Unforgiveable sin

[98cwitr]

Ok but am i still saved?

Why are you asking humans a question you need to direct toward God?

 

[Skawk”]

Why are you asking humans a question you need to direct toward God?

I just wanted to know if I did I'd but now I know I did not do it but I wanted to say I love the holy spirit but then I said I love my holy spirit but the holy spirit is not from me but from God I wanted to say I love the holy spirit and not my is this the unforgivable sin because someone reacted whit the unforgiveable sin is claiming to be God. And I'm little bit worried now

 

[D.A. Wright]

I just wanted to know if I did I'd but now I know I did not do it but I wanted to say I love the holy spirit but then I said I love my holy spirit but the holy spirit is not from me but from God I wanted to say I love the holy spirit and not my is this the unforgivable sin because someone reacted whit the unforgiveable sin is claiming to be God. And I'm little bit worried now

Stay focused on The Truth, Kian-vg.

 

[98cwitr]

I just wanted to know if I did I'd but now I know I did not do it but I wanted to say I love the holy spirit but then I said I love my holy spirit but the holy spirit is not from me but from God I wanted to say I love the holy spirit and not my is this the unforgivable sin because someone reacted whit the unforgiveable sin is claiming to be God. And I'm little bit worried now

Your worry may simply be a sign of discipline; or expected discipline. I suggest praying about it.

 

[Skawk”]

Stay focused on The Truth, Kian-vg.

I have already found out that that is not the unforgivable sin either because I said it was accidental and I did not mean it and I said it in ignorance when I wanted to say something else and now I don't even know if I really said it or thought it was just my ocd that will make me think that I have committed sin. Because the holy spirit is of god and I said it a little disconcerting because now I hardly know anymore whether I thought it or not.

 

[Skawk”]

I have already found out that that is not the unforgivable sin either because I said it was accidental and I did not mean it and I said it in ignorance when I wanted to say something else and now I don't even know if I really said it or thought it was just my ocd that will make me think that I have committed sin. Because the holy spirit is of god and I said it a little disconcerting because now I hardly know anymore whether I thought it or not.

Thank you for winner lucky i was only worried for 15 min because immediately iately I posted it here I know i did not do the unforgiveable sin now I need to stop listening to my ocd that make me say/think that thing because my ocd make me think that somethings I accidentally said it and then I'm worried I did the unforgivable sin. 1 time I was so worried I cant eat. But now the fear is gone I just need to listen to God and not my ocd because I LOVE GOD I LOVE JESUS AND I LOVE THE HOLY SPIRIT! And that's true.

 

[nolidad]

I just wanted to know if I did I'd but now I know I did not do it but I wanted to say I love the holy spirit but then I said I love my holy spirit but the holy spirit is not from me but from God I wanted to say I love the holy spirit and not my is this the unforgivable sin because someone reacted whit the unforgiveable sin is claiming to be God. And I'm little bit worried now

The fact that you have such concern about it is a strong sign you could not commit such a sin (though it is not an individual but a national sin)

Someone, if they could possibly commit such sin- would not be so concerned about it as you. This is just your own human nature and the demons trying to get you to feel condemned and take your focus offf Jesus and onto yourself!

 

[Skawk”]

The fact that you have such concern about it is a strong sign you could not commit such a sin (though it is not an individual but a national sin)

Someone, if they could possibly commit such sin- would not be so concerned about it as you. This is just your own human nature and the demons trying to get you to feel condemned and take your focus offf Jesus and onto yourself!

Yes and people who do the sin know the moment they do it and do it deliberately and intentionally. Now I know I did not do the sin.

 

[nolidad]

Yes and people who do the sin know the moment they do it and do it deliberately and intentionally. Now I know I did not do the sin.

And just remember, even if you do deliberately sin- there is still mercy and forgiveness and cleansing for you!

 

[D.A. Wright]

Well it is an institute. We do not offer a 4 year degree, we offer a 2 year degree and the courses are transferrable to many Baptist Colleges and Universities. I helped design it over several years and the purpose was to instruct and disciple people to do the work of the Ministry.

That is actually quite admirable.

that would be incorrect. It was Jewish believers who were going behind Paul and trying to get teh Gentiles to conform to the Mosaic Laws (including the ten in stone)

...unless you include, but do not emphasize the ten in stone (which I do not), which would make it bigotry which, along with legalism, is the subject of the letter, but not necessarily the verse to which I made reference.

I'm sitting here contemplating answering each of your comments and, frankly, it makes my head hurt.

