ECT Is it possible that after we have been saved we can. . .

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Cross Reference said:
Here. Read it and weep:

"For whoever wants to save his [higher, spiritual, eternal] life, will lose it [the lower, natural, temporal life which is lived only on earth]; and whoever gives up his life [which is lived only on earth] for My sake and the Gospel's will save it [his higher, spiritual life in the eternal kingdom of God]. Mark 8:35 (AMP)

Want more??
Click to expand...


It is a still a question of whether a person does this out of nervous compulsion or out of being won by the grace of the Gospel. There is no value to the former, just as there was no value to the repressive sort of neo-Judaism which Col 2:23 spoke about.

All of the NT has the backdrop of a rather crass, rancid, literalist Judaism. It's language is not for all circumstances and times. It is speaking first to that backdrop. For ex., 'living water' in Jn 7 is about that, not the 1970s California surf culture where everything is about as ideal as it can be but a person still feels empty inside. That has merely to do with the absence of character and discipline and with seeking too much fun.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Cross Reference said:
Here. Read it and weep:

"For whoever wants to save his [higher, spiritual, eternal] life, will lose it [the lower, natural, temporal life which is lived only on earth]; and whoever gives up his life [which is lived only on earth] for My sake and the Gospel's will save it [his higher, spiritual life in the eternal kingdom of God]. Mark 8:35 (AMP)

Want more??
Click to expand...

As I Am A Berean put it on another post "Jesus was speaking to Jews under the Law."
 
OCTOBER23

OCTOBER23

New member
Is it possible that after we have been Resurrected .........

become HUMANS AGAIN and make Lots of Fat little Babies ????????
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
It is a still a question of whether a person does this out of nervous compulsion or out of being won by the grace of the Gospel...
Click to expand...

Not in Matthew thru John - as one of your own put it - that was Jesus speaking to Jews under the Law.

The Law had had as as one of it's intents that of making sin obvious, Rom 7:7.

While Jesus' words to them had had the intended effect of making their sin nature even more obvious to them, by the Law, Rom. 5:20.

His intent had been the impact His Words PRIOR to the Cross might have on them AFTER the Cross.

Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Cross Reference said:
So what?? Isn't the severity of such denial meant to have the same implications irrespective of of who is being invited??
Click to expand...

That's a question worth asking. Such kinds of questions always are.

But not to then turn around and answer them from what would make sense to us.

Rather, for their being followed by the question "okay, so how would that work this side of HIS having FULLY ACCOMPLISHED that request ALONE - ON THE CROSS - "who loved me and gave himself for me"?

That is what Paul meant that he, Paul, "through the law, am dead to the law," in the preceding verse (Gal. 2:19).

The Law demanded righteousness as a prerequisite to declaring one righteous. What Paul refers to in Romans 10: 4 as "the law FOR righteousness" that "Moses described."
 
Cross Reference

Cross Reference

New member
Danoh said:
PHP: 
[QUOTE]That's a question worth asking. Such kinds of questions always are. 

But not to then turn around and answer them from what would make sense to us.

Rather, for their being followed by the question "okay, so how would that work this side of HIS having FULLY ACCOMPLISHED that request ALONE - ON THE CROSS - "who loved me and gave himself for me"?[/QUOTE]

Only if a distinction is purposed by God to be made for reasons that might never be successfully debated to to a just conclusion. . . nor necessary if He means for the words to stand alone.

[QUOTE]That is what Paul meant that he, Paul, "through the law, am dead to the law," in the preceding verse (Gal. 2:19).[/QUOTE]

Consider that to mean the "Law of his flesh" and not any written law of Moses.

[quote]The Law demanded righteousness as a prerequisite to declaring one righteous. What Paul refers to in Romans 10: 4 as "the law FOR righteousness" that "Moses described."[/QUOTE]

Take Rom 10:4 and 5 as type that it be brought down to a personal level for the purpose of personal crucifixion by success in the keeping of the great commandment.

Question: By what means does Satan use to accuse the brethren except man's inability to put to death the law of; the deeds of his flesh? Enter Roman's 8:1.
Click to expand...
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Yes, one of Satan's main accusations is that if God really was at work, the result would be a perfect Christian. Does that sound familiar from the times we live in!!! It is very easy to miss what imputed/credited righteousness is.
 
Cross Reference

Cross Reference

New member
Interplanner said:
Yes, one of Satan's main accusations is that if God really was at work, the result would be. . .
Click to expand...

. . .a Christian in the process of becoming a son, an heir of God and joint heir with Jesus. That is the program God has set through the new birth from above by which "many sons will be brought unto Glory", per Heb 2:10 KJV.

Does that sound familiar from the times we live in!!! It is very easy to miss what imputed/credited righteousness is.
Click to expand...

What part am I missing here if righteousness receives to itself, imputed justification aside from Jesus Christ? However, I am NOT saying that righteousness is reconciled to God by justification unto union in Him as a son would have.
Click to expand...
 
theophilus

theophilus

Well-known member
CR,

I "bumped" this thread because you are a liar.

In this thread you accused me of blathering "Baptist" "stuff and OSAS and information from commentaries; which you denied saying in this thread: http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?116676-Isaiah-1-18-How-would-you-teach-it

And YOU are the one "forgetting" what YOU wrote in private messaging.

*One lie calls ALL of your truths into question.

