Attn: godrulz, AMR and Sozo!

[Lighthouse]

To honor Newman's request, I am starting this thread to not distract from his thread.

Please hook me up to a lie detector. I am tired of being called a liar just because I do not agree with people's views. I honestly believe what I do, even if it proves to be wrong in the end. Ignorance, not lying.

You're lying about what people believe.

There is provision for all sin to be forgiven. Does this mean that Saddam and Hitler were forgiven?

:bang:

Careful. I have never taught that provision has to be made as we commit sin (sozo twists this about me). The provision is once-for-all, not repeated like animal sacrifices (based on Hebrews, which you excise from your Bible for the Church).

So a sin is forgiven as soon as you commit it?

Open Theism is relevant, since future sins do not exist and may never exist. You do not forgive something that is not there. If I would have died as an infant, my godless rebellion as a teenager would not be forgiven in the first century, right?

:sozo:What is your dysfunction?!

Christ did not die to forgive specific sins! He dies to forgive sin, as a whole!:maxi:

Don't confuse objective provision with subjective appropriation before (Jn. 3:16)and after conversion (I Jn. 1:9).

You're a blithering idiot!

The dude is always misunderstanding and misrepresenting me.

Hypocrite!

A JW or Mormon does not like to be considered non-Christian, but they are.

So are you.

He may not like hearing that he believed a form of sinless perfectionism or antinomianism (we do not always see our errors or would not believe them), but this is my opinion and I have given reasons why from his own words.

There you go again! Lying about what he believes/d! He never once believed that it was possible to stop sinning!

He twists my words.

Again, hypocrite!

Be specific. If I have misrepresented him or lied, I want to be the first to know so I can make it right. Unlike him and his personal attacks, I value honesty and integrity.

Liar!

I may misjudge something, but if I believe it to be accurate, it is ignorance, not lying.

Then you're the most ignorant person I have ever come across.

 

[godrulz]

Knight took sozo to task on a thread about sinless perfectionism. They had polarized views, but now there is hint that sozo has shifted to Knight's view on the subject (after I had to endure gross mocking of my faith or lack of it because I would not agree to a view that sozo may not even believe anymore?!). Talk about Orwellian!

It still reminds me of sozo arguing about a Greek word he was dead wrong about. Everyone else is the idiot, despite him being blatantly wrong.:dunce:

I hope this thread dies a quick, painful death. The topic was valid to discuss elsewhere, maturely, without personal attack.

My response to a PM (quick, not perfect...my posts are not infallible, so quit dissecting them like they are:noid: ):

The cross and person and work of Christ is the objective provision (Godward). It is the grounds for salvation (reason by which we are saved).

Repentant faith and continuance in the faith is the subjective appropriation (Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16) of this work. These are the conditions (not without which) of salvation (manward).

Without conditions, universalism would be true (all would be unconditionally saved based on the cross even if they persisted in rebellion?!)

Likewise, the cross was provision for future sins of believers, but the forgiveness is not appropriated until one actually sins and is willing to forsake sin (I Jn. 1:9...if...then). This does not mean Jesus must die again, but that we must apply his work as necessary.

To say all sins are forgiven means one can persist in horrible sin and claim forgiveness as much as the guy who stops sinning in obedience to God's conviction. He is holy and will not be mocked and judges reality as it is.

Good news and grace is not a license to sin without consequences. I am also not saying that you fornicate and are immediately forgiven so you can keep fornicating and keep getting forgiven on and on...without any intention to cease sin to return to faith and obedience. If this was true, God would not convict and call us to repentance as He does from Genesis to Revelation (Heb. 12 discipline or Paul's rebuke of the Corinthians would not make sense if future sins are unconditionally forgiven despite not actually doing them or persisting in them...we are a short step away from universalism...grace is not a license to sin; I wonder how much OSAS fits in here; antinomianism is as wrong as sinless perfectionism).

 

[CabinetMaker]

...


So a sin is forgiven as soon as you commit it?

...

There is no sin apart from the law. Now, did Jesus complete the law or are we still under the law?

By the way, classic rebuke. Delivered with all the love and respect we could ever hope to find in a follower of Christ. Well done. It really helped Godrulz to understand why he is wrong....

 

[Lighthouse]

Knight took sozo to task on a thread about sinless perfectionism. They had polarized views, but now there is hint that sozo has shifted to Knight's view on the subject (after I had to endure gross mocking of my faith or lack of it because I would not agree to a view that sozo may not even believe anymore?!). Talk about Orwellian!

It still reminds me of sozo arguing about a Greek word he was dead wrong about. Everyone else is the idiot, despite him being blatantly wrong.:dunce:

I hope this thread dies a quick, painful death. The topic was valid to discuss elsewhere, maturely, without personal attack.

