Wingnut Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 One last thing Samie, Everything I have criticised you for in the above two posts, Ellen is also guilty of saying, on p 638 of DA or p 563 of the newer version. She to a large extent agrees with you. After regulating down to the most minute detail how true believers should live, in these pages she capitulates and throws the doors to Christ's kingdom open to all who have not believed who have lived however they wanted. She too believed that these heathen somehow exhibited Godly love which qualified them for entry, though their lives looked nothing like ours or the faithful of the Bible. Quote
Samie Posted October 28, 2015 Author Posted October 28, 2015 11 hours ago, pnattmbtc said: Unless he's not overcoming, in which case he's more like "dead man walking" than "heaven-bound". What does this mean? Power how? What does being attached to the body have to do with having this power? Why was the cross necessary? Also, to be clear, you are saying *everybody* has this power, because everybody is attached to the body of Christ. So there's no need to believe in Christ in order to have the power to overcome. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth; this is what you've been saying: 1.All are attached to the body of Christ by the cross (Eph. 2). 2.Being attached to Christ, we have the power to overcome evil with good. This is an accurate representation of what you've been saying, correct? There's nothing here about believing in Christ! An unbeliever has has the power to overcome evil with good, and not be blotted out from the book of life, by your theory, with no need to believe in Christ! Yes, you are not putting words into my mouth. I simply ask you a question: Did Paul believe in Christ first BEFORE God set him apart for the preaching of the gospel? I want to know your answer. This is in relation with your belief that a person has to believe in Christ first before he can be empowered to overcome evil with good. According to you, believing in Christ is a must before one can overcome, but Scriptures are replete with OT characters who were overcomers but have no personal knowledge of Christ. You counter this fact by saying that "people may not know they are believing in Christ, but they are". Yet this seems to be not in accord with what Paul meant when he asked: "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?". Looks like believing in Christ occurs after one has heard about Him. And since the OT men of faith, did not personally hear about Christ, then they could have not personally believed in Christ, yet they were overcomers. Quote
Samie Posted October 28, 2015 Author Posted October 28, 2015 10 hours ago, Wingnut said: Samie is preaching a gospel that sounds to me very much like this.... All men, with or without being Christians can be good. There were already lots of good people before the disciples were first called “Christians” in Antioch. They are all somehow God enabled to be good. Because all “good gifts” are from God. They are all born good (in the life-raft) and they all have the god-given power to remain good. That’s why Christ admonished his disciples to become like little children – born good. We cannot yet get from Samie what being "good" means. Simple: that which to you is not bad, must be good. Just don’t forget: God watches. Being good certainly does not require belief in Jesus, though this is optional. If you know it is bad NOT to believe in Him, then it is good to believe in Him instead. There are good Muslims, Buddhists, and good atheists. All are by default heading to eternal life. Unless they do something really, really bad. We have not yet got from Samie what being "bad" looks like. Simple: what to you is not good, must be bad. Ask yourself, does this sound at all like the Gospel which you believe? To me, it’s the gospel Christ wanted preached to the world before He comes again. Does this sound anything like the story of the Bible? The Bible story is that God is calling believers to Him with a very specific set of beliefs, That’s the story you would have the Bible tell but did not. These are not "good" by themselves or even when they are converted, I have always said we overcome evil with good through Christ. (Samie's gospel leaves out conversion, and repentance, and baptism - becoming a new man - these are optional), You don’t yet fully understand what I am saying. We are the body of the one new man whose head is Christ. But God and Christ impute their righteousness into those who believe on Them. Have you forgotten Rom 3:21-24? Read them again. And these few are kept safely and given eternal life at the return of Christ, not because they are good, But because they are friends of Christ. And their names are in the Book of Life. Every one will be in Christ's kingdom because they have chosen Him and His kingdom - not through being good. It’s overcoming evil with good. Overcomers will not be blotted out from the BOL. They are there because all, at one time or another enter into a covenant with Him (not by default), Salvation by works. Legalistic gospel. And God is not mean, He has a way of saving the vast majority of this present evil world later. That means will entail exactly the same process of belief in His Son, repentance, receiving the Spirit, overcoming, and enduring. Unscriptural. Jesus will reward every man at the second coming. Did you forget Matt 16:27 & Rev 22:12? Nobody will slip into Christ's kingdom who will not acknowledge Him as Saviour and Lord. No one slips through. They were brought in. Quote
