Grandstand discussion: "Ghost's Views on The Nature of Christ"

[godrulz]

He has passed from being merely wrong in his accusations to actually lying about what I have said because I very clearly and directly stated to him that works are not required for salvation. I believe that works are a natural result of salvation. He continues to say that I preach works based salvation. That is a lie.

I don't know all that you believe nor do I believe all that I see you being accused of believing. I would imagine that there are a few theological issues where we will not see eye to eye. I do believe that you have confessed with your mouth what you believe in your heart and that we are indeed brothers in Christ. See you in the sky my Brother.

Rom. 10:9-10


He makes the same false accusations against me despite Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16; Rom. 1:16; Eph. 2:8-10; Titus 3:5; I Jn. 5:11-13, Rom. 10:9-10, etc.

Any rejection of his theories/articulations is seen as a rejection of the gospel (he adds his views on sanctification to the gospel of justification). I disagree with Calvinism's TULIP, but I would not say they deny justification by grace through faith (I would be wrong to do so).

 

[godrulz]

Then explain this...

Your statement implies that those who do those things are not saved.

New creature in Christ is not a title divorced from reality. A lack of transformation may be an evidence for a still birth, lack of saving faith (not a works issue). Rom. 12:1-2; Rom. 6-8; I Cor. 6:9-11, etc. should be normative, not exceptional, for a new convert over time. His equation of justification/sanctification is part of the problem (rejects a straw man of our view).

 

[godrulz]

You're the one lying. Read my previous post. It says nothing about works to be saved, but that you teach (as you just confirmed) that works are the result of being saved.

Faith=root

works=fruit

We are not saying root=fruit. Rom. 10:9-10; Jn. 3:16 is true without works.

 

[ghost]

New creature in Christ is not a title divorced from reality. A lack of transformation may be an evidence for a still birth, lack of saving faith (not a works issue). Rom. 12:1-2; Rom. 6-8; I Cor. 6:9-11, etc. should be normative, not exceptional, for a new convert over time. His equation of justification/sanctification is part of the problem (rejects a straw man of our view).

Faith=root

works=fruit

We are not saying root=fruit. Rom. 10:9-10; Jn. 3:16 is true without works.

Do you agree with godrulz CM?

 

[graceandpeace]

How then does Paul say that the sons of disobedience are by nature children of wrath? Eph 2:3

What makes them by nature a child of wrath?

Good point.

 

[graceandpeace]

Ghost,

Works will be displayed through a christian; but they are not our own..they are the works of the holy spirit in us; love, joy, peace, patience..etc..all at WORK in us...these things automatically result in ACTION. We are just the plain ole dirt that God works through.

That is why James said, faith without works is dead; because a man without the spirit is dead; also. Jame 2...last verse.

Godrulz, and Cabinet maker are saying what I am saying...it aint about us.

 

[godrulz]

Ghost,

Works will be displayed through a christian; but they are not our own..they are the works of the holy spirit in us; love, joy, peace, patience..etc..all at WORK in us...these things automatically result in ACTION. We are just the plain ole dirt that God works through.

That is why James said, faith without works is dead; because a man without the spirit is dead; also. Jame 2...last verse.

Godrulz, and Cabinet maker are saying what I am saying...it aint about us.

Do we do the good works (motive is key) or are we passive sock puppets that He manipulates? An atheist can do good works and some Christians do not. The fruit of the Spirit (character issues) are not the same as works of service, etc. Love is also volitional, so it is possible for an atheist to love and a Christian to hate or a Christian to love and an atheist to hate (again, motive is the key). We have the indwelling Spirit that enables us to obey with right motive, but it is not passive, causative, coerced.

Good to see you back, Jack (er Jane, former pain).

 

[Brother Ducky]

Waiting on AMR to respond to my post that explains the verse he provided. I am also hoping that Knight will remove AMR's posts that flat out lie about how he intentionally has deceived Knight, myself, and everyone else on this site, by claiming that we would discuss his claim that I teach Docetism, and then changing it to Apolloinarianism

For a moment, let's assume the worst possible case: AMR lied and changed the subject. Why should Ghost care? Ghost has the opportunity to take AMR to task for what really matters, theology. After all, this is Theology Online, is it not? What a deal, the chance to bring out the big sticks and put the Calvinistic AMR in his place!

And all we see is whining about nothing! Deal with the debate as it is. May the truth of Scripture prevail.

Peace,
Rick

 

[CabinetMaker]

Then explain this...

Your statement implies that those who do those things are not saved.

This is not my statement. So I will let the speaker of this statement speak:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version, ©2011)

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.



Can you be a believer and be sexually immoral, an idolater, and adulterer, a drunkard, a homosexual or a thief and still inherit the Kingdom of God? Can I really say I believe that Jesus is my savior and have immoral sex an steal and drink?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Do you agree with godrulz CM?

He is far closer to the truth than you on this subject.

 

[godrulz]

This is not my statement. So I will let the speaker of this statement speak:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version, ©2011)

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.



Can you be a believer and be sexually immoral, an idolater, and adulterer, a drunkard, a homosexual or a thief and still inherit the Kingdom of God? Can I really say I believe that Jesus is my savior and have immoral sex an steal and drink?

The same book talks about Corinthian saints who do these things. There is a difference between a godless, Christ-less, habitual sinner and a Christian who has an isolated lapse of immorality, lying, lusting, etc. A Christian teenager can violate God's standard of purity (petting, porn, etc.) without this verse sending them straight to hell. An unbeliever who is given over to these things without twinge of conscience, struggle, eventual repentance, etc. is showing that they are lost. The root is unbelief with various fleshly sins. For us, the root of faith saves by grace even if we we tell a lie (believers in Scripture did these things and are not identical to the godless who reject Christ and do the same things).

