Just to be fair and fully transparent, AndyC is coming from a Charismatic/Pentecostal background. Therefore, his perspective will be influenced by that "Belief system."
ECT Mad finds itself in the trash by applying simple logic
- Thread starter andyc
- Start date
He is filled with he spirit, which is something you despise greatly, as they also despised Christ.
LA
Stay off of that LA Freeway, it's back to back with false doctrine and confusion.
What's a "beast worshipper?" Are you still making predictions about my untimely demise?
Why do you not tell the people the reason that you keep speaking like that.
LA
Because it's true.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle:
That was NOT Paul's whole point but we'll save that for later.
You keep sounding like a dispensationalist! You replace the word "dispensation" with "covenant" but otherwise, you have the principle of it down pat.
Those who live in glass houses....
Christ's death on the cross paid the debt of any God wishes to forgive. The righteous debands of the Law (a.k.a. justice) is therefore met and the Law is no longer needed and in fact was taken out of the way having been nailed to that cross.
That is NOT the reason God show compassion to people in the Old Testament! Good greif man! Do you think God needs the Law to be righteous? Do you really think that God is subject to the Law or that His righteousness it contingent upon it? You need to think this through a little more thoroughly.
Now THIS is what Paul's whole point is! The Law is gone; nailed to the cross and satified by the death of God the Son. It has nothing to say to those who are in Him.
There's no time to respond to the rest in detail. I would like it if you'd answer my question though...
Do you actually believe that everyone after Moses and prior to the cross went to Hell? If not, how did they avoid it?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Good post. I liked that you used the term: "God the Son." I always use the Title. Everybody ought to.
Now, if we could just get Andy to answer the question I asked, we could move the discussion along.
I don't understand people who act as if they are frightened by the logical implications of their own beliefs, especially when the whole discussion is supposedly about the application of simple logic, as the title of this thread clearly states. The OP presented what was supposedly the logical implication of our beliefs and we all jumped at the chance to explain what the misunderstanding was. Had the OP presented a logically sound argument that follows from our beliefs, we would have all jumped at the chance to acknowledge it and would have explained why the conclusion is nothing to be worried about or ashamed of. But, when the tables get turned around, the reaction is to run away and ignore it. I just don't get it.
Well said.
musterion
Well-known member
Adventists and Watchtower slaves like to use that term.
andyc
New member
I understand the dispensations in the bible, but I'm not a dispensationalist in the modern sense of what it describes.
The forgiveness was not available until Christ came.
The law reveals his righteousness.
Absolutely yes!
Do you really think that God could give a promise to people, and not follow through with it when the criteria was met?
Is God a God of his word or isn't he?
God has exalted his word above his name. And so if he denies his own word, he denies himself.
OK
Of course not.
Those who broke a law that was punishable by death, went to the grave condemned. Similar to a person on death row is going to the grave condemned. Whether those condemned in this world will go to heaven or hell, is for God to judge.
andyc
New member
Why would I be frightened?
So far no madists has explained what the forgiveness was based on in Luke 7.
I've started to give up, but then again there is no response to this for you guys.
Well just answer the question and put us all out of misery.
andyc
New member
So far only one madist has tried to offer some kind of answer to the fact that a woman's many sins were forgiven on a basis other than the law of Moses, which madists think she was tied to, and Jesus was supposed to be enforcing.
Lighthouse said that God could just forgive her because......... well........because he's God. Although there are consequences to sin according to the law, God just randomly negated his own word simply because he felt like it at that moment.
You see, if this becomes the view of all maddists, and there really is no other view to take unless you accept that Jesus was ministering grace, not law, well then that ends the thread. You're admitting that God is not a God of his word.
If God can just forgive a woman's many sins even if it violates his own word, then he can just forgive everyones sins for no other reason than the fact he is God and can do what he wants.
Lighthouse said that God could just forgive her because......... well........because he's God. Although there are consequences to sin according to the law, God just randomly negated his own word simply because he felt like it at that moment.
You see, if this becomes the view of all maddists, and there really is no other view to take unless you accept that Jesus was ministering grace, not law, well then that ends the thread. You're admitting that God is not a God of his word.
If God can just forgive a woman's many sins even if it violates his own word, then he can just forgive everyones sins for no other reason than the fact he is God and can do what he wants.
Tongues are fake and the gifts have ceased, grow up candy
Begging the question is a logical fallacy.