Watching "Un-christian Porn" - protect your heart

[PeterJens]

I think that may be a little strong,but I can not get a handle on their error.

Osas seems to be a requirement for them,but if challenged they meld it into hyperbolic criticism of offense that anyone would dare question their "foundation".

It seems like a 3 tiered modern day deception."(I will have to look into it further)

1osas
2 extend grace,leave out the "dying" of Paul,over react to a perceived negative,and march their doctrine down everyone's throat.
3 a question birthed out of the first 2. Did universalism use this for a foundation?

I do think this is strong. The trouble is when I am opposed time and again over simple christian principles and obvious heretics are held up as men of God, I have to accept this is plain deception.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck it is a duck.

The problem is praise and tongues. The songs appear the same and some of the language but the actual doctrines, the words that come out of them and their deeds are not.

Now I did not choose this battle, I just shared what was on my heart. It is obviously a different spirit to the ones expressed by others, so I have to draw simple conclusions. We talk of spiritual kingdoms and authorities, that the Holy Spirit witnesses to our hearts as a seal of His covenant with us. At what point do you say enough is enough. I have done that in myself, and come to definitive conclusions.

I encourage you to look further and ask the Lord. That is all.

 

[coby]

..........

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

View attachment 143746
..........

Or one of these...

 

[popeye]

Need to see a statement of faith.

Also would like them to explain why universalism is error.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

I do think this is strong. The trouble is when I am opposed time and again over simple christian principles and obvious heretics are held up as men of God, I have to accept this is plain deception.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck it is a duck.

The problem is praise and tongues. The songs appear the same and some of the language but the actual doctrines, the words that come out of them and their deeds are not.

Now I did not choose this battle, I just shared what was on my heart. It is obviously a different spirit to the ones expressed by others, so I have to draw simple conclusions. We talk of spiritual kingdoms and authorities, that the Holy Spirit witnesses to our hearts as a seal of His covenant with us. At what point do you say enough is enough. I have done that in myself, and come to definitive conclusions.

I encourage you to look further and ask the Lord. That is all.

Interesting... " The problem is when I AM opposed..."
This you have surely spoken the truth about, as is plain to see.

 

[Goodnewsman]

I did read Romans 5&6. I have no preconceived judgments on you. I didn't know what you was trying to say, you wasn't all that plain (only, Romans 5 & 6 answers my question).

btw that's why I said "IF" You read that in your bible, throw it away

"IF" means "could or could not happen"

Hey Goodnewsman, you sure did read a whole lot in my post that doesn't exist. You want to try again? You asked a question and Scripture answers your question quite well, yet you responded by suggesting I throw the Bible on the floor. Your response exposes your preconceived judgments upon me and others because nowhere did I defend watching pornography. Try reading the Scripture rather than incorrectly reading into my posts.

 

[Goodnewsman]

LOL. never heard that. I love it

Or one of these...

View attachment 143747

 

[Gr8grace]

I did read Romans 5&6. I have no preconceived judgments on you. I didn't know what you was trying to say, you wasn't all that plain (only, Romans 5 & 6 answers my question).

btw that's why I said "IF" You read that in your bible, throw it away

"IF" means "could or could not happen"

"IF" is not held to just those options. There are conditional clauses that are first class conditions in His word.

It means........."if" and it IS.

Man, that grass is tall, If it is that tall it should be mowed. If...and it is that tall.

 

[Grace777x70]

..........


[video=youtube;KP6LBYoqBl0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP6LBYoqBl0[/video]

"IF" is not held to just those options. There are conditional clauses that are first class conditions in His word.

It means........."if" and it IS.

Man, that grass is tall, If it is that tall it should be mowed. If...and it is that tall.

 

[PeterJens]

Interesting... " The problem is when I AM opposed..."
This you have surely spoken the truth about, as is plain to see.

Stunnedbygrace Your meaning is not clear. Are you suggesting God is opposing me?
If that is your meaning, you are compounding the insanity. Faith is founded on some simple principles.

