ECT Nang's Boastful Lie
- Thread starter Doom
- Start date
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
This is wrong question from not understanding the definition of righteousness (didaiosune).
Righteousness is conformity with the claims of higher authority, and stands as an opposite to lawlessness (anomia).
It is conformity to all that God commands or appoints. Since God Himself is the standard for the Believer, it's the righteousness of God or God-like righteousness.
The righteouness of God is the right which God has upon man. In order for man to recognize and fully submit to the right of God upon his life, he must receive God through the person of Christ, who offers Himself and His righteousness to man as a gift (Rom 5:17).
The recognition and acceptance of God's right upon man, realized through faith, stands in opposition to the righteousness which is of the law, which is the acceptance of the claims of the law upon his life.
Most don't see righteousness as the claim of God upon their lives for character and conduct; but that's exactly what the definition of the word is. But it's a gift to be empowered to have the character of God and the ability to demonstrate it in conduct.
Imputed righteousness is not just a label affixed to us as some status that belies the very definition and nature of righteousness as God's claim upon our hearts and lives.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
How would I know? I don't know if he ever repented of his sin condition.
If he had previously repented? Yes. No individual act determines salvation or loss of it.
If he had not previously repented? No.
2Cor 12:21, he may be one whom Paul is referring to as never having repented. We can't know for sure.
Salvation isn't about "sins", it's about "sin". The inner condition, not individual resulting outward acts from sinning.
Hamartia (sin) is a noun, not a verb. It's isn't about doing.
Let's "cut to the chase," as we are all busy men, and women. This encore, is what nasty Naggie, and the religious prostitutes in the Clavinist/Calvinist camp believe, despite any spin, denials, emotional pleas, tap dancing with a white cain, and top hat, to the contrary:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80996
Post #1
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80996
Post #1
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I'm trying to clarify the topic of what righteousness is by definition. It just happens to be on a thread about Nang.
I love Nang. But this has nothing to do with Nang except a misunderstanding of what she has said.
I just got sick of all the animosity flying around everywhere, so I decided to ignore all the drivel and address the topic.
We need to know where their doctrines come from. If the spreader is hateful, it is not of God.
Jesus says we know them by their fruit. Nang has been spreading hateful messages. Above all, she follows Calvin, the murderer.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I'm unsure. Why would you put him forth as some kind of example to determine something on this issue?
The definition of righteousness is the core subject. It includes conduct with character, by man recognizing God's claim on his life.
Why chase rabbits of determining someone's salvation based on a limited record of church discipline?
You are the murderer, God said so and I always believe God.
if anyone say they love God but hate their brother the same is a liar and the truth is not in them, they are the spirit of Cain who was a murderer. And we know that no murderer has eternal life dwelling in them.
No wonder you reject John the apostle
musterion
Well-known member
Don't get paranoid on me, this is not a trick question. It's relevant to the issue at hand.
You know the answer to this much because you can read: What did Paul order the Corinthians to do with this guy, and what was his stated rationale for doing so?
Paul taught we are predestined and elected before all worlds began...put that in your pipe and smoke it.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
LOL. I'm not paranoid, but I did think it might be.
Okay. I just don't know where you're going with this.
To deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
musterion
Well-known member
Right.
Would history's premier ambassador of Christ - the man who, in God's stead, begged the lost to be saved - have issued that edict regarding someone he believed was not saved?
musterion
Well-known member
Love ya, Tot, but you left out the two most important words there. :king:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
If he's ultimately going to be saved, then it would follow that he was saved. I still don't follow why this is pertinent to the definition of righteousness.
No singular or cumulative acts disanull one's salvation any more than any singular or cumulative acts brought salvation.
Try and focus! This post of yours has NOTHING to do with
the subject! Walk away from your Laptop until you clear
your head!!
You really need to get out more, Timmy. Here is what wolf-ette Naggie said, and continues to say:
"Dispies don't want to hear this. They are taught to do nothing after salvation.....All men born into this world are obligated to keep the Covenant of Works. The Law and Commands of God, as given to Adam before the fall."-nasty Naggie
"Any person who lives his life wrongly and does not repent of his sins, will be held responsible and judged for breaking God's laws and are justly consigned to death and hell. Sinners only receive what they have earned. Men reap what they sow….Souls can be assured they are in the body of Christ, when the Holy Spirit causes them to hate their sins and to repent of them.Any soul who professes faith in Christ, who continually practices sin without any remorse or evidence of repentance, produces a erroneous witness to the saving grace of God."-nasty Naggie
No "misunderstanding," as anyone with a 6th grade eggeecashun can understand what she "posts," and continues to post,as she perverts the gospel of Christ.
Now, Timmy, since Naggie is your "friend," perhaps you can be her "prophet," AKA "spokesman." That is, break it down for us, quanitify for all of us alleged "license to sin"ners, just what the h___ this " continually practices sin without any remorse or evidence of repentance" is. Unpack it for us. Do be a dear, and lay out:
-What is "continually?" 22% of the time? 34.87% of the time? 10% of the time?
-How much "remorse?" Who sets the standard for judging "remorse?" You? Members of the boc? A vote? And just how would you do that? My brother is a doctor. Is there a medical instrument, that he would know, that measures "remorse?"
-How much evidence of repentance? Specifics, please.
-How much "hate their sins? Specfics. How do you measure this "level" of "hating their sins?"
A Muslim, Jew, a Roman Catholic, some deluded Hare Krishna monk, on the streets of Tibet, can demonstrate "remorse or evidence of repentance," "hate of their sins." And?
And most TOl members are sick of your "lovey dovey" wining, and pining. Here is an idea: mount your horse, and head out of TOL Dodge, and head on over to the "Girl Scout's" website, or "The Mutual Admiration Society," where I'm sure you will be welcomed, by man pleasers, just like yourself, and don't come back real soon.
We want no part of that, as the bible is a rough book. War is rough, and this is a war for men/women's souls.
Can you dig that?
musterion
Well-known member
Because, Threepio, if there was ever an example of a professing believer's conduct disqualifying him as a member of the Body of Christ, that dude was it.
But it didn't.