Who is the One New Man Created on the Cross?

[Wingnut]

After you have explained Ezek 37 I will happily give you more proof if you will tell me what happens to the people of Sodom in the resurrection.

[Samie]

5 hours ago, Wingnut said:

Better still, you explain to me verse by verse, especially the ones I highlighted in blue from Ezek 37.  If you take them literally, as I do, then the dead are being resurrected to hear the word of the Lord.  If not, explain how you read them.

You make me smile. You raised the issue and you want me to explain why I don't believe you? Are we in Mars? The onus is on you, my brother. And since you can't explain, let's get back to topic.

[Samie]

Or you can start your own thread regarding the issue you want addressed.  I think that's fair enough.

[Samie]

It had been my position that people start out in this life with a default setting of "saved" condition and that everyone's name is written in the BOL. This position, for me, far better portrays our Father in heaven compared with the portrayal of the default setting of "unsaved" or "lost" condition that Pnatt and Wingnut teaches and is the same position taken by most Christian preachers.

As I have earlier posted, the portrayal is best seen in the analogy of TWO (2) fathers. 

One father, seeing his children drowning, puts out a raft and tells his children to go to the raft for safety.  Those who refuse to go, along with those who did not hear his instructions, are left to drown while the father pitifully looks at them drowning.

My position portrays God as a father who placed all His children aboard the raft in safety. Those who decide to leave the raft may do so at their own risk.

Even to a non-Christian, of the two portrayals, my position describes a better father.  Wingnut will not just sit back watching one of his children drown. Nor will Pnatt. They will do everything to save their drowning child.  Will not our Father in heaven do better?

[Samie]

They complain that faith is needed for anyone to be saved citing tons of Scriptures.  I simply respond that those tons of Scriptures are admonitions by our Father in heaven for us to remain in the "saved condition", to stay in the raft. They are admonitions for his children to overcome evil with good. The call to believe in Christ is a call to overcome the evil of unbelief in Christ.

They say that unless we go to the raft (believe in Christ), we drown. They seem to forget that the Bible depicts that people left on their own cannot do anything. Apart from Me, you can do NOTHING, says Christ our Life-raft. And if we are not yet aboard the raft we can do NOTHING. So how can people swim to the raft when they can do NOTHING?

The Father sent the raft to them, and placed them aboard the raft. Now that they are aboard the raft, they are admonished to stay for their own safety, or decide to leave at their own risk. Overcome evil with good and remain in the "saved condition" (remain written in the BOL), or be overcome of evil and get blotted out.

[Samie]

Another situation that the believe-in-Christ-first-to-be-saved position is unable to adequately address are those who have not actually and personally heard of Christ. So how can they believe in him whom they have not heard, Scriptures ask. They can't. So others come up with the idea that they have believed in Christ, they just did not know that they already did.  Believed in Christ and yet they did not know they believed in Him? Pnatt is one of the advocates of this proposition.

Others come up with the idea that all those who have not heard about Christ have to be given the chance to hear about Him so they too can decide. And this will occur, as Wingnut preaches, in the 8M.  Yet Wingnut cannot prove from Scriptures his 2nd group.

Others, like the Calvinists, had to come up with the proposition that those who believe are only those among the elect.  The others can't believe because they were not among the chosen ones.  And there's just no way these chosen ones can be lost. But the Bible tells of blotting out from the BOL.

I guess the proposition I am offering solves the problem.

[Samie]

We are one BIG family in the Family of God aboard the Life-raft.  There are adults, yet to become adults, the toddlers, the infants. And being a good Father, He instructs everyone and gives everyone his own responsibility in His Family.  But there are infants in His Family, too. Will he give these infants the same responsibility he gave to his already grown-up ones? These infants even don't know His name nor that of the Life-raft. We all are to grow up in Christ.

All are taken cared of by the good Father, yet others are prodigals; they don't overcome evil with good. Many of us. But do they cease to become His children? They still are, until expelled from membership by blotting out their names from the Book of Life. And we are assured that overcomers will not be blotted out from it.

[Wingnut]

2 hours ago, Samie said:

It had been my position that people start out in this life with a default setting of "saved" condition and that everyone's name is written in the BOL. This position, for me, far better portrays our Father in heaven compared with the portrayal of the default setting of "unsaved" or "lost" condition that Pnatt and Wingnut teaches and is the same position taken by most Christian preachers.