pnattmbtc Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 11 hours ago, Wingnut said: One last thing Samie, Everything I have criticised you for in the above two posts, Ellen is also guilty of saying, on p 638 of DA or p 563 of the newer version. She to a large extent agrees with you. After regulating down to the most minute detail how true believers should live, in these pages she capitulates and throws the doors to Christ's kingdom open to all who have not believed who have lived however they wanted. She too believed that these heathen somehow exhibited Godly love which qualified them for entry, though their lives looked nothing like ours or the faithful of the Bible. Hey Wingnut. I like much/most of what you're posting, but disagree with this for a couple of reasons. First of all, EGW's position is very, very different from Samie's, so if you think they are the same or similar, you're misunderstanding at least one of them. I'll be as brief as I can be here, but am happy to discuss in detail if you wish. To mention one thing, Samie doesn't bring out the importance of character, whereas in EGW's writings, this is all important. GC 541-543 is a passage where the importance is clearly articulated. How is character formed, and why is it important? And what is it? Basically our character consists of, or is the product of, the decisions that we make. To make correct decisions (correct in the senst of being in harmony with God and the principles of heaven, along the lines of in GDC 541-543) we need to be born again; we need Christ. EGW is not denying this in her DA quote, and Scripture echos what she writes in such passages as Romans 1, Psalm 19, John 1:9, and others. Especially significant, I believe, is the last one mentioned that Jesus Christ is the true light that ligthens every one who is in the world, and earlier John tells us that the light (Christ) is the life of men. So God gives light/life/Christ to everyone. How this is done varies upon circumstances, but if needed, God is able to preach personally to anyone, just like He did to Abraham. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Quote Yes, you are not putting words into my mouth. I simply ask you a question: Did Paul believe in Christ first BEFORE God set him apart for the preaching of the gospel? I want to know your answer. This is in relation with your belief that a person has to believe in Christ first before he can be empowered to overcome evil with good. Where did I say this? I've repeatedly asked you to quote something I've said. Please do so. Regarding your question, it depends upon what you mean when you say God set Paul apart for the preaching of the gospel. I would say in a general sense God has set everyone apart for the preaching of the Gospel, and whether or not this applies to a particular person depends upon how he chooses to respond to Christ. Quote According to you, believing in Christ is a must before one can overcome, but Scriptures are replete with OT characters who were overcomers but have no personal knowledge of Christ. This is directly contrary to Scripture, tons and tons of Scripture. You've completely misunderstood what's happening in Scripture if you think any overcome, any whatsoever, did so with no person knowledge of Christ. Quote You counter this fact by saying that "people may not know they are believing in Christ, but they are". Yet this seems to be not in accord with what Paul meant when he asked: "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?". Looks like believing in Christ occurs after one has heard about Him. And since the OT men of faith, did not personally hear about Christ, then they could have not personally believed in Christ, yet they were overcomers. No one has overcome apart from Christ. This isn't possible. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Samie, consider Hebrews 11, for example. These are all examples of OT characters who overcame by faith in Christ. Note, in particular, vs. 26. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Questions for Samie: 1.What does it mean to believe in Christ? 2.Is believing in Christ necessary? If so, for what purpose? Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Wingnut Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 2 hours ago, Samie said: Samie You say all the right things about Christ. You sing the praises of Christ. You attribute all power and salvation to Christ. You call Christ Lord. You correctly call Christ the head of the Body. What you say about Christ is wonderful. My problem is with your verbs, with what you say we should DO. Your favourite action word is that we should "overcome". The choice of this word is not an accident. Its a relative word. Its a vague word. It has no absolutes. It's not a "Thou shalt ...." word. Every religion says we should "overcome". Business and psychologists believe in overcoming. Who would advocate we don't overcome? Even Christ says we should overcome. But Christ is specific. He gives us 1050 commands in the New Testament, specifying how Christians should overcome. He tells us specific things like "repent" and "be