ECT Nang's Boastful Lie

[Doom]

You mean the one he changed?

Seriously? Everyone now knows that you are a liar. I NEVER changed your posts. NEVER. You are either completely insane, or so horribly embarrassed by YOUR post, that you cannot accept the shame of it.

The posts are linked to YOUR original comments which are EXACTLY the same.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Fail

No. But your opinion is noted. Thanks.

 

[musterion]

It doesn't and can't remove salvation, but it might be an indicator one never had salvific faith to begin with. I wouldn't know, since I can't know the hearts of men.

I tend to agree with that and because I do, that is one point on which I've differed from a few MADs in the past. It looks to me that Paul had some degree of doubt at times about the genuineness of certain individuals' salvation but not even he could say with certainty whether they were or weren't. It has nothing whatsoever to do with being a fruit inspector...it's simply the reality of the nature of salvation by grace through FAITH, without works (2 Tim 2:19).

No singular or multiple act/s determine [or disprove, or negate, or forfeit] salvation

I agree with this as well.

It might help the conversation, given the direction it's now taking, to establish something here and now: Paul never tells us that the "old man" is dead, eradicated or gone. To believe that he is gone is perhaps the main error Christians can make with regard to our walk. He has been crucified and is to be reckoned as such but he is not gone. We are to reckon OURSELVES as dead to him and alive to God in Christ, but he is not dead.

Just want to point that out to find out whether we're all on the same page here.

But Threepio, do us a favor, seriously: lay off the terminology please. 'kay?

 

[Nang]

John agrees with Paul, and is bringing out the conduct aspect of our imputed righteousness, which has nothing to do with works UNTO salvation, but rather works FROM imputed righteousness that is by grace and faith apart from works.

As does James.

The Word of God is consistent regarding the practice of righteousness being the evidence of salvation rather than the means of obtaining or maintaining one's salvation, that is gifted by grace.

 

[Doom]

My original post with links to Nang's original statements, unaltered by me or anyone else. Evidence that she is lying through her teeth.

I have never said I was perfect like God the Father. If you want to accuse me of that, you had better provide a quote, or be proven a liar.

If one professes to be in Christ, but does not act holy as Christ is holy, that evidences what that professor is NOT.

 

[Nang]

Seriously? Everyone now knows that you are a liar. I NEVER changed your posts. NEVER. You are either completely insane, or so horribly embarrassed by YOUR post, that you cannot accept the shame of it.

The posts are linked to YOUR original comments which are EXACTLY the same.

Would you please give reference to where you found the quote from me as posted in your OP.

You know, the one you changed . . .

Mods would like to know your source.

 

[Nang]

I tend to agree with that and because I do, that is one point on which I've differed from a few MADs in the past. It looks to me that Paul had some degree of doubt at times about the genuineness of certain individuals' salvation but not even he could say with certainty whether they were or weren't. It has nothing whatsoever to do with being a fruit inspector...it's simply the reality of the nature of salvation by grace through FAITH, without works (2 Tim 2:19).

I agree with this as well.

It might help the conversation, given the direction it's now taking, to establish something here and now: Paul never tells us that the "old man" is dead, eradicated or gone. To believe that he is gone is perhaps the main error Christians can make with regard to our walk. He has been crucified and is to be reckoned as such but he is not gone. We are to reckon OURSELVES as dead to him and alive to God in Christ, but he is not dead.

Just want to point that out to find out whether we're all on the same page here.

But Threepio, do us a favor, seriously: lay off the terminology please. 'kay?

I am on board with this post . . .

 

[musterion]

Well the linked post is different...so something smells here.

Correction: it does read the same but I'm not seeing where Nang said "as holy as..."

 

[Doom]

Would you please give reference to where you found the quote from me as posted in your OP.

All posts are linked by clicking on the blue box next to your name. They go directly to your original post. Absolute proof that you are a liar.

You know, the one you changed . . .

I changed nothing. Stop lying.

Mods would like to know your source.

They already know the source, since they know how to click on the blue box that links to your original post.

You really are insane.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

This is why you are to reckon yourself dead to sin. This is why you are not to regard the flesh, when speaking of righteousness. You are to present yourself as an instrument of righteousness, Holy and without blame.

And it has nothing to do with you, so you can not boast.

What I am showing is the gospel of grace given to Paul for us. It is in direct contention with what I just posted for the circumcision. If you continue to say they are the same, then I know you are outside the faith and have evil motives. Like Nang.

You MADers desperately need to understand the Gospel of Paul. I know you hate allegedly big words, but it's about ontology. Ontology is about BEING; it's about existence.

The Gospel of Paul is about our prosopon (outer man) versus our hypostasis (inner man). Paul forgave in the prosopon (person) of Christ (2Cor 2:10). God accepts no man's prosopon (person) (Gal 2:6).