By making me your enemy, you are making the work in my life by Christ your enemy.
If you cannot discern between good deeds, good people and evil you have just left the Lord behind.

Let me take one example. The good samaritan. It is obvious he is doing a good deed irrespective of his faith.
The point Jesus was making is though the jews followed God they did not show love, but their enemy did.

Now in the hyper-grace world this was still an evil deed and so Jesus's example fails. But then you are calling Jesus a liar, and thereby making him into a sinner. But that destroys the gospel and truth.

So the core of this problem is hyper-grace theology and its failure to correctly identify good and evil.

 

[royalscot]

saved by self . or what, i can quote from the bible. blow air into them dead bones. etc

 

[royalscot]

the problem was never yours. how can all be saved. promise to pay the bearer .(man made) work will bring , you will not hunger. yet said this is my land. blow air into them dead bones.
then put all your children under, the yoke.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

If love is the answer....what is the question?

The question then would be,how?

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Stunnedbygrace Your meaning is not clear. Are you suggesting God is opposing me?
If that is your meaning, you are compounding the insanity. Faith is founded on some simple principles.

By making me your enemy, you are making the work in my life by Christ your enemy.
If you cannot discern between good deeds, good people and evil you have just left the Lord behind.

Let me take one example. The good samaritan. It is obvious he is doing a good deed irrespective of his faith.
The point Jesus was making is though the jews followed God they did not show love, but their enemy did.

Now in the hyper-grace world this was still an evil deed and so Jesus's example fails. But then you are calling Jesus a liar, and thereby making him into a sinner. But that destroys the gospel and truth.

So the core of this problem is hyper-grace theology and its failure to correctly identify good and evil.

What I was referring to was your post, which you began by saying: the problem in here starts "when I am opposed..." I agreed with you that the problems begin when anyone is opposing you or what you say.

I have not made you my enemy. I love you and have wept tears for you.

I can discern fruit. Patience, meekness, longsuffering, a refusal to defend oneself, humility, joy, walking away when reviled and castigated, blessing those who curse you rather than cursing back, not condemning others because you know you are guilty of worse, etc.

I have not met a single person in here, either those you attack, or you and the ones who approve of you and hold your coat while you do your work, who would say someone stopping to help a man in need is evil.

Their entire point is that sanctification comes through faith, and that working to be good will never get you there. Men who refuse to give up their life get angry at the message that they must in order to follow Jesus. They seek a way to keep their life and honor and respect and arrogance while still claiming they are clothed in Christ and abiding in Him. We've all been there.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

The strangest thing just struck me. When a man is arrogant, he can't see it and when a man is humble he can't see it. Only others can see these things ...

 

[phil112]

The strangest thing just struck me. When a man is arrogant, he can't see it and when a man is humble he can't see it. Only others can see these things ...

I don't believe that is necessarily true. When I am arrogant it is intentional. I'm not that way all the time, and doing it purposely I know when the change happens.
And when I'm humble, I make it a point to make sure everyone knows, so obviously I'm aware of that too.

 

[PeterJens]

What I was referring to was your post, which you began by saying: the problem in here starts "when I am opposed..." I agreed with you that the problems begin when anyone is opposing you or what you say.

I have not made you my enemy. I love you and have wept tears for you.

I can discern fruit. Patience, meekness, longsuffering, a refusal to defend oneself, humility, joy, walking away when reviled and castigated, blessing those who curse you rather than cursing back, not condemning others because you know you are guilty of worse, etc.

I have not met a single person in here, either those you attack, or you and the ones who approve of you and hold your coat while you do your work, who would say someone stopping to help a man in need is evil.

Their entire point is that sanctification comes through faith, and that working to be good will never get you there. Men who refuse to give up their life get angry at the message that they must in order to follow Jesus. They seek a way to keep their life and honor and respect and arrogance while still claiming they are clothed in Christ and abiding in Him. We've all been there.

The problem is this simple.

