|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 24, 2006 15:25:51 GMT -5
I read the article and there is no refutation in it to any of the points I brought up above. I think you need to go back and read that thread again carefully.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 24, 2006 15:04:19 GMT -5
Somebody can be false, yet preach things that are correct. Maybe I will look at the link, maybe not. Can you refute what I pointed out?
Jesus also said in Matthew 12:40 that He would be in the heart of the earth for 3 days and 3 nights. The heart of the earth is not up.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 24, 2006 14:30:06 GMT -5
biblethumper,
I do not think you paid attention to what I said. Can you show me where I ever denied that Jesus died physically? I never did.
What I pointed out is that Jesus is repeatedly referred to as the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18, Revelation 1:5). Before Jesus died on the Cross of Calvary and was resurrected, there were several people he raised again from physical death in His earthly ministry. So if Jesus raised several people from physical death in His earthly ministry before He Himself was raised from the dead, then I do not see how it means the first born from the dead in only a physical sense.
Jesus was made sin on Calvary (2 Corinthians 5:21). Sin causes separation from God. Jesus was made sin because God the Father forsook Him on the Cross. If the penalty for sin is hell, and Jesus died physically in that state then I can see clearly why He should have to go to hell.
It also says in Revelation 1:5 that Jesus was the first begotten from the dead. This is the same word used in Romans 8:29 where it says Jesus was the firstborn among many brethren. Was that referring to physical birth? How could that be? Many people had already been born physically. I believe it was referring to being spiritually reborn from the dead.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 24, 2006 11:23:05 GMT -5
I am not dogmatic on this issue and believe I am open to other views, however, I have always understood Jesus to have gone to literal hell.
One reason I believe this is because Jesus was the first born from the dead. This is not talking about physical death, because Jesus raised several people from