You DID say you were a retired Pastor living in Charlotte.

You DID give the allusion you were Pentacostal.

Maybe YOU have a "denial" problem.

:think:

I forgive you. Thank you for the "option" of NOT having to believe anything you say.
 
Cross Reference

Cross Reference

New member
theophilus said:
CR,

I "bumped" this thread because you are a liar.

In this thread you accused me of blathering "Baptist" "stuff and OSAS and information from commentaries; which you denied saying in this thread: http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?116676-Isaiah-1-18-How-would-you-teach-it

And YOU are the one "forgetting" what YOU wrote in private messaging.

*One lie calls ALL of your truths into question.

You DID say you were a retired Pastor living in Charlotte.

You DID give the allusion you were Pentacostal.

Maybe YOU have a "denial" problem.

:think:

I forgive you. Thank you for the "option" of NOT having to believe anything you say.
Click to expand...

Please quote the post in the thread. I can't find it. Perhaps you can forward the private message as well?
 
Cross Reference

Cross Reference

New member
theophilus said:
In this thread:
Post #'s: 22, 38, 40, 41, 53

I no longer have our PM exchange.
Click to expand...

That is unfortunate. It would have only proven you wrong about me.

Here's more you need to defend:

Post: 22: CR replied: Well, that is your learned opinion. I say learned because that understanding is not in the Bible and you gleaned it somewhere else. No doubt, a commentary.


38: CR replied: Why not start with yourself. All you have offered up is Baptist speak that divides the Church! You should know that what you say is really only deifying your church. I say this because you cannot say one thing I have written, that is wrong and be honest in your refutation. Sorry, it ain't there. Now ask yourself why?

Read the Oswald Chambers thread and take him into your thinking, instead of Spurgeon.

40: Originally Posted by Cross Reference 
Why not start with yourself. All you have offered up is Baptist speak that divides the Church!

You should know that what you say is really only deifying your church.

I say this because you cannot say one thing I have written, that is wrong and be honest in your refutation. Sorry, it ain't there. Now ask yourself why?

Read the Oswald Chambers thread and take him into your thinking, instead of Spurgeon.
I prefer Spurgeon, thank you.

Why don't you go do a study on "grace."

41: Theo replied:


Refute what? Your OP was a question. I answered it.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer it. You gave me Baptist OSAS speak. I didn't ask for that.

Why don't you go do a study on "grace."

It's MUCH bigger than you think. Really.
Click to expand...

Grace is the outflowing of life of God to the one in whom He finds favor...

53:CR replied: The only problem I have with that is Spurgeon was a preacher who preached salvation, exclusively.. I don't need a preacher. I know what he is going to say before he says it. I am saved, twice baptized in water and once by the Holy Ghost.

I gravitate to truth by revelation, not by what some denominational church assembly or any "religious Christian self-help book" might wish to achieve, absent revelation and thus absent the Holy Spirit.

Chambers gives "practical [but only by the Holy Spirit] scriptural insight" into the working out of my salvation more than any other writer. I know he is of God because of such insight that bears witness to what God has previously already deposited in me. . . and it never has ended. I suspect it will continue through eternity that we will never exhaust the "Grace" of God.
_____________________________________________________

Where is my error in the words iI used? Where is my lying about anything in reply to you? Ergo, where is the offense?

You made accusations about me and you are mistken in making them. I will forgive you when you ask for it.

Question: Are you the North Carolinian who lives in Reidsville?
 
theophilus

theophilus

Well-known member
You had a visitor message thanking whoever paid for your subscription.

I PM'ed you.

You PM'ed back.

I told you my Baptist Pastor considered me a Bapti-costal and my mother's Pastor considered me a Penta-baptist.

That is where you got your boxer's in a big bunch about me spewing "baptist" and OSAS and "commentary" stuff into your thread.

*BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER REVEALED MY DENOMINATION IN ANY THREAD UNTIL YESTERDAY.

The ONLY place you would have gotten that from me is a PM.

You said you were a retired Pastor...which you have since denied. That makes you either stricken with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's or you are a liar. Choose one.

AND,

I wouldn't ask you for the sweat off your "bum" if I was dying of thirst in the middle of a desert.

:)
 
Cross Reference

Cross Reference

New member
theophilus said:
You had a visitor message thanking whoever paid for your subscription.

I PM'ed you.

You PM'ed back.

I told you my Baptist Pastor considered me a Bapti-costal and my mother's Pastor considered me a Penta-baptist.

That is where you got your boxer's in a big bunch about me spewing "baptist" and OSAS and "commentary" stuff into your thread.

*BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER REVEALED MY DENOMINATION IN ANY THREAD UNTIL YESTERDAY.

The ONLY place you would have gotten that from me is a PM.

You said you were a retired Pastor...which you have since denied. That makes you either stricken with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's or you are a liar. Choose one.

AND,

I wouldn't ask you for the sweat off your "bum" if I was dying of thirst in the middle of a desert.

:)
Click to expand...


Do you live in Reidsville?

This was my PM back to you: theophilus
theophilus - January 15th, 2016 01:46 PM View Conversation Report
I am a North Carolinian, too.


I live south of Raleigh. I have never lived in Charlotte nor, as other on this forum can testify, have I ever said a I was a retired pastor. Your lost pm messges would have reveal that to you as well.

I may have said my son is a pastor. That I can remember.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top