by UnDisfellowshipped 774 Replies latest watchtower bible
LT
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".
Tell me again, why did you leave the JWs.
LT
But this is veering off thread...
What do you mean? The mormons believe in freedom to choose God.
Are you of the belief that Mormon's can't come to Christ?
Sure, Mormons can come to Christ. But it won't be because of teachings of the Mormon church. D Dog
DDog:
That's exactly my point. Folks don't come to Christ due to "teachings of a denomination" at all.
They are drawn by the Spirit, who regenerates, afterwhich they find something desirous in Christ.
LT We agree on that. However, I think the Spirit uses many different means, like sound teaching. But you're right, it's not the teaching its the Spirit! D Dog
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.
Hence, my response........
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".
My point is, it becomes invalid by his definition.
Is it taught in scripture that one is drawn to the Son, by Holyspirit, and given the ability to reject the(spirit) in essence rejecting itself, therefore trampling the blood??
E.
Maybe we should define what we mean by "trampling the blood"
(edited to include)
Hebrews 10:29
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?I think it's interesting that the blood here deals with sanctification.
D Dog
EW:
As I said, I don't agree with him, but nonetheless, I wouldn't even say that it become invalid. You're only taking a portion of his theology, though granted it's not been thought all the way through, from a technical level.
The reason that I say this is because the blood is efficacious, even in his explanation, it's just that he places far more onus on man to perform and work in sympathy with that..
DDog:
Yes, that would be the correct theological use for the phrase "trampling the blood". Unfortunately we probably all do that, to a degree, too.
In the context of the thread, though, we're probably as well accepting the error, and applying it to pre-conversion actions. That is unless you'd like to offer a more suitable expression? (which probably wouldn't be a bad idea).
The reason that I say this is because the blood is efficacious, even in his explanation, it's just that he places far more onus on man to perform and work in sympathy with that..
By his(ud) works is how he comes to the desired effect of the blood.
If presented correctly(from this thread) Uds position is clear, he is the one who seals himself.
E.
EW:Regardless of how clear it might seem, I'd be careful not to put words in his mouth, if I were you (no matter how likely certain you might be of his opinion, given what he has revealed).
It has been my experience that folks rarely fall into strictly Calvinist / Arminian camps, but rather their own persuasion lies somewhere between.
This isn't surprising, since they were intentionally refutations.
Hence I always try to bear in mind that there are far more points of agreement than disagreement
An example of such extreme refutation is your claiming that he believes he "seals himself".
Whilst it's obvious he makes no such claim, you place him in the perilous position of either capitulating or asserting himself wildly.
LT,
Whilst it's obvious he makes no such claim, you place him in the perilous position of either capitulating or asserting himself wildly.
Yes, its true he doesnt post the words "sealing himself" However I carefully read his dispensation of scripture re. choice, Its very clear to me that he enables himself to reject Grace.
If he feels he has a hand in his salvation, is fine by me. But dont assert that is Doctrine! (name of thrread)
So what claim would you say he is asserting?
E.
edited to add: Good morning, boy you keep odd hours