My response to a PM (quick, not perfect...my posts are not infallible, so quit dissecting them like they are:noid: ):

The cross and person and work of Christ is the objective provision (Godward). It is the grounds for salvation (reason by which we are saved).

Repentant faith and continuance in the faith is the subjective appropriation (Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16) of this work. These are the conditions (not without which) of salvation (manward).

Without conditions, universalism would be true (all would be unconditionally saved based on the cross even if they persisted in rebellion?!)

Likewise, the cross was provision for future sins of believers, but the forgiveness is not appropriated until one actually sins and is willing to forsake sin (I Jn. 1:9...if...then). This does not mean Jesus must die again, but that we must apply his work as necessary.

To say all sins are forgiven means one can persist in horrible sin and claim forgiveness as much as the guy who stops sinning in obedience to God's conviction. He is holy and will not be mocked and judges reality as it is.

Good news and grace is not a license to sin without consequences. I am also not saying that you fornicate and are immediately forgiven so you can keep fornicating and keep getting forgiven on and on...without any intention to cease sin to return to faith and obedience. If this was true, God would not convict and call us to repentance as He does from Genesis to Revelation (Heb. 12 discipline or Paul's rebuke of the Corinthians would not make sense if future sins are unconditionally forgiven despite not actually doing them or persisting in them...we are a short step away from universalism...grace is not a license to sin; I wonder how much OSAS fits in here; antinomianism is as wrong as sinless perfectionism).

You're dead wrong about what Sozo believed. Period.

And, again, Christ did not die for individual sins. He died for sin. It's the only thing He could do, since He did not know what specific sins would be committed.

There is no sin apart from the law. Now, did Jesus complete the law or are we still under the law?

I know that. godrulz does not.

By the way, classic rebuke. Delivered with all the love and respect we could ever hope to find in a follower of Christ. Well done. It really helped Godrulz to understand why he is wrong....

Nothing has ever helped godrulz to understand that he's wrong.

 

[godrulz]

Have you forgot about the thread where Knight said Christians can sin, as do I, whereas sozo argued until blue in the face, despite verses and definitions, that Christians cannot sin because they are perfect in Christ, not in the flesh? Finally he started realizing Knight's verses did show that believers can sin. After being away on banning Sabbaticals, he comes back and hints at a change in thinking or distances himself from past dogmatism and argumentation on the issue.

AMR could probably document all this from his archives here, here, and here...

You also tend to agree with sozo as his right hand man, so don't play innocent either.

Before the Law was given to Moses, was Cain's act of murder a sin? Lucifer and Adam's rebellion? (hint: there is a moral law based on God's character that is eternal, not written on stone tablets).

 

[Mr. 5020]

Have you forgot about the thread where Knight said Christians can sin, as do I, whereas sozo argued until blue in the face, despite verses and definitions, that Christians cannot sin because they are perfect in Christ, not in the flesh? Finally he started realizing Knight's verses did show that believers can sin. After being away on banning Sabbaticals, he comes back and hints at a change in thinking or distances himself from past dogmatism and argumentation on the issue.

AMR could probably document all this from his archives here, here, and here...

You also tend to agree with sozo as his right hand man, so don't play innocent either.

Before the Law was given to Moses, was Cain's act of murder a sin? Lucifer and Adam's rebellion? (hint: there is a moral law based on God's character that is eternal, not written on stone tablets).

You're wasting your time.

Nothing has ever helped Lighthouse understand that he is wrong.

 

[godrulz]

You're wasting your time.

Nothing has ever helped Lighthouse understand that he is wrong.

I must sound like a know-it-all condescending jerk at times, but LH and STP seem immature at times and should not dogmatically presume to be right about fringe views.

 

[Mr. 5020]

I must sound like a know-it-all condescending jerk at times, but LH and STP seem immature at times and should not dogmatically presume to be right about fringe views.

Isn't that what fringe beliefs are all about? :idunno:

 

[Sozo]

Knight took sozo to task on a thread about sinless perfectionism.

That is a bold face lie, you pig!

Knight and I NEVER EVER discussed or debated
"sinless perfection". Both Knight and I completely agree that sinless perfection is heretical anti-Christ doctrine, and have from the very beginning.

YOU are the ONLY person on this site who believes and teaches sinless perfection. YOU have from the very beginning.

I am sick and tired of the dung you get away with on this site.

It still reminds me of sozo arguing about a Greek word he was dead wrong about.

Never happened. More of your slander and lies. It was in fact YOU who was wrong about that word, and still are.

I hope this thread dies a quick, painful death.

I hope you do. No person I have ever encountered or read about hates Jesus more than you.