Like Job's friends and all who would "justify" God, including Ellen on p 563/638 of DA, you get it wrong, and make God as annoyed as He was with Job's friends.  The sermon in our church this morning was what do we think of God when bad happens?  Our visiting sermon giver said God can only ALLOW evil, He cannot create evil.  It's not his character.  Liar, liar, pants on fire.  God was as irritated with him as I was.

Quote

As I have earlier posted, the portrayal is best seen in the analogy of TWO (2) fathers. 

One father, seeing his children drowning, puts out a raft and tells his children to go to the raft for safety.  Those who refuse to go, along with those who did not hear his instructions, are left to drown while the father pitifully looks at them drowning.

My position portrays God as a father who placed all His children aboard the raft in safety. Those who decide to leave the raft may do so at their own risk.

And we dealt with this by saying the Bible uses many analogies and none of them is a life-raft.  Stick to Bible analogies not ones you make up.

Quote

Even to a non-Christian, of the two portrayals, my position describes a better father.  Wingnut will not just sit back watching one of his children drown. Nor will Pnatt. They will do everything to save their drowning child.  Will not our Father in heaven do better?

You remind me of a good friend of mine who argued like you.  To quote him, "God is as good as the best I can imagine".  That was friend J's problem, his was a God he invented.  

His arguing style is so like yours it feels like deja vue.  J also believed nothing existed, everything was in God's mind.  His favourite movie was "The matrix".  And He used scripture like maths.  If God knows everything, and the future is part of everything, then God knows the future.  Everything is vanity (like a cloud) proves nothing exists.  And he knew his Bible better than anyone I had met before.

[Wingnut]

2 hours ago, Samie said:

They complain that faith is needed for anyone to be saved citing tons of Scriptures.  I simply respond that those tons of Scriptures are admonitions by our Father in heaven for us to remain in the "saved condition", to stay in the raft. They are admonitions for his children to overcome evil with good. The call to believe in Christ is a call to overcome the evil of unbelief in Christ.

NOTHING in the Bible encourages us to stay in our original unsaved condition.  EVERYTHING in the Bible is about man being carnal, in darkness, needing to be born again, repent.  There is lots about two groups SAVED and UNSAVED.  You start with all saved and then classify them as "overcomers" or "non-overcomers" - a fiction in your own mind, your own wishful thinking, not a Biblical classification.

Why do you do this?  To justify God.

Read Ezek 37 THAT JUSTIFIES GOD 1000 times better.  That is how God saves all who have never heard of Him.

But no!  You head straight back to how you want God to operate NOT HOW HE SAYS HE OPERATES.

If folks refuse to look at a clear chapter, then I am near to finished.  If you will not believe the Bible, (and few chapters are clearer than Ezek 37), why should you believe me?  And I could have given you more proofs as to how God saves others like Sodom, but you don't want these.

2 hours ago, Samie said:

They say that unless we go to the raft (believe in Christ), we drown. They seem to forget that the Bible depicts that people left on their own cannot do anything. Apart from Me, you can do NOTHING, says Christ our Life-raft. And if we are not yet aboard the raft we can do NOTHING. So how can people swim to the raft when they can do NOTHING?

When the Bible uses "all" or "nothing" it uses these words like we do in everyday language, not like maths where all = infinity and nothing = 0.

If I say to a friend who kept me waiting, you are ALWAYS late, that does not mean always but most times.  Likewise NEVER on time.

2 hours ago, Samie said:

The Father sent the raft to them, and placed them aboard the raft. Now that they are aboard the raft, they are admonished to stay for their own safety, or decide to leave at their own risk. Overcome evil with good and remain in the "saved condition" (remain written in the BOL), or be overcome of evil and get blotted out.

You have never proved that everyones name is written in the BOL from the beginning.  This presupposes the future is written in stone, unchangeable for God to know who ever would be born.  This in itself is a total fiction.  Cannot happen.   Did not happen.  Part of believing God knows "all things" and the future is part of "all things" therefore God knows the future.  Rubbish.  God knows all things that can be known.  

[Wingnut]

2 hours ago, Samie said:

We are one BIG family in the Family of God aboard the Life-raft.  There are adults, yet to become adults, the toddlers, the infants. And being a good Father, He instructs everyone and gives everyone his own responsibility in His Family.  But there are infants in His Family, too. Will he give these infants the same responsibility he gave to his already grown-up ones? These infants even don't know His name nor that of the Life-raft. We all are to grow up in Christ.

I am not going to give YOUR analogy any more time.  Nor your classification into "overcomer" or "non-overcomers".