baptised" and to do this "in the name of Christ" "for the remission of sins". He tells us to "believe in Him" and to "keep his commands" like the Sabbath. He tells us to not "let the sun go down on our wrath" and to daily "forgive those who trespass against us". All these absolutes eventually constitute a lifestyle, the Christian/Adventist lifestyle. I asked you what being "good" means. Your answer... "Simple: that which to you is not bad, must be good. Just don’t forget: God watches." Notice Samie that in your answer YOU and your conscience are the point of reference. No one way of life is your standard of "good". You would not say that keeping the 1050 NT commandments defines "good". This would be too specific a standard by which we could measure ourselves. The reason you make each person's conscience THE standard for "good" suits you because now you have a universal religion. It's not Christianity. It's a religion whereby no books like the Bible are opened to judge the person by. Only whether they go against their conscience or not. You would point to Paul and Romans and claim that our conscience IS the gold standard by which we are measured. I am sure many philosophies and religions teach this. I have read Socrates and Plato and this is what they teach. But it is not what the Bible and Christianity teaches. They teach ABSOLUTES. This is what you say about the Bible and its absolutes... I wrote.... The Bible story is that God is calling believers to Him with a very specific set of beliefs, to which you responded... "That’s the story you would have the Bible tell but did not." In other words, absolutes would spoil the religion you teach. As for believing in Christ and Christ alone to be saved, you will hate how this excludes all who have no access to Christ. You already have pointed to Abraham as having no access to Christ. Ab SPOKE face-to-face with Christ in a tent when Christ promised him a son. Thus proving my point that not a soul will enter heaven who does not know, believe in, worship and obey Christ. Let's look at how wishy-washy you are on the issue of whether one HAS TO believe in Jesus. You wrote... If you know it is bad NOT to believe in Him, then it is good to believe in Him instead. That is not traditional Christian teaching. I asked you what defines being "bad". Your reply... Simple: what to you is not good, must be bad. Again, you and your conscience are the gold standard, no absolutes. To be honest, I love the religion you preach. It would suit me perfectly. And sociopaths would especially love it. Moving to something different, you state we are born in the life-raft. That may be true. But the Bible teaches that the moment you commit your first sin, you are in the sea, since "the wages of sin is death". And the Bible teaches that only those accepting Jesus and His blood to cover their sins can receive eternal life. The gift of God is eternal life. Christ did not generically blot out all folks sins from the foundation of the world. Only "believers" sins. Thus all men who have not accepted Christ are dead men walking, under sentence of death. To say otherwise would sound suspiciously like "You shall not surely die". Which is what Satan told Eve, some variation of "You will not die since you have an immortal soul, and besides, God loves you too much. In fact His Son has already died for you". Quote
pnattmbtc Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Quick comment, and have to go to lunch, but will check back. It looks like you are perceiving the problem of sin as being a legal one, that if you sin, God's sentences you to death, but if you meet certain conditions (e.g. believe in Christ), then God removes that sentence (or counts what Christ did against it, however you want to phrase this; the salient point being the believer is no longer sentenced to death). Am I understanding you correctly? Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Wingnut Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 59 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said: Quick comment, and have to go to lunch, but will check back. It looks like you are perceiving the problem of sin as being a legal one, that if you sin, God's sentences you to death, but if you meet certain conditions (e.g. believe in Christ), then God removes that sentence (or counts what Christ did against it, however you want to phrase this; the salient point being the believer is no longer sentenced to death). Am I understanding you correctly? I see God as speaking to the (unsaved) world in legal terms that nobody can obfuscate. "The wages of sin is death". Less formally, He is saying "Y'all have earned death, Y'all deserve death, Y'all are sentenced to death. If that sounds unfair, take it up with the Supreme Court. Ha Ha turns out I am the Supreme Court. "Now that that's settled, let's talk about a reprieve. "There is only one way of being pardoned, and that is by befriending Us, the Godhead. "I can give you 1050 guidelines to make you more acceptable to Us, but in the final analysis, We still give eternal life to whom We like. There is no earning it. "That is why We call 'a reprive/grace' a 'gift' so that you will never feel entitled to it. What you say above does represent what I believe pnattmbtc. But I strongly believe eternal life is only given to folks who have developed a real friendship with God. That is why I cannot envision any scenario where carnal folks who have no relationship of walking and talking with God can ever make it into His kingdom. Quote