 

[CabinetMaker]

The same book talks about Corinthian saints who do these things. There is a difference between a godless, Christ-less, habitual sinner and a Christian who has an isolated lapse of immorality, lying, lusting, etc. A Christian teenager can violate God's standard of purity (petting, porn, etc.) without this verse sending them straight to hell. An unbeliever who is given over to these things without twinge of conscience, struggle, eventual repentance, etc. is showing that they are lost. The root is unbelief with various fleshly sins. For us, the root of faith saves by grace even if we we tell a lie (believers in Scripture did these things and are not identical to the godless who reject Christ and do the same things).

I think that there is a difference between a believer who stumbles and somebody who claims to be a believer yet leads a deeply immoral life making no effort to repent. I agree with you.

 

[graceandpeace]

Do we do the good works (motive is key) or are we passive sock puppets that He manipulates? An atheist can do good works and some Christians do not. The fruit of the Spirit (character issues) are not the same as works of service, etc. Love is also volitional, so it is possible for an atheist to love and a Christian to hate or a Christian to love and an atheist to hate (again, motive is the key). We have the indwelling Spirit that enables us to obey with right motive, but it is not passive, causative, coerced.

Good to see you back, Jack (er Jane, former pain).

LOL, perhaps I just needed a respite...and, I agree it has everything to do with motive, for of course, the motive must be that it is the result of Christ in us; the hope of glory. Glorying in the flesh is what those whom are OUTside of Christ do, as shown by their works..that they think are good...AMEN? There really is no such thing as a 'good work' outside of Christ; for they all go to the dung pile eventually..in that they will not last; or remain.

 

[graceandpeace]

Quote:
Originally Posted by godrulz
The same book talks about Corinthian saints who do these things. There is a difference between a godless, Christ-less, habitual sinner and a Christian who has an isolated lapse of immorality, lying, lusting, etc. A Christian teenager can violate God's standard of purity (petting, porn, etc.) without this verse sending them straight to hell. An unbeliever who is given over to these things without twinge of conscience, struggle, eventual repentance, etc. is showing that they are lost. The root is unbelief with various fleshly sins. For us, the root of faith saves by grace even if we we tell a lie (believers in Scripture did these things and are not identical to the godless who reject Christ and do the same things).

Amen

Cabinet:

I think that there is a difference between a believer who stumbles and somebody who claims to be a believer yet leads a deeply immoral life making no effort to repent. I agree with you.

Amen..agreed.:wave:..it always goes back to motive...that is 'why we cannot judge a brother by his 'sin'...we may see a brother/sister sin; and only God knows if they are doing it out of weakness or out of 'not caring' about whom and what Christ has done for us, by His sacrifice. If we know the person really well, sometimes we can know, if we have them in our everyday lives, for example..and, when this occurs, we are to go to them in private and confront them with their sin, to let them know that blatant sin is not ok with God. Blatant sin being, an ongoing, sin that shows to be without remorse...because we are to warn them of their wrong thinking, in that Christ did not die for us to give us a license to sin.

 

[Ktoyou]

I partly agree with this. While the debate itself is not that compelling to me....one of the participants suffers from APD(antisocial personality disorder) and displays a classic textbook example of sociopathy.

So, it's interesting to observe the interactions from that standpoint.

:wazzup:

How do you know this? Do you dress your opinions with technical terms for impact, or have you made an examination? I doubt you know the person you are referring to as having mental disorders. What specific textbook are you referring to when you say one is a sociopath? It would be better to use laymen terms; such as wacky, or :kookoo:
:rotfl:

 

[Guyver]

:wazzup:

How do you know this?

Skill and cunning over ignorance and superstition every time.

Do you know what sociopath means? Have you even bothered to look it up?

It's not the same thing as psychopath. Let your fingers do the googling before you speak next time.

Keyword = sociopathy

 

[nicholsmom]

Skill and cunning over ignorance and superstition every time.

Do you know what sociopath means? Have you even bothered to look it up?

It's not the same thing as psychopath. Let your fingers do the googling before you speak next time.

Keyword = sociopathy

:doh:
Accusing ktoyou of laziness when you didn't even bother to find out who she is :nono: Pathetic.

 

[nicholsmom]

ghost, you aren't even trying in the one-on-one. Didn't you agree to the debate?
Your whole "Translation:" blather is evasive and non-responsive as well as embedding ad-hominem attacks.

 

[ghost]

ghost, you aren't even trying in the one-on-one. Didn't you agree to the debate?
Your whole "Translation:" blather is evasive and non-responsive as well as embedding ad-hominem attacks.

That's simply because AMR "chose" to make ad-hominem attacks of my methods of interpretation and communication rather than the content of what I said. If he can't say something so that the "layman" can understand it, then he's only communicating to either hear himself talk, or to impress his peers. For you to suggest that I'm only attacking him with no content, suggests that you did not read the entire post, or are making your own ad-hominem attack.

 

[Nang]

Ghost,

If Jesus Christ did not possess a human will (along with a godly will), how did He submit His will to the Father's will, throughout His life and death?



"He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, 'O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.'" Matthew 26:39

This is Scriptural proof that Jesus had a distinct human will from the Father's will, which proved to be in harmony with the will of God at all times and on all points.

But if Jesus submitted His human will to the divine will of the Father, it is evidence He obeyed and submitted from a distinct human nature than the divine in His incarnation.

It was the incarnated existence of the Son of Man who volitionally voiced from His human soul, this petition and plea.

It is a vital truth to note.

Nang