2 hours ago, Samie said:

All are taken cared of by the good Father, yet others are prodigals; they don't overcome evil with good. Many of us. But do they cease to become His children? They still are, until expelled from membership by blotting out their names from the Book of Life. And we are assured that overcomers will not be blotted out from it.

Were the folks of Sodom overcomers?  But wait, I refuse to argue using your invented classification.

[Wingnut]

2 hours ago, Samie said:

Another situation that the believe-in-Christ-first-to-be-saved position is unable to adequately address are those who have not actually and personally heard of Christ. So how can they believe in him whom they have not heard, Scriptures ask. They can't. So others come up with the idea that they have believed in Christ, they just did not know that they already did.  Believed in Christ and yet they did not know they believed in Him? Pnatt is one of the advocates of this proposition.

Others come up with the idea that all those who have not heard about Christ have to be given the chance to hear about Him so they too can decide. And this will occur, as Wingnut preaches, in the 8M.  Yet Wingnut cannot prove from Scriptures his 2nd group.

Read Ezek 37.  They did not know the word of the Lord when they died.  They were raised to hear it.  Problem solved if you will read.

Quote

Others, like the Calvinists, had to come up with the proposition that those who believe are only those among the elect. 

Then Jesus was a Calvanist.

Quote

 

The others can't believe because they were not among the chosen ones.  And there's just no way these chosen ones can be lost. But the Bible tells of blotting out from the BOL.

Here is a Biblical classification. Revelation 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

CALLED - so we start UNCALLED

CHOSEN - those responding to the call are CHOSEN - the rest of the world is unchosen.

FAITHFUL - how we die, FAITHFUL or not, is how we will be judged, as called and chosen ones.  

 

Quote

I guess the proposition I am offering solves the problem.

It solves the problem as well as any fiction novel solves the problem it created.

But if we are in the fiction section then magic pixie dust being sneezed onto the world by Great Zeus would solve the problem just as well. 

[Wingnut]

Does God create evil?

Who created ticks, bacteria, viruses, thorns, poisonous plants and animals if it was not God?

Who has the 'nads to argue that God only created butterflies and bambie? 

 

[Wingnut]

God created everyone to decide whether they would choose Him or not.

Before they decide "yes" they are unsaved.

God calls them, or draws them to Him, some in this lifetime, some in the resurrection (8M).  All will hear the word of the Lord at some time.

All will some time or the other hear the word of the Lord and make a decision.  Until then they are lost.  Jesus came to save the lost.

If they were in the life raft they would not need Jesus to save them.

After they decide "yes" their names are written in the BOL.

After they are written in the BOL they have to "overcome" and remain faithful, or their names are blotted out.

BUT GOD IS SOOOOO UNFAIR!!!!!!!  BIG BOO HOOO!!!!!!!

Since when is making a choice to accept God and eternal life unfair?

 

[pnattmbtc]

 

Quote

 

It had been my position that people start out in this life with a default setting of "saved" condition and that everyone's name is written in the BOL. This position, for me, far better portrays our Father in heaven compared with the portrayal of the default setting of "unsaved" or "lost" condition that Pnatt and Wingnut teaches and is the same position taken by most Christian preachers.

As I have earlier posted, the portrayal is best seen in the analogy of TWO (2) fathers. 

One father, seeing his children drowning, puts out a raft and tells his children to go to the raft for safety.  Those who refuse to go, along with those who did not hear his instructions, are left to drown while the father pitifully looks at them drowning.

My position portrays God as a father who placed all His children aboard the raft in safety. Those who decide to leave the raft may do so at their own risk.

Even to a non-Christian, of the two portrayals, my position describes a better father.  Wingnut will not just sit back watching one of his children drown. Nor will Pnatt. They will do everything to save their drowning child.  Will not our Father in heaven do better?

 

First of all, regarding my position.  Both you and I have been impacted by Waggoner and Jones.  I can explain my case, which I'll do briefly, but I don't know how you came about this, but the original idea came from Jones and Waggoner.  The development went like this:

1.Jones and Waggoner preached on justification by faith, and had the insight that the Arminian position, that the gift of eternal life is something God offers us, wasn't the whole story.  There's sort of a middle ground which falls between Calvinism and Arniminism, which is what the life raft analogy is getting at.  Waggoner, for example, emphasized the fact that the gift was not merely offered, but has been given to each one.

2.Others picked up on what Jones and Waggoner were presenting, not the least of which was Ellen White, who has such statements as DA 660, that even our physical life we owe to the death of Christ, the point being that there are areas where the death of Christ is effective for every human being.

