tired of seeing you hand wave away all debate with the “I don’t expect you to understand” gambit. He pointed to an apparent inconsistency in your argument and I want to see what you have to say on the point. He asked you a question, so him the curtsey of answering it, that's all we ask.



I do not wish to promote some other type and I neither stated or implied otherwise. I want to see you answer the mans question, i know what my answer would be had he asked it of me, I want to see your take on it.



Certainly I can answer that. My motivation is to see sensible and mature debate on issues, minus the hand waving, tap dancing and ignoring of questions I see all to often on the internet. Another poster made a point and you blatantly misrepresented his point. I am interested in seeing you answer his question.



Nothing what so ever, I like the scriptures we have, but that's not the issue. Another poster asked you how you reconcile your two apparently irreconcilable arguments. On the one hand you say that as Christians we do not get to select the scripture we follow and on the other hand you accept that in the past we have decided what scripture is cannon and what is not. It is perfectly legitimate for that poster to expect you to explain yourself and I simply want to se you respect his right to ask you to do so.



Utterly irrelevant, no one is asking you to force some one to understand, you were asked a simple question and asked for a simple answer, give him the answer and if he does not understand it or accept it then all well and good. you however seem to be avoiding answering his question because you have pre-supposed he won’t understand it. give the man some credit and do him the courtesy of explaining your point.

Ghost

Asked and answered, your attempt at harassment and insistance that it hasn't is what is irrelevant. I find it suspicious that you presume to know what others want to know and others should do, yet no supporting evidence is given. And consider this concept: if you think you can answer it better than I have, why don't you do so rather than pretending you are some kind of moderator or speech police. That would essentially resolve what appears to get you all worked up.
Otherwise there are forum rules against making discussions ad hominem, etc.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Just been at a conference where the General Secretary of The Council of Ministries from the Church of Scotland did a lecture on the Wisdom tradition (Sophia) and quoted extensively from the apocrypha. was very interesting. He also pointed out that the oldest copies of the old testament available to us are in Greek not Hebrew and contain the apocrypha, whereas the hebrew copies which are much more recent do not. Interesting...

I find it more interesting that Jesus Christ himself called the hebrew scriptures the key of knowledge - how do we know He refered to the hebrew scriptures? Because He directly sited the full breadth of the hebrew division , the greek septuigent ends at malachai but the hebrew division breadth is from genesis to 2 chronicles and that is exactly what Christ refers to directly when speaking with the pharisees and accusing them of witholding and taking away the "keys of knowledge" .

As far as the oldest , the oldest written accounts are Job at about 1500 bc and in hebrew and stone tablets of genesis in hebrew about 1400 bc unless you are just meaning complete intact full old testament. You may also want to note that the greek septuigent was before the jews met to set the OT cannon as well and when it was set , the apocrypha was NOT recognized .

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Asked and answered, .

Then I must have missed your answer, by all means refer me to the post number in which you answered his question.

your attempt at harassment and insistance that it hasn't is what is irrelevant.

I am not trying to harass you I am trying to get you to clearly answer the mans question without accusing everyone who dares to disagree with you of not understanding. I am sorry you find that harassing.

I find it suspicious that you presume to know what others want to know and others should do, yet no supporting evidence is given.

I know what he wants to know because he asked you very clearly and concisely, no special knowledge is required there. As for supporting evidence may I ask what you require supporting evidence of exactly? I have tried to explain to you before I am not presenting an argument I am interested in seeing yours. What would you like supporting evidence of?

And consider this concept: if you think you can answer it better than I have, why don't you do so rather than pretending you are some kind of moderator or speech police.

What in my post gave you the impression I thought I had a better answer than you? I made no such claim. What I did do explicitly many times was point out I am yet to see you give any answer, and I am curious as to what your answer is. There are many possible answers, I would not presume to be so arrogant as to suggest mine would be better than anyone else's. I could certainly not claim any answer is better than yours because I have not yet seen yours.

Ghost

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I'm not demanding anything, I'm just thinking that it's somewhat ironic that you'd condemn choosing which scriptures to follow, while the creation of the Bible was just that.

(And if you want to look into the Apocrypha, I can link you to a translated version.)

Ezekiel 36:27
And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

Romans 8:1-17
1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.


5Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. 12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation–but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” 16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs–heirs of God and coheirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

Romans 2:12-13
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

Seems to me that there is an a relationship between the Spirit keeping the scriptures...