Freedom to Choose God (page 25)

LittleToe

Ellderwho:
We're on the same page, alright

What would the "experiential value" be when the choice is the latter? re: Holyspirits "enlightenment?

My point is that if UnDis is taking this from an experiential perspective, then his first contact is the point at which man "responds in faith" and is "converted". Unfortunately this misses the fact that God's work begins beforehand (far, far beforehand, if you count "election in eternity").

All through the Bible is there one instance were mans will is done and not Gods?

Did you mean "...there is not one instance..."?
That would make more sense.

ellderwho

Little Toe,

Unfortunately this misses the fact that God's work begins beforehand (far, far beforehand, if you count "election in eternity").

Could not have said it better!

All through the Bible is there one instance were mans will is done and not Gods?
Did you mean "...there is not one instance..."?
That would make more sense.

I suppose my question was rhetorical.

E.

LittleToe

Oops, my bad. I entirely misread your question. I thought you were initially saying that there WAS one instance...
(I couldn't think of it, which is why I asked about it).

Dang. Now the dust has settled, where is UnDis???
~looks around~

LOL

So where do you stand on my comments on "Universalism"?
Does it "trample the blood" or not?

ellderwho

So where do you stand on my comments on "Universalism"?
Does it "trample the blood" or not?

I'm with DD here for several points made.

I can draw from Undis' statements all along this thread that Christs' blood makes mankind savable. And the rest is up to us.

Much like the Jws believe "it" frees us from Adamic sin. Thereby we must choose the way to salvation which in most cases, if not all leaves Christ out of the picture.

I ve always wondered why the Jws need Christ anyway.

In this light, I believe the Blood is trampled. What use is it. Other than to free use from Adams sin. Not our own.

Undis will deflect Pauls struggle with the flesh, and has never really addressed this delima.

He has to rely on the flesh. Unfortunately this does trample it.

E.

LittleToe

Ellderwho:
On this point I must protest and strongly disagree.

In this light, I believe the Blood is trampled. What use is it. Other than to free use from Adams sin. Not our own.

Has he ever said that it only covers adamic sin, and not our own?
Besides, surely if it were even covering only adamic sin, it would still be of "use".

Since "trampling the blood" is a cause of offense, such a broad definition for this phrase will put you (both) at odds with a fairly large section of "the body of Christ".

ellderwho

Has he ever said that it only covers adamic sin, and not our own?
Besides, surely if it were even covering only adamic sin, it would still be of "use".

Look for yourself,

pg. 1God desires ALL HUMANS to be saved -- Jesus died for ALL HUMANS:

Look at the caps for all humans. Now is this all humans, or is this all humans?

pg.1Then, that person must make a choice -- either repent and believe in Jesus for salvation OR reject Jesus and spend eternity in Hell:

So if I choose not to, Im able to trample the blood right then and there. Then later in life I can choose again according to UD if Im humble enough the second time around, and maybe the 3rd and 4th time around. Basically it allows one to trample his whole life until one feels the time is now to envoke the blood that saves.

7. Knowing I was enlightened once in my life, can I make a death-bed confession to God and follow-up the original enlightenment?
Only if you are truly repentant and humble yourself before God, and believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and that He died for you.

Is this the case with UD, If he chose God say in 1995 and rejects him in 2000, then in 2005 decides he will accept the blood that saves, what was done to the blood in between the years of rejection? ( 2000-05)

God allows people time to choose whether to repent after He enlightens them with the Gospel truth:

and again,

God leads people to repent, but they can still choose to reject God:

Here relying on the flesh;

That was why I quoted those Scriptures, which show that the God of the Bible wants people to carefully examine the facts and then decide what the truth is.

So if I decide not to accept the blood what am I doing to it?

The Holy Word of my God teaches that:
* Jesus Christ died for all men -- every human ever

This is a direct reference to making mankind savable.

Besides, surely if it were even covering only adamic sin, it would still be of "use".

Use for what?

E.

LittleToe

EW:Aren't you missing a major point, if you are to take that definition?
Namely, we all trampled it before conversion, and if we ever sin willfully we do so again...

Besides, surely if it were even covering only adamic sin, it would still be of "use".
Use for what?

Ermmm, covering Adamic sin?

ellderwho

Ermmm, covering Adamic sin?

And this gets me where?

Deputy Dog

LT

Do you believe the Mormons trample the blood of Christ? Why or why not?

D Dog

LittleToe

EW:
It's of use if you can "perfectly" keep God's law, which we know we can't. It's a similar believe to the JW view of "balancing out the scales for Adam's sin", which sadly falls short of the realities of life.

I didn't say I agreed with him, I just pointed out that his view doesn't state the "Jesus blood is of no value".

DDog:Of course they do, as have all of us.

Are you of the belief that Mormon's can't come to Christ?
I was still a JW when I did!
Hence I'm always edgy when I hear people denigrate a whole group on the basis of a denomination.
(even when there may be strong circumstancial grounds for concern as to whether or not they have actually met with Christ - fortunately, I'm not the judge of that)

But this is veering off thread...

Freedom to Choose God

Share this