pnattmbtc Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 22 minutes ago, Wingnut said: I see God as speaking to the (unsaved) world in legal terms that nobody can obfuscate. "The wages of sin is death". Less formally, He is saying "Y'all have earned death, Y'all deserve death, Y'all are sentenced to death. If that sounds unfair, take it up with the Supreme Court. Ha Ha turns out I am the Supreme Court. "Now that that's settled, let's talk about a reprieve. "There is only one way of being pardoned, and that is by befriending Us, the Godhead. "I can give you 1050 guidelines to make you more acceptable to Us, but in the final analysis, We still give eternal life to whom We like. There is no earning it. "That is why We call 'a reprive/grace' a 'gift' so that you will never feel entitled to it. What you say above does represent what I believe pnattmbtc. But I strongly believe eternal life is only given to folks who have developed a real friendship with God. That is why I cannot envision any scenario where carnal folks who have no relationship of walking and talking with God can ever make it into His kingdom. I'm glad to hear you strongly believe eternal life is only given to folks who have developed a real friendship with God. I think this is the real issue. I think there is no separate legal issue, and thinking in legal terms is just distracting and easily leads one to errors by unnecessarily complicating things. "Be ye reconciled to God." i.e. "Make friends with God". That's the whole thing right there. And we cannot make friends with God without Christ, not because of a legal requirement, but because that's reality. No one comes to the Father but by Me. No one. Not just fallen humans, but no one. Wingnut 1 Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Regarding the phrase, "the wages of sin is death," I think this is often misunderstood. One version puts it like this: "Sin pays its wages: death", which I think makes it easier to understand. It's not that God says, "You sinned. You deserve death." but that sinning causes death, like smoking causes death. And that this is the case makes sense because sin is predicated on the principle of "me first" and "me apart from God", and such principles cannot by their very nature be life-sustaining. Wingnut 1 Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Samie Posted October 28, 2015 Author Posted October 28, 2015 2 hours ago, Wingnut said: Samie You say all the right things about Christ. You sing the praises of Christ. You attribute all power and salvation to Christ. You call Christ Lord. You correctly call Christ the head of the Body. What you say about Christ is wonderful. I am humbled by your description of how I esteem our Lord and Savior. And I guess that’s one area where you understand me better compared with how Pnatt understands me. My problem is with your verbs, with what you say we should DO. As part of the Body of Christ. Your favourite action word is that we should "overcome". Because overcomers will not be blotted out from the BOL. The choice of this word is not an accident. Its a relative word. Its a vague word. It has no absolutes. It's not a "Thou shalt ...." word. How about Rom 12:21? Would it be entirely wrong to read it as “Thou shalt overcome evil with good?” Every religion says we should "overcome". Business and psychologists believe in overcoming. Who would advocate we don't overcome? Even Christ says we should overcome. But Christ is specific. He gives us 1050 commands in the New Testament, specifying how Christians should overcome. He tells us specific things like "repent" and "be baptised" and to do this "in the name of Christ" "for the remission of sins". He tells us to "believe in Him" and to "keep his commands" like the Sabbath. He tells us to not "let the sun go down on our wrath" and to daily "forgive those who trespass against us". All these absolutes eventually constitute a lifestyle, the Christian/Adventist lifestyle. I asked you what being "good" means. Your answer... "Simple: that which to you is not bad, must be good. Just don’t forget: God watches." Notice Samie that in your answer YOU and your conscience are the point of reference. No one way of life is your standard of "good". You would not say that keeping the 1050 NT commandments defines "good". This would be too specific a standard by which we could measure ourselves. The reason you make each person's conscience THE standard for "good" suits you because now you have a universal religion. It's not Christianity. It's a religion whereby no books like the Bible are opened to judge the person by. Only whether they go against their conscience or not. You would point to Paul and Romans and claim that our conscience IS the gold standard by which we are measured. I am sure many philosophies and religions teach this. I have read Socrates and Plato and this is what they teach. But it is not what the Bible and Christianity teaches. They teach ABSOLUTES. This is what you say about the Bible and its absolutes... I believe you are aware that God has written into a person’s heart and mind the set of guidelines God specifically wants for him. For me, what God has