What point is there in hashing over the purpose and application of covenants, if there is only one that saves?

In my simple mind, this:

So gentiles are screwed then? It is the people of Israel that the new covenant is made with!

at least, in part, is in direct conflict with this:

Bible says- there has always been only one way people have been saved- By grace, through, faith. All salvation is based on teh blood of Jesus, but the object of faith that saved has been different in the different dispensations that God governed man with. Adam, Moses and Jeremiah did not trust in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus as the atonement of their sin.

I suppose you're saying that we have to see through the eyes of those who did not have the same vantage point we have to be able to understand what God was saying through them, and my response is that I do not for a minute believe that to be the case. The description of Christ on the cross is often dramatized almost to the point of mysticism in a pitiable, human effort to drive home the conviction of those who are being addressed. It is my belief that if the people who were there in person were not arrested by the immediate appearance of the most blessed event in history and then were later converted anyway, then the event must have been infinitely more powerful and significant than the sum of its apparent parts.

It is, in fact, the centerpiece of the so-called "time/space continuum," and therefore requires a document of roughly 3/4 million words to relate its importance and urgency. We place upon it our -isms and -ologies, often in good faith, but ultimately diluting its simple but profound glory by not letting the Word speak for itself.

I am seldom distinctly impressed by God's Spirit to the exclusion of others around me but, when I am, it is generally related to some immediate need and almost never with regard to doctrine so, as yet in my 55 short years, I have not heard the audible voice of God and therefore have had no need to formulate a method to navigate such an eventuality. I do not expect that He would require of me that for which He has not already prepared me.

I believe there is a great doctrinal gulf fixed between us, and while I admire your efforts to edify and teach, I think it may be time to recognize the gulf as impassible.

I used to hear a lot of objections to the Advent faith to the tune of "It's too complicated." After spending a few weeks on CF, that charge no longer intimidates me in the slightest. The sheer confusion of plurality on exhibit here has crystallized my faith into something tangible and simple that, although I always knew it to be true, has been thoroughly galvanized. And I believe it could be best described in this way:

The conditions of eternal life are the same now as they have ever been: Perfect obedience to the commandments of God. If it were not so, then Christ surely lived and died for naught.

 

[nolidad]

unless you include, but do not emphasize the ten in stone (which I do not), which would make it bigotry which, along with legalism, is the subject of the letter, but not necessarily the verse to which I made reference.

Well; we cannot pick and choose which parts of the Mosaic Law we wish to include- all 613 are the Mosaic Law.

Why does anyone wish to cling to the ten in stone as some sort of blesses amulet or something?

2 Corinthians 3:3
Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

2 Corinthians 3:7-8 King James Version (KJV)
7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

Galatians 3:24
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Galatians 3:25
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster


I really can't see that the writers of the constitution for the church (the epistles) could make it any clearer. The law does not save nor abiding by it make us holy or just before God!

The conditions of eternal life are the same now as they have ever been: Perfect obedience to the commandments of God. If it were not so, then Christ surely lived and died for naught.

I truly am saddened for you ! In your lengthy epistle you mark the cross as the centerpiece of time , as it is, then in your closing remark, miss the power and glory of the cross.

Ephesians 2:8-10 King James Version (KJV)
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

See we are saved for the good works god predetermined we should walk in (Rev. 4:11). But we are not saved by works! Paul has made that explicitly clear under the influence of the Holy Spirit!

Jesus death, paid for all our sin, so there is no more price (judicially) to be paid! Not just past, but present and future sins as well! Of this the bible makes clear! Jesus also fulfilled all points of the law and thus ended the lawe for righteousness!

Romans 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Romans 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

I truly fear that The deception that has clouded you is of the Galatians 1 danger. I pray not.

 

[D.A. Wright]

In your lengthy epistle you mark the cross as the centerpiece of time , as it is, then in your closing remark, miss the power and glory of the cross.

The power and glory of the cross are in no way maligned by the very law the cross was meant to vindicate and fulfill. The devil-despised ten commandments are a transcript of Christ's character. Christ lived as we should live, and died as we should die. Atonement for sin is no excuse for sin. It really is not rocket science.

Simple question? Peter warns of "things hard to be understood" in the writings of the Great Apostle, yet everyone seems to be an expert on the Gospel according to Paul. If Paul's treatment of the law (which is often pointed out (erroneously) as being at variance with that of James and John) in passages such as those in 2 Corinthians ch. 3 is not what Peter is referring to, then pray tell exactly what are these things that can be destructive to our souls if not approached with great care?