If one doesn't know the difference, then one is always referrring to both at the same time and they're distinct. Sin is in the members, which is the soma (body) of the old man (prosopon). The new creature is the (inner man) hypostasis, which is translated into Christ and seated in heavenly places.

MAD doctrine doesn't understand this essential truth of ontology, being just another form of Judaism and works-based soteriology. Not because of depending upon works, but because of emphasizing the prosopon (outer man) as the same as the hypostasis (inner man). It's putting new wine in old wineskins.

It's that simple, but the simplicity has been clouded by needless complexities.

 

[Doom]

Well the linked post is different...so something smells here.

Correction: it does read the same but I'm not seeing where Nang said "as holy as..."

She didn't say "as holy as". The opening post does not say she said "as holy as".

There is no difference in saying "act as holy as Christ is holy" then saying "act holy as Christ is holy"

Both statements are still saying the same thing. Your holiness by act, must equal the holiness of Christ. It's the same thing.

I can't handle the stupidity here.

So long :e4e:

 

[Nang]

Seriously? Everyone now knows that you are a liar. I NEVER changed your posts. NEVER. You are either completely insane, or so horribly embarrassed by YOUR post, that you cannot accept the shame of it.

The posts are linked to YOUR original comments which are EXACTLY the same.

First, you took issue with my saying Christians should be "holy as Christ" and then accused me of saying "as holy as Christ" (without any quote to back this up).

You changed from the wording of your OP quote right here.

And we still do not know your source for your first OP quote.

 

[musterion]

If one doesn't know the difference, then one is always referrring to both at the same time and they're distinct. Sin is in the members, which is the soma (body) of the old man (prosopon). The new creature is the (inner man) hypostasis, which is translated into Christ and seated in heavenly places.

As far as I can tell, I think we agree with that.

MAD doctrine doesn't understand this essential truth of ontology, being just another form of Judaism and works-based soteriology. Not because of depending upon works, but because of emphasizing the prosopon (outer man) as the same as the hypostasis (inner man).

Sorry, I don't see any of us doing that. OTHERS here may, but not us. Not from what I've seen anyway.

 

[musterion]

She didn't say "as holy as". The opening post does not say she said "as holy as".

There is no difference in saying "act as holy as Christ is holy" then saying "act holy as Christ is holy"

Both statements are still saying the same thing. Your holiness by act, must equal the holiness of Christ. It's the same thing.

I can't handle the stupidity here.

So long :e4e:

Didn't mean any offense. I could have sworn I saw yesterday someone citing her as saying "AS holy as," but I didn't read into it as closely as I should have before commenting, so it's my fault.

 

[Nang]

She didn't say "as holy as". The opening post does not say she said "as holy as".

There is no difference in saying "act as holy as Christ is holy" then saying "act holy as Christ is holy"

Both statements are still saying the same thing. Your holiness by act, must equal the holiness of Christ. It's the same thing.

I can't handle the stupidity here.

So long :e4e:

If there was not a huge difference between the two statements, I would not bother with your inane accusations.

But being holy as Christ is saying the same thing as I Peter 1:16, which I usually reference when on this subject.

I do not believe any human being can be "as holy as Jesus" as you claim. Such is a fall into the error of "Perfectionism" teaching, which is humanistic, post-modern, unbiblical, and totally wrong.

So stop with it all, please!

 

[intojoy]

Just own your errors. I do. It's healthy. Go on do em

 

[Nang]

Didn't mean any offense. I could have sworn I saw yesterday someone citing her as saying "AS holy as," but I didn't read into it as closely as I should have before commenting, so it's my fault.

Doom first posted it on #6 in the thread:


"Do you acknowledge the error made by Nang, where she equates acting as holy as Jesus with salvation? Do you agree or disagree with her view on this?"

 

[Nang]

Just own your errors. I do. It's healthy. Go on do em

I will defend myself against unfounded accusations, thank you very much.

That is the spiritually healthy thing to do.

 

[Doom]

I do not believe any human being can be "as holy as Jesus" as you claim.

I did not claim it you dummy, YOU DID Here

If one professes to be in Christ, but does not act holy as Christ is holy, that evidences what that professor is NOT.

To "act holy" as Christ is holy is to do the same as Christ. The fact that YOU, nor apparently anyone else can see that, speaks volumes as to why most people are a complete mess when it comes to sharing or believing the gospel.

 

[Nick M]

No. I've never said that. Ever. Not once. Not even a hint. I've said nothing but the opposite, so you'll need to quote the post/s that correspond/s to your false assertion.

And if you understood the meaning of keep (tereo) and commandments (entole), you wouldn't have to ask anyone..

That was easy.