i am curious about the history of disfellowshipping and disassociation doctrines.
i know that they changed the da rules when ray and co were leaving so that no one could talk to people who disassociated themselves -- to close the loophole.
i am wondering if that's also when the df rules also became more harshly and strictly enforced.
...i was disassociated when i was 14 for smoking weed at the parking lot during our cowpalace convention with some other kids who went to my hall...this was 1977
Hey mole, I was Da'ed in `81 for simular offences and then some. There was not really a policy in effect for these "reproachable" actions other than to Da someone. (who was not baptized)
Mom has never shunned me at all. Deep down I dont think she could. Maybe if I were Baptized and DF'ed.
E.
come to the wedding.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
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.
come to the wedding.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
Ermmm, covering Adamic sin?
And this gets me where?
come to the wedding.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
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)
and again,God allows people time to choose whether to repent after He enlightens them with the Gospel truth:
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?
This is a direct reference to making mankind savable.The Holy Word of my God teaches that:
* Jesus Christ died for all men -- every human ever
Besides, surely if it were even covering only adamic sin, it would still be of "use".
Use for what?
E.
come to the wedding.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
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.
come to the wedding.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
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.
come to the wedding.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
You picked up on the keyword. I'm glad that wasn't lost on you.
I didn't misapply it, I applied it, to lessen the impact of UnDis's position...
What would the "experiential value" be when the choice is the latter? re: Holyspirits "enlightenment?
But then doesn't man have to accept, by faith (which is given as a "gift of the Spirit"), grace (which is freely offered by God)?
Ahhh......Yeah. I do believe we're on the same pg.
Do you mean "regeneration" when you speak of enlightenment?
I ask because the spirit of man may surely be regenerated before the senses are engaged?
I believe this to be the course.
Your wit is over my head. E.All through the Bible is there one instance were mans will is done and not Gods?Which specific account are you refering to? You just undermined the strength of your own argument - LOL.
come to the wedding.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
LittleToe,
The biggest debate, here, is whether or not God acts before or after the mind of man makes a choice. I would suggest that man is involved in "Conversion" (and so UNDF';ed is correct in an experiential way), but that Regeneration precedes this, enabling a man to avail himself of the good that has been graciously provided (since before this he was unable, being "Totally Depraved", with nothing "good" in him to desire this).
I want to understand the wording "experiential way" I believe you misapply this term to lesson the impact of Udis' position.
The fact remains, he gives man a choice. You stating experiential way, would indicate to me that said enlightenment was the catalyst for his right decision. Which is half of Undis' position. He never speaks of the other half of his position, the man that rejects the calling. He has clearly stated that after being enlightened man has a choice to accept or reject. If he accepts this calling/enlightenment then only would your term of "experiential way" apply.The biggest debate, here, is whether or not God acts before or after the mind of man makes a choice .
I would disagree with you. It was not in my plans to seek God. Let alone his Son as my redeemer. I believe God knows beforehand the condition of my heart. Whether or not he makes himself known to me.
God in his all knowing wisdom, knows the beginning of time to the end, enlightens someone and sits there and says gee I wonder if this one is going to choose me. The biggest debate IMHO is 'can man reject Gods will'. All through the Bible is there one instance were mans will is done and not Gods? In the end Undis turns God ito a spectator, waiting to see if man will decide to come to him with a little coaxing from the Holyspirit. E. edit to add; lets not forget the name of this thread. "Freedom to Choose God"
come to the wedding.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
LT, the problem with this thread has been identify what Undis will commit to actually believing.
pg.9 I agree that all humans (left by themselves, without God's intervention) would all die in their sins and go to Hell because they are born with a sinful corrupted nature.
So on this hand he contends that mans nature is no good whatsoever period.
pg.9 But I also believe that my God has the power and the will to enlighten a spiritually dead human with the truth of the Gospel and allow that person the freedom to choose to repent and believe or reject and be lost eternally
But on this hand he claims that mans nature will ultimately decide.
But dont we all know by now what mans nature is???????
If he says otherwise he has the HolySpirit rejecting itself. The end.
I will split hairs with the best of them. But when Im told something is in scripture, and it aint there, that person needs to be refuted.
Is he a brother in Christ? I suppose so.But I cant say for sure. I hope he is. Do we see Jesus in the same saving light? well that is to be determined.
E.
Edited to add;
I had a similar conversation (on treating each other with love) in "real life", recently, with one of my Calvinist brothers, who seemed quite happy to dismiss Arminians out of hand. He went kinda silent when I pointed out to him that although I believe their doctrine to be in error, it certainly causes them to work hard, perhaps far harder than us...I like that.
come to the wedding.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.
I agree DDog,
The drowning guy thing has to go. Its just a bad example.
Difference of doctrine doesn't mean a different Christ...
Really?
Undis..The Apostle Paul said that the Gospel that he was ordained to preach to the Gentiles was that Christ Jesus "gave Himself a ransom FOR ALL."
LT, what does the above atatement(red part) do with the entire human race since Adam?
I believe the Dee Dog hit it right on the head, Undis' Christ ransoms just makes mankind savable!
E.