A discussion arose that went down this road. God has forgiven all sin through the cross of sinner and saint.
All that is left to be judged is good deeds. Good deeds done in Christ good, good deeds done in other, evil.

Now I did not propose this, they did. grace8 + ben + grace7x77

Now I put forward that good deeds were good deeds by themselves, no matter who did them.
They said no, they were evil.

In the end I realised this theology was actually universalism, the ultimate extension of God saves without the intervention of man.

Now they got carried away, maybe in their argument. At the end, though they never admitted it, they stopped this idea of people go to hell because of good deeds done outside Christ.

Now you might not take my word for it, but that is the discussion. As a christian of long standing with many years talking theology this is not a good place to go. What I found odd was why they pushed it this far.

There are obviously a lot of people not very wired up. So unfortunately you are wrong, this is exactly at one point they were saying, the good samaritan was evil. But that was my point, it was nuts.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Please direct me to the thread Peter Jens.

 

[PeterJens]

Their entire point is that sanctification comes through faith, and that working to be good will never get you there. Men who refuse to give up their life get angry at the message that they must in order to follow Jesus. They seek a way to keep their life and honor and respect and arrogance while still claiming they are clothed in Christ and abiding in Him. We've all been there.

This is not true. There belief is as grace7x77 put it a pure new spirit is given to the believer when born again and the flesh is the old man who sins. It is never this new spirit.
This creates a split personality, where the person is not sinning, it is there flesh.
The spiritual walk is then realising this new spirit and walking in its perfection, or sinlessness.
They called this walking in the Spirit and the flesh or old man as carnal.

The accusation was, if I said walking in righteousness mattered, and love, and being aware of sin, and actively repenting when one sinned, this was all self justification and works salvation.

Now our response from the beginning is we are saved by faith alone, but walking in righteousness in obedience as a fruit of the Spirit, and Gods word in our hearts.

Time and again this was called self righteousness, which is just stupid. Paul walked in righteousness and purity, so did the apostles. It was proof of their communion with God, the very fruit of the work God has done in them.

It has really come down to doctrines of original sin, and absolute inability of man to walk in righteousness.
I do not believe this. I believe in communion with God we can walk righteously and this is what the early church preached up to the time of Augustine.

I also believe in the sanctification of the soul through obedience and following Christ, though saved you are transformed in walking. If you stop walking and leave the faith you leave the Kingdom.

For some these two statements meant I must be an unbeliever and so must repent. Odd that repenting of a religious idea and not of sin. But there you go, it is a strange world.

 

[Gr8grace]

The problem is this simple.

A discussion arose that went down this road. God has forgiven all sin through the cross of sinner and saint.
All that is left to be judged is good deeds. Good deeds done in Christ good, good deeds done in other, evil.

Now I did not propose this, they did. grace8 + ben + grace7x77

Now I put forward that good deeds were good deeds by themselves, no matter who did them.
They said no, they were evil.

In the end I realised this theology was actually universalism, the ultimate extension of God saves without the intervention of man.

Now they got carried away, maybe in their argument. At the end, though they never admitted it, they stopped this idea of people go to hell because of good deeds done outside Christ.

Now you might not take my word for it, but that is the discussion. As a christian of long standing with many years talking theology this is not a good place to go. What I found odd was why they pushed it this far.

There are obviously a lot of people not very wired up. So unfortunately you are wrong, this is exactly at one point they were saying, the good samaritan was evil. But that was my point, it was nuts.

I haven't seen Ben or Grace 777 say that. It was me.

Universalism is for the birds. Good luck with that one. Hell didn't need to be expanded because everyone is saved.

One question. Did Christ pay for the sins of the whole world? Yes or no.

If yes, then people will not be judged for their sins.

If no, then we deny a whole slew of scripture.

New American Standard Bible
and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

In the end, unbelievers are judged according to their OWN righteousness. They didn't have the PERFECT righteousness of Christ.


Deal with this verse Peter, please.

New American Standard Bible
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.

Not sins. Deeds....works.