written into each of us constitutes what you say are the absolutes that must constitute one’s lifestyle. Let me elucidate: Let me start by saying that a new-born babe has no choice as to who his earthly parents are, nor where and when he is to be born. Scriptures tell us these are determined by God. Let’s say a child is born with Muslim parents. Let’s say further that his father is an imam. Will his father teach him Christianity? Of course not; he will teach him Islam. And being taught Islam, was it the child’s fault having learned Islam and its way of life? What if not a single Christian missionary came to their place or that he lived at a time and place where circumstances made it not possible for him to know about Him crucified throughout his lifetime? Was it anyone’s fault he remained ignorant about our Lord until his death? If yes, then would not the blame be traced back to God Who determined who his parents are and when and where he was born? I wrote.... The Bible story is that God is calling believers to Him with a very specific set of beliefs, to which you responded... "That’s the story you would have the Bible tell but did not." In other words, absolutes would spoil the religion you teach. That’s perhaps why what was written by God in each person’s heart and mind is not the same for all individuals. God did not make all things green, but one thing is sure: He made all things bright and beautiful! As for believing in Christ and Christ alone to be saved, you will hate how this excludes all who have no access to Christ. You already have pointed to Abraham as having no access to Christ. Ab SPOKE face-to-face with Christ in a tent when Christ promised him a son. Thus proving my point that not a soul will enter heaven who does not know, believe in, worship and obey Christ. I believe it was the Father Who spoke with Ab face to face (Gen 17:1). Hebrew Scriptures say it was hw"hoy>.. It is this same hw"hoy Who Jesus acknowledged as having sent Him. See Isa 61:1; Luke 4:16-21 Let's look at how wishy-washy you are on the issue of whether one HAS TO believe in Jesus. You wrote... If you know it is bad NOT to believe in Him, then it is good to believe in Him instead. That is not traditional Christian teaching. I asked you what defines being "bad". Your reply... Simple: what to you is not good, must be bad. Again, you and your conscience are the gold standard, no absolutes. Because I believe that what God wrote in one’s heart and mind constitutes the absolutes God wants for him. “Therefore, to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” James 4:17 To be honest, I love the religion you preach. It would suit me perfectly. And sociopaths would especially love it. Just don’t forget, God watches. Quote
Wingnut Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 59 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said: I'm glad to hear you strongly believe eternal life is only given to folks who have developed a real friendship with God. I think this is the real issue. I think there is no separate legal issue, and thinking in legal terms is just distracting and easily leads one to errors by unnecessarily complicating things. "Be ye reconciled to God." i.e. "Make friends with God". That's the whole thing right there. And we cannot make friends with God without Christ, not because of a legal requirement, but because that's reality. No one comes to the Father but by Me. No one. Not just fallen humans, but no one. That is a perfect summary of The Gospel. Quote
pnattmbtc Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 4 minutes ago, Wingnut said: That is a perfect summary of The Gospel. Quote looks like software glitch. ignore this one and look for the next one. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Quote That is a perfect summary of the Gospel. Thank you. When I think of "perfect summary of the Gospel" I think of Jesus' words, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Wingnut Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 So Samie, you seemed to be agreeing with my summary of what you believe. You do keep requirements deliberately vague, letting every one's conscience be their guide. An overcomer (the noun of overcome) is equally vague by your definition. My definition of an overcomer is found in Heb 11, and for NT examples, the book of Acts. There is not an overcomer there who did not have an intimate relationship with the God of the Bible. All were "friends" of God. All were believers in Him. Their consciences were not their guide. Their God was their guide. Quote