 

[Lighthouse]

Have you forgot about the thread where Knight said Christians can sin, as do I, whereas sozo argued until blue in the face, despite verses and definitions, that Christians cannot sin because they are perfect in Christ, not in the flesh? Finally he started realizing Knight's verses did show that believers can sin. After being away on banning Sabbaticals, he comes back and hints at a change in thinking or distances himself from past dogmatism and argumentation on the issue.

AMR could probably document all this from his archives here, here, and here...

You also tend to agree with sozo as his right hand man, so don't play innocent either.

Before the Law was given to Moses, was Cain's act of murder a sin? Lucifer and Adam's rebellion? (hint: there is a moral law based on God's character that is eternal, not written on stone tablets).

Christians do not sin in the Spirit. I am a Christian in the Spirit, but not in the flesh. I sin in the flesh. That's what Sozo says, and that's what he's always said. And I agree.

Though, I have been wrong, and believed a bit differently on the subject at one time. Before that I believed I had to ask for forgiveness every time I sinned, or my salvation was forfeit.

Now, what were you saying, fiddy?

 

[Lighthouse]

I hope this thread dies a quick, painful death.

I hope you do.

Seriously, stop. Right now.

If you hope he dies to himself, and actually finds God one day, that's fine. But that isn't what this is. You're crossing the line, and you need to stop. It's not helping anybody, and it's only hurting you.

 

[Mr. 5020]

Now, what were you saying, fiddy?

That you are the most immature poster on TOL.

 

[Sozo]

Seriously, stop. Right now.

If you hope he dies to himself, and actually finds God one day, that's fine. But that isn't what this is. You're crossing the line, and you need to stop. It's not helping anybody, and it's only hurting you.

I see no difference in what William does then what Ananias and Sapphira did. He knows he is wrong, and he does not care. Peter had no problem with the fate of either one, and neither do I.

William blasphemes the Holy Spirit publicaly. His heart belongs to Satan, and to Satan he will go by his own choice.

 

[Lighthouse]

I see no difference in what William does then what Ananias and Sapphira did. He knows he is wrong, and he does not care. Peter had no problem with the fate of either one, and neither do I.

William blasphemes the Holy Spirit publicaly. His heart belongs to Satan, and to Satan he will go by his own choice.

I agree. But Peter didn't wish them dead, either.

 

[Sozo]

I agree. But Peter didn't wish them dead, either.

Would you rather I go with Paul's wish that people like William sever their privates and suffer eternal damnation?

 

[godrulz]

RULZ: OK, I got the arrow...never heard of it before...does not make me stupid unless I claim to be omniscient as a god...

"Just because you do not recognize that your view was technically a perfectionist permutation does not mean it is not so (cf. you still insist I deny justification by grace through faith despite my clear reiteration of what you and I both believe; you confuse sanctification issues because I do not buy into Bob George theories)."

So, like Satan, you quoted me out of context to be ignorant or funny. A causal reader would be misled to believe I actually teach that. If motive was a joke, good one. If you are serious, then recant and apologize.

Like the JWs, leaving off the full quote of scholars makes them say the opposite of what the scholar said.

You are joking to get my goat, right?

If not, then read the full sentence in context. I am saying that you are saying x, but I mean y.

Either way, you lose this one.

 

[godrulz]

I see no difference in what William does then what Ananias and Sapphira did. He knows he is wrong, and he does not care. Peter had no problem with the fate of either one, and neither do I.

William blasphemes the Holy Spirit publicaly. His heart belongs to Satan, and to Satan he will go by his own choice.

Unbelievable lack of integrity, discernment, and credibility.:shocked:

 

[Sozo]

I think it was a one-on-one where you and Knight took opposite positions on whether a Christian can sin or not.

So? That has nothing to do with sinless perfection. You teach sinless perfection. You are so ignorant, that you have no idea what it even is, but you support it anyway.

He defined sin and gave verses showing believers can sin.

He is still wrong about that.

You eventually shrugged your shoulders after having argued against Knight's view (which is mine).

I decided to stop arguing with him, and to just make the statement that even if Christians can sin, God no longer counts their sin against them. Knight and you are polar opposites on this issue, so you can pull your nose out of his butt, and your head out of yours.

 

[godrulz]

Would you rather I go with Paul's wish that people like William sever their privates and suffer eternal damnation?

I love and worship Jesus as Lord and Savior. You are nitpicking about things you only grasp at a shallow level.

To call someone demon possessed over things like OSAS is beyond absurd (unless you are a closet hyper-pseudo-Calvinist cult member).

Die fledermaus (German for bat, a flying/flutter 'mouse')...you are a ding fledermaus.

 

[Sozo]

I deny justification by grace through faith

Yes, I know.