3.Robert Wieland revived instead in Jones and Waggoner, and put his own spin on their message.  He had some great ideas, such as faith being a heart appreciation of the love of God revealed at the cross.  Wieland spoke of a legal or corporate justification effect for all, meaning that the sins of all have been legally forgiven, and no one will be lost because their sins were not legally forgiven.  Justification by faith, per Wieland, occurs when the believer believes the good news, and this justification has an impact in his heart and mind, reconciling him in fact to God, not just legally.  No one (not speaking of infants or mentally challgened, etc.) can be eternally saved without being justified by faith. which again reconciles the believer not just legally, but in fact, to God.

4.Sequeira was baptized by Wieland, and put his own spin on what Wieland taught.  There are many similarities, but some differences, particularly in emphasis.  For example, Wieland was most concerned about justification by faith, whereas Sequeira spends more time on corporate or legal justification, as he views this as the heart of the Gospel.

Ok, with that as a background, my opinion is that Jones and Waggoner (and Ellen White) were the most accurate of this group, although there are things which I really like from Wieland especially, but also Sequeira.  I perceive my view to be the same as Jones and Waggoner's.

I perceive Samie's view to be something of a spin-off of Sequeira's view, but still off by himself (Samie, that is), as there seems to be no role whatsoever for justification by faith, and I've never seen this idea before, so hats off to Samie for inventing something totally new, as that's not easy to do.

Regarding the life raft analogy, a big flaw I see in the analogy is it does not address the reality of the actual problem, which is that we need to be converted. As Jesus Christ put it, "You must be born again".  I see this nowhere in Samie's explanations.  How is one born again?  Where does the cross fit into this?  Why must one be born again?  I don't see these issues addressed by Samie.

Another problem has to do with not understanding what faith is, and not understanding Romans 12:3.  Romans 12:3 says that one should not think of himself more highly than one ought but according to the measure of faith given to each one.  From this Samie infers that faith has been given to each one, and before one can believe, this faith must have already been given, and this happens by being attached to the body of Christ through the cross.  Some problems with this position:

1.Samie never explains what this means or how this happens.  Specifically, what does it mean to be "attached to the body of Christ by the cross".  Unless this can be explained using other words, it's just gibberish, and to date, Samie has been unable to explain what this phrase means.

2.Samie never explains the role of the cross here.  Why was the cross necessary in order to be attatched to the body of Christ?

3.The body of Christ in Paul's writings refers to believers.  For example, 1 Cor. 12 is very clear about this, and if one looks at any source whatsoever anywhere one can see that the "body of Christ" is universally understood by everyone everywhere regardless of denomination as consisting of believers i Christ.  Indeed, given the diversity of ideas among different denominations, it is difficult, maybe impossible, to find an area such as this where there is universal agreement as to what the body of Christ is (with the caveat that some groups restrict "believers" to being members of their denomination).  But until now, before Samie, nobody has suggested that the "body of Christ" means everyone.  It clearly didn't mean that to Paul in 1 Cor. 12, and nobody has ever understood Paul this way, at least I've never seen this, and I've studied Paul a fair amount, so again, hats off to Samie for finding something new under the sun, which isn't easy to do.  But if one if going to invent a totally new idea, there is a large onus of proof to establish this idea, and this has been absent.

4.Nowhere is the issue of character considered.  Samie emphasizes "overcoming evil with good", which is fine, and important, but how does one's character fit into the picture?  How is character developed?  Why is it important?  How does the cross and Christ fit into this?  The only thing I can recall Samie writing involving Christ and the cross in regards to this is that at the cross we were attached to the body of Christ, but my goodness, that pays short shrift to the importance of Christ and the cross in our lives, to the process of overcoming and developing character.  For example, the idea that we are transformed to the same image of Christ by beholding; this is a crucially important concept.  In short, Christ is missing.  We need more Christ!  Not just being attached to the body of Christ by the cross.

[Samie]

4 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

In short, Christ is missing.  We need more Christ!  Not just being attached to the body of Christ by the cross.

How can be Christ missing in my position when He is the Life-raft upon Whom the Father boarded everyone into? How can my position not tell of our CONSTANT need of Christ when it is He Whose Strength we rely upon to overcome evil with good every moment of our lives, being part of His Body?  Does the big arm of Arnold Scwharzenegger derive its strength from somebody else other than himself? How can Pnatt NOT realize these facts without being explicitly told when time and again I had pointed out that we were attached to the Body of Christ and therefore parts of His Body?

