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.
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
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 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
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
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
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
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.
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
Do you believe the Mormons trample the blood of Christ? Why or why not?
D Dog
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 I don't think this the typical Calvinism / Arminianism debate.
He's claiming to be covered by it, that's great, but, by claiming every human is covered by it, don't you think that it makes His blood no more than common grace.Is that truly what he's claiming?
Or is he not rather claiming that it's available for any who would claim it?
Look at this from page 10 Undis states:
I believe that when The Spirit enlightens a person, The Spirit restores that person's ability to humble himself, and restores that person's ability to repent, if he so chooses. In other words, The Spirit restores what Adam and Eve originally had before they sinned -- the freedom to choose whether or not to obey God.
It looks to me that he is saying that Jesus died or was sacrificed to give every human a choice, and that benefit comes before salvation, no matter if it's claimed or not. D Dog
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.
Isn't that what happens if you say the blood doesn't save, but only makes us savable?No, I dont think that's trampling the blood, at all. He's claiming to be covered by it, and to love his Lord. How is he trampling it? Be careful with how you judge, lest you be judged accordingly... If we are to be judged on complete accuracy of doctrine, I'm afraid we are all condemned!!!
LT I don't mean to judge anyone! He's claiming to be covered by it, that's great, but, by claiming every human is covered by it, don't you think that it makes His blood no more than common grace.
About the trypart man, are you asking if any part of man can respond on it's own? Or what part of man does God quicken?What part. I'm of Calvinist persuasion, too
What are your thoughts? This is a problem for me because in some parts of scripture the words (spirit, soul) seem interchangable. D Dog
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
Do you honestly think UnDF'ed is trampling the blood of Christ underfoot?
Isn't that what happens if you say the blood doesn't save, but only makes us savable?
About the trypart man, are you asking if any part of man can respond on it's own? Or what part of man does God quicken? We know the flesh never responds, ever, at any time.
D Dog
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
I mean no ill will to undis, Im just trying to argue his own point back at him. I don't believe he has thought it through.
D Dog
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 Normally, I would agree with you. But do you think being cut off for preaching another "gospel" simply because I don't agree with his insertion of "all humans" into the text when ever he sees fit, is serious don't you think? He doesn't consider us his brother.
Difference of doctrine doesn't mean a different Christ...
Tell that to undis. If you read about halfway through page 9 of this thread, He seems to disagree with you. I asked him this question:
How does answering this question " Did Jesus Christ die for all humans, or did He die only for certain humans whom God predestined to save?" actually determine whether or not someone is teaching a false Gospel?
Here is his response:
Because the Bible says so: 1st Timothy 2:5-7: For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, [and] lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. 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." The Apostle Paul also stated this very strong warning against preaching another "gospel": Galatians 1:8-9: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
How do you like being accursed? It seems that in undisfellowshippeds mind 1st Timothy 2:6 can only be read his way. I have tried to explain to him that I believe this verse actully teaches my view. I believe the verse should be understood this way.
Who gave himself a ransom for all (who believe) , (the "who" are what is) to be testified in due time.
If we could slow down and deal with one verse at a time we could avoid things like this. D Dog