Sometimes I think we underestimate the extreme intellect of Paul and assume that He always teaches things in simple terms, as did Christ. Paul had very sophisticated heresies to deal with (Hellenistic inroads to Christianity, etc.) and these are recorded and canonized for our use against similar schisms.

But again, it seems that practically 90% of the time proof texts for variants in Soteriology come from the Pauline epistles. I find that distractingly interesting.

 

[~Zao~]

But again, it seems that practically 90% of the time proof texts for variants in Soteriology come from the Pauline epistles. I find that distractingly interesting.

What’s more interesting is knowing the references Paul makes and ignoring them to find the ones that are not as familiar on the same topic. Makes for better exegesis.

 

[D.A. Wright]

What’s more interesting is knowing the references Paul makes and ignoring them to find the ones that are not as familiar on the same topic. Makes for better exegesis.

Not sure I follow you.

 

[~Zao~]

Not sure I follow you.

I’ve made it a point for about a year now, while doing research, to find the un-Pauline verses. For a fact I know what Paul says, in both the spiritual sense and how that translates to the physical sense from a life-time of study into those things. Because Paul is an object of worship to many, it makes more sense to take what he has offered and find the other witness from an un-Pauline source to form an understanding that is not based on letter law vs spirit law. Or, barring that, to differentiate between the different forms of interpretation and stick to one or the other.

 

[D.A. Wright]

I do not wish to advance the idea that Paul never teaches in simple terms, but I definitely understand how you feel. "Worship" is a pretty strong word, but in this day of drive-thru everything, it is, no doubt, quite easy to construct a doctrine of one's own tradition, pre-supposition, etc. from the writings of the Great Apostle. I believe this is through little, if any, of his own fault. He was taught at the feet of Christ, Himself, just as were the others, although not along with them. He had a special calling and mission, which many are anxious to minimize or disregard altogether. As I like to say: "The Gospel is best served from the lips of Christ, Himself." He was in no way influenced by the apostate Jewish economy of His day.

 

[~Zao~]

I do not wish to advance the idea that Paul never teaches in simple terms, but I definitely understand how you feel. "Worship" is a pretty strong word, but in this day of drive-thru everything, it is, no doubt, quite easy to construct a doctrine of one's own tradition, pre-supposition, etc. from the writings of the Great Apostle. I believe this is through little, if any, of his own fault. He was taught at the feet of Christ, Himself, just as were the others, although not along with them. He had a special calling and mission, which many are anxious to minimize or disregard altogether. As I like to say: "The Gospel is best served from the lips of Christ, Himself." He was in no way influenced by the apostate Jewish economy of His day.

I’ve made it a point for about a year now, while doing research, to find the un-Pauline verses. For a fact I know what Paul says, in both the spiritual sense and how that translates to the physical sense from a life-time of study into those things. Because Paul is an object of worship to many, it makes more sense to take what he has offered and find the other witness from an un-Pauline source to form an understanding that is not based on letter law vs spirit law. Or, barring that, to differentiate between the different forms of interpretation and stick to one or the other.

I agree. I think the understanding of multiple interpretations methods is not lost on SDA’s. The interpretation methods used in Paul’s writings generally reflect onto lifestyles too, but particularly in the contradictions of their lives when living on the edge of both simultaneously.

 

[D.A. Wright]

I think the understanding of multiple interpretations methods is not lost on SDA’s.

Decidedly not.

The interpretation methods used in Paul’s writings generally reflect onto lifestyles too, but particularly in the contradictions of their lives when living on the edge of both simultaneously.

He had some very sophiticated heresies to deal with and often had to speak their language and fight fire with fire, so to speak.

 

[~Zao~]

Decidedly not.

I was referring to the methods used to further revelations from the writings of Daniel where times are used in double applications. But if you prefer not to go there, fine. But it remains true of Pauline adherents. If you interpret by law, then continue in the self-acclaimed position of God to the church in all your dealings, but remain aware of what that statement is saying. If the interpretation is by spiritual application in the rightful position of the church to God, then be aware of that position. Straddling the fence is not an option.

 

[D.A. Wright]

.

I was referring to the methods used to further revelations from the writings of Daniel where times are used in double applications. But if you prefer not to go there, fine. But it remains true of Pauline adherents. If you interpret by law, then continue in the self-acclaimed position of God to the church in all your dealings, but remain aware of what that statement is saying. If the interpretation is by spiritual application in the rightful position of the church to God, then be aware of that position. Straddling the fence is not an option.

You lost me