How can Pnatt NOT able to see the importance of Christ in my position, other than that he is just trying to discredit my position with his verbosity?

[pnattmbtc]

15 minutes ago, Samie said:

How can be Christ missing in my position when He is the Life-raft upon Whom the Father boarded everyone into? How can my position not tell of our CONSTANT need of Christ when it is He Whose Strength we rely upon to overcome evil with good every moment of our lives, being part of His Body?  Does the big arm of Arnold Scwharzenegger derive its strength from somebody else other than himself? How can Pnatt NOT realize these facts without being explicitly told when time and again I had pointed out that we were attached to the Body of Christ and therefore parts of His Body?

How can Pnatt NOT able to see the importance of Christ in my position, other than that he is just trying to discredit my position with his verbosity?

You could help by answering some questions.

1.What does "being attached to the body of Christ by the cross" means?  Explain this by using other words.

2.You say we rely on Christ's strength to overcome.  What does this mean?  Is how we rely on Christ's strength to overcome any different than what a non-Christian would do?  If so, how?

3.What does it mean to believe in Christ?  Is this important?  Why or why not?

4.What is the role of the cross in overcoming (other than enabling us to be attached to the body of Christ).

5.Must one be converted to overcome?  How is one converted?  What is the role of the cross and Christ in this?

[Wingnut]

3 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

You could help by answering some questions.

1.What does "being attached to the body of Christ by the cross" means?  Explain this by using other words.

Pnattmbtc

I also want answers from Samies own mouth, but I bet they will sound something like the following.

Done from foundation of world.  All to receive every benefit Christ has to offer unconditionally?

3 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

2.You say we rely on Christ's strength to overcome.  What does this mean?  Is how we rely on Christ's strength to overcome any different than what a non-Christian would do?  If so, how?

No.  Each does as conscience dictates, empowered by Christ.

3 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

3.What does it mean to believe in Christ?  Is this important?  Why or why not?

Only if it is important to YOU must you believe in Christ.  Can receive all benefits without even hearing of Christ.

3 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

4.What is the role of the cross in overcoming (other than enabling us to be attached to the body of Christ).

Being attached to body of Christ, all are empowered by Christ to  overcome in their own special way.

3 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

5.Must one be converted to overcome?  How is one converted?  What is the role of the cross and Christ in this?

No.  Conversion was done at cross.  Now its just about "overcoming". There is no being born again, coming out of past "lost" life, since you have been found from foundation of world and written then in BOL.

Samie uses words like "Christ" and "overcome" and phrases from the Bible promising good things like "eternal life" and being "empowered by Christ".

But we are not talking "Christianity" as you or I understand it, which involves believing in Christ, the historical figure.  His concept has no absolutes for all such as repenting of sin (breaking Bible laws), baptism, or any specific way of life such as the 1050 NT commands.  Such specifics would require that one actually had a Bible, had read it, and obeyed it.  This would exclude all BC folk except Israel, and even most AD folk.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. then it is a duck.

What Samie talks about, apart from using Bible terms, is for all intents and purposes not "Christianity" as you or I understand it.

As you commended him before for his creativity, commend him for creating a completely new and different form of "Christianity" which offers all the benefits which Christ promises, without obedience to what the historical Jesus who walked the earth commanded.  To me personally, this makes it anti-Christ. 

[Samie]

16 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

1.What does "being attached to the body of Christ by the cross" means?  Explain this by using other words.

It means to be part of His Body; as the hands, arms, feet, etc., are part of the body of a person. The parts of the body are powerless when separated from the body, so are we, when separate from Christ. Attached to Christ Who is our Strength for overcoming evil, we have His Power to overcome evil with good.

 

16 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

2.You say we rely on Christ's strength to overcome.  What does this mean?  Is how we rely on Christ's strength to overcome any different than what a non-Christian would do?  If so, how?

To rely on Christ's Strength to overcome is just like the natural way a hand relies on the strength of the person himself.  So with us being part of His Body. There's only one minor difference: a Christian knows He overcomes because of Christ, a non-Christian does not.

 

16 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

3.What does it mean to believe in Christ?  Is this important?  Why or why not?

It means to overcome the evil of unbelief. Yes it is important. When God causes a non-Christian to hear the message about Christ, God Who works in us both to will and to do His own good pleasure (Phil 2:13), convicts the person through the Holy Spirit.  The experience of the Ethiopian eunuch is one good example.  Had the eunuch not believed what Philip explained, then he would not have overcome the evil of unbelief.