Samie Posted October 28, 2015 Author Posted October 28, 2015 2 hours ago, Wingnut said: Moving to something different, you state we are born in the life-raft. That may be true. But the Bible teaches that the moment you commit your first sin, you are in the sea, since "the wages of sin is death". You still did not fully understand what I was saying. To be born in the raft is to be born in Christ. The first sin, and all the subsequent sins man commits, had all been forgiven on the cross. When man commits sin now, the sin committed having been forgiven at the cross is not imputed against him. Christ continually justifies him each time he commits sin because He was resurrected for our justification (Rom 4:25). This is the high priestly ministry Christ is doing for us in the heavenly sanctuary. This is why while a person is alive, his name is not blotted out from the BOL. And the Bible teaches that only those accepting Jesus and His blood to cover their sins can receive eternal life. The gift of God is eternal life. Christ did not generically blot out all folks sins from the foundation of the world. Only "believers" sins. I doubt that, brother. Who sinned? All sinned (Rom 3:23), therefore all are sinners. Whom did Jesus come to save? NKJ 1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. Since all are sinners, therefore Jesus came to save all. Thus all men who have not accepted Christ are dead men walking, under sentence of death. To say otherwise would sound suspiciously like "You shall not surely die". Which is what Satan told Eve, some variation of "You will not die since you have an immortal soul, and besides, God loves you too much. In fact His Son has already died for you". That’s why you are already part of His Body. But if you don’t overcome evil with good, you will be blotted out from the BOL, detached from His Body, expelled from membership in the family of God. Quote
pnattmbtc Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Questions for Samie: 1.What does it mean to believe in Christ? 2.Is believing in Christ necessary? If so, for what purpose? Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Samie Posted October 28, 2015 Author Posted October 28, 2015 6 minutes ago, Wingnut said: So Samie, you seemed to be agreeing with my summary of what you believe. Yes, I do. Unlike Pnatt who finds it difficult to understand me. You do keep requirements deliberately vague, letting every one's conscience be their guide. What is in man’s conscience is what God wrote in him. An overcomer (the noun of overcome) is equally vague by your definition. It is God through Christ Who ultimately decides who the overcomers are, not me. My definition of an overcomer is found in Heb 11, and for NT examples, the book of Acts. I believe God has His own definition. There is not an overcomer there who did not have an intimate relationship with the God of the Bible. All were "friends" of God. All were believers in Him. Their consciences were not their guide. Their God was their guide. Your description above is, to me, the description of an overcomer. To abide with what God has written in one's heart and mind is having God as Guide. Quote
Samie Posted October 28, 2015 Author Posted October 28, 2015 5 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said: Questions for Samie: 1.What does it mean to believe in Christ? 2.Is believing in Christ necessary? If so, for what purpose? I have long explained this to you, brother. And Wingnut, in a short time, has understood what I was saying. I will just wait until you fully understand what I am talking about. Quote
Wingnut Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Samie Here is an analogy for you. You are going to throw a party, an extended party, perhaps a week long one, perhaps an eternal one. Would you invite your friends? These are people you know and trust, people you enjoy being with from past experience. People you know who subscribe to the same values as you, who get along with others, who will not get disorderly and trash your place. Or would you open it to all, even those you have no relationship with you? People who let their consciences be their guides. Your kind of overcomers? Don't think about it too much to find the PC answer, but give the answer which you ACTUALLY would do. Quote
pnattmbtc Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Wingnut, since Samie thinks you understand him, would you answer two questions for me: According to Samie: 1.What does it mean to believe in Christ? 2.Is believing in Christ necessary? If so, for what purpose? Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Wingnut Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 5 minutes ago, Samie said: There is not an overcomer there who did not have an intimate relationship with the God of the Bible. All were "friends" of God. All were believers in Him. Their consciences were not their guide. Their God was their guide. Your description above is, to me, the description of an overcomer. To abide with what God has written in one's heart and mind is having God as Guide. Of course we are in agreement with my type of overcomer, since you have set the bar so low that everyone is an overcomer. Name one person on earth today whom you would not call an overcomer, and I will point out that he has overcome something Quote
Samie Posted October 28, 2015 Author Posted October 28, 2015 1 minute ago, Wingnut said: Samie Here is an analogy for you. You are going to throw a party, an extended party, perhaps a week long one, perhaps an eternal one. Would you invite your friends? Yes. These are people you know and trust, people you enjoy being with from past experience. People you know who subscribe to the same values as you, who get along with others, who will not get disorderly and trash your place. Of course. Or would you open it to all, even those you have no relationship with you? No. People who let their consciences be their guides. Your kind of overcomers? Yes. Don't think about it too much to find the PC answer, but give the answer which you ACTUALLY would do. Now what? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.