God alone knows when a specific non-Christian is to be exposed to the message of Christ. And He will commission one of His messengers to tell him the message. That's why preachers preach.  As to why others die not given the message is one area best left alone to Him Who knows better than any one of us. Whether one person has grown into such a level of spiritual maturity that the message about Christ must be made known to him, God alone knows. Just like a good Father who best knows the responsibility to give his child commensurate with his child's capability. And we are one big family in the Family of God.

16 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

4.What is the role of the cross in overcoming (other than enabling us to be attached to the body of Christ).

It was through the cross, that we all - Adam & Eve and all their descendants - were corporately justified (Rom 5:18), were sanctified (Heb 10:10), were made perfect (Heb 10:14), were reconciled to God (Rom 5:10), were forgiven from all sins (Col 2:13), were made part of His Body (Eph 2:11-16), were made members of the Family of God (Eph 2:19), empowered (Phil 4:13) to overcome evil with good (Rom 12:21).  Sadly myriads have been, are being, and will yet be, blotted out from the BOL, for refusing to overcome evil with good.  Only overcomers were not, are not, will not be, blotted out from the BOL (Rev 3:5).

 

16 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

5.Must one be converted to overcome?  How is one converted?  What is the role of the cross and Christ in this?

Our conversion had been done for us by Christ. Without the cross, no one gets converted; with the cross, all were converted, from spiritually dead to spiritually alive. Having been made alive TOGETHER with Christ in His resurrection (Eph 2:4-6), all becomes accountable for whatever responsibility the Father gives us. Overcome the evil of not obeying God by doing the responsibility God assigned, and our names stay; be overcome of evil, and our names get blotted out.

I am greatly amazed who gave Wingnut the temerity to call my position anti-Christ:

12 hours ago, Wingnut said:

What Samie talks about, apart from using Bible terms, is for all intents and purposes not "Christianity" as you or I understand it.

As you commended him before for his creativity, commend him for creating a completely new and different form of "Christianity" which offers all the benefits which Christ promises, without obedience to what the historical Jesus who walked the earth commanded.  To me personally, this makes it anti-Christ. 

 

[pnattmbtc]

Thank you Samie for answering my questions!  These are good answers, by which I mean, complete, clear to understand, so thanks again.  This helps a great deal in understanding your thought.  We may disagree with one another (I'm not referring to you and me specifically, but generally, in the forum), but at least we can disagree with what the other person is actually thinking when  we have clear dialog as opposed to some fabrication in our mind as to what the other person actually thinks.  Well answered questions help me "get" what you're wanting to say, so I don't address straw men in my response, but actually comment on what you think.

I'll respond in detail throughout the day as I have time, but will make a very quick comment in regards to the cross that for me the power of the cross by means of revelation; that is, the cross achieves its power by what it reveals.  It did not create any reality about God, but it revealed God in a way that He had never been seen, so much so that even holy angels were profoundly impacted.

[Samie]

3 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

Thank you Samie for answering my questions!  These are good answers, by which I mean, complete, clear to understand, so thanks again.  This helps a great deal in understanding your thought.  We may disagree with one another (I'm not referring to you and me specifically, but generally, in the forum), but at least we can disagree with what the other person is actually thinking when  we have clear dialog as opposed to some fabrication in our mind as to what the other person actually thinks.  Well answered questions help me "get" what you're wanting to say, so I don't address straw men in my response, but actually comment on what you think.

I'll respond in detail throughout the day as I have time, but will make a very quick comment in regards to the cross that for me the power of the cross by means of revelation; that is, the cross achieves its power by what it reveals.  It did not create any reality about God, but it revealed God in a way that He had never been seen, so much so that even holy angels were profoundly impacted.

You are welcome, my brother. While you're at it, I have to go to bed since it is nearing midnight here in Bangkok. Will be back to the Philippines on Nov 5.

[Wingnut]

36 minutes ago, Samie said:

 

I am greatly amazed who gave Wingnut the temerity to call my position anti-Christ:

 

You have said all along that one does not need to have heard of the historical Jesus.  Nor do we need to know what the historical Jesus commands we do  after we hear the Gospel.  Nor do we need to come to the historical Jesus to develop a relationship with the historical Jesus to be saved.  So obviously we don't need the historical Jesus to be saved.  All we need is the philosophical god-force-Jesus who wrote every name into the BOL from the beginning, and who helps all and sundry to overcome however.

If one teaches salvation without obedience, that is anti-Christ.

If one teaches we don't need to have heard of the Biblical/historical Jesus to be saved - that is anti-Christ. 

If one teaches that one is (already) saved without the involvement of the Biblical/historical Jesus - that is anti-Christ.

Why?  Because it is the exact opposite to what Christ taught.  And in so doing it frustrates all that Christ is trying to accomplish.

What you say will never save one soul.  They will remain in their lifeboats, overcoming in their own random way, and be lost.

 

And I use the word historical Jesus because you have no use for Him in the salvation process.  You only speak of the god-force-Jesus who, at the foundation of the world, wrote all names in the BOL.  Thus you claim all the benefits He promises His believers.  But you don't feel a need to teach this historical person who came to earth from heaven to save us.  Missionaries have risked their lives preaching about the historical Jesus.

All you talk about is a god-force-Jesus that saves all and helps all to overcome.  Every religion has a god-force of some kind.  You could plug your god-force-Jesus into any religion.  The fact that you use the name "Jesus" does not sanctify the foolishness you preach around this god-force-Jesus.

Folks following this thread will no doubt agree with you that I am being harsh, and judgmental, and rude.

You probably are a lovely person, but I so hate your message.  It brings to mind the scripture "Many shall come in my name saying I am the Christ, and shall deceive many".  If Satan could get the whole world to believe in a Jesus who DOES NOT DEMAND YOU DO ONE THING HE COMMANDED, then Satan will have pulled off a masterstroke.  And you have not been able to give one SPECIFIC thing which Jesus demands of us except "overcome".  And you leave even this to the person's conscience.  

Pnattmbtc is wanting you to speak to what the historical Jesus demands.  You have not, will not and cannot.  You will keep speaking of the philosophical-god-force-Jesus, not the real one.  And you will return again and again to your life-raft.

You have given us all you have got, and have come up empty.  There is no more to your theory than a life-raft and overcoming and a benevolent god-force-Jesus who has done all for all.  Any religion could preach that.

You are messed up Samie.  Repent!  Embrace the Gospel message you once knew and loved.  Forsake this weird/eastern/new-age mess of a religion which uses the name of Jesus.  I know you think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.  I know it gets you a lot of attention.  I am sure you talk about it to all who will listen.  Compared to the real, vibrant, life-giving, saving, Biblical Gospel message, yours is but an empty shell. 

 

[pnattmbtc]

Regarding the body of Christ, the concept expressed is OK, but it is not what either Paul or Christ had in mind.  First of all the the concept expressed, is that both Christians and non-Christians are dependent upon Christ to do anything at all, including, or rather particularly, spiritual things. where a spiritual thing would be an unbeliever exercising faith.  I think this is accurately representing Samie's thought.

First of all, there is some confusion as to what happens when an unbeliever exercises faith.  Samie's thought is that God gives the unbeliever the faith of Jesus, and the unbeliever uses that, but if one things about what faith actually is, this idea doesn't make sense.  Faith is an act of the mind, involving our thinking, so how would God give us that?  God provokes our thoughts by revealing Christ to use, with the Holy Spirit convicting us of sin and righteousness, and we may choose to respond by repentance and faith in Christ, but our response is not Jesus Christ taking possession of us and exercising His faith in us, but is our responding to what God has revealed to us.  So to say that God gives us the faith of Jesus, and that is the faith we exercise can be seen not to make sense, and is certainly not what Paul had in mind, which is evident by reading what he wrote in context.

Regarding the body of Christ, if we look at 1 Cor. 12, we can see that Paul did not have unbelievers in mind, so that pretty much takes care of that.

Regarding what Jesus said in John, about the vine and the branches, it is true that we cannot do anything apart from Christ, since even physically we cannot exist or do anything apart from Him, but the context of John is also addressing believers, and Jesus is not speaking of the body of Christ in any specific way.  As a general concept, we can say we cannot do anything apart from Christ, but there's no reason to lump John together with Eph. 2 and form any conclusion from that.  For one thing, both Paul and John are speaking of believers.

Finally the role of the cross has not been explained in any way, just asserted.  I've been asking repeatedly what the role of the cross is, with no answer, rather than to simply reassert it has a role.  I have asserted the role of the cross is in what it reveals.  I'll flesh this out later (and have already written at length about this when discussing how reconciliation happens).  There has to be a reason why in Ephesians 2 that Paul mentioned the cross.  What is that reason?

[Wingnut]

1 hour ago, pnattmbtc said:

So to say that God gives us the faith of Jesus, and that is the faith we exercise can be seen not to make sense, and is certainly not what Paul had in mind, which is evident by reading what he wrote in context.

Regarding the body of Christ, if we look at 1 Cor. 12, we can see that Paul did not have unbelievers in mind, so that pretty much takes care of that.

Regarding what Jesus said in John, about the vine and the branches, it is true that we cannot do anything apart from Christ, since even physically we cannot exist or do anything apart from Him, but the context of John is also addressing believers, and Jesus is not speaking of the body of Christ in any specific way.  As a general concept, we can say we cannot do anything apart from Christ, but there's no reason to lump John together with Eph. 2 and form any conclusion from that.  For one thing, both Paul and John are speaking of believers.

Finally the role of the cross has not been explained in any way, just asserted.  I've been asking repeatedly what the role of the cross is, with no answer, rather than to simply reassert it has a role.  I have asserted the role of the cross is in what it reveals.  I'll flesh this out later (and have already written at length about this when discussing how reconciliation happens).  There has to be a reason why in Ephesians 2 that Paul mentioned the cross.  What is that reason?

pnattmbtc

I agree with you that a lot of what Christ says is applicable and directed to his believers, who alone constitute the body of Christ.

And the scripture that we cannot do anything without Christ refers to anything worthwhile or eternal.  There are lots of things that creatures do every day without Christ's direct intervention since all creatures are created to function independently.  Technically, if God were to withdraw His spirit, all things would cease to exist.

 

Samie likes the idea of "faith OF Christ" because if every human ever born is part of His body, all have and exercise His faith, no matter what they believe.

I can see an inclination towards a mathematical interpretation of scripture.  Watch this "maths"...

1. John 15:5 ...without me ye can do nothing.

2. Worshiping Baal is doing something.

3.  If one can do nothing without Christ, and worshipping Baal is something, then worshipping Baal must be done with the help of Christ.

I don't say Samie would agree with the above argument which is perfect Bible maths.  But it would explain why he has no problem with following other religions and still being part of the body of Christ.

His idea of the cross is no different from being written in the BOL.  They are both supposedly done/pre-determined from the foundation of the world. These are the major two real uses of Christ since these join all men to Him, the head, from the start.

 

Because I consider that I nearly perfectly understand Samie and his theory, I will be happy to continue to chat with him as a friend if he so wishes.  But I personally do not plan to waste any more time on this life-raft theory.  

Possibly my limited patience with this is a result of spending hours every week for 3 years with a friend J who had a similar way of using scripture.  He was very pleased with his theory that nothing existed except in God's mind.  Everything, you, me good and bad - all was part of God and constituted God.  I wanted to keep him as a friend but asked him to stop talking about his theory every time he visited since it irritated me so. But he could not keep quiet.  Eventually I just told him to his face that his views were anti-Christ.  Because he did not believe anything existed, he could not believe that Christ came in the flesh.

 2 John 1:7

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

 He nearly blew a fuse and only visited me once more after that.

 

[pnattmbtc]

My favorite explanation is the following:

Quote

 

How, then, are we to be saved? "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness," so the Son of man has been lifted up, and everyone who has been deceived and bitten by the serpent may look and live. "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29. The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul. The thoughts and desires are brought into obedience to the will of Christ. The heart, the mind, are created anew in the image of Him who works in us to subdue all things to Himself. Then the law of God is written in the mind and heart, and we can say with Christ, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God." Ps. 40:8. (Desire of Ages 175, 176)

 

This brings out that if one is lost, there is a rejection involved, that God is taking the initiative to save, and that it is enough to not resist the drawing of God in order to be born again.  It also brings out that there is a rebirth involved, a writing of the law in the heart and mind (my words; but the idea is there; this is the New Covenant!), a supernatural work on the part of God.  As Jesus put it, "you must be born again!"

There is a nice balance here.

[Wingnut]

6 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

My favorite explanation is the following:

This brings out that if one is lost, there is a rejection involved, that God is taking the initiative to save, and that it is enough to not resist the drawing of God in order to be born again.  It also brings out that there is a rebirth involved, a writing of the law in the heart and mind (my words; but the idea is there; this is the New Covenant!), a supernatural work on the part of God.  As Jesus put it, "you must be born again!"

There is a nice balance here.

The true Gospel as you summarise above is a beautiful thing.

And it begins a walk with Jesus.  One has to know the historical Jesus to appreciate His sacrifice and devotion to us.  When the historical Jesus is left out of the salvation process, Satan rejoices and 2 John 1:7 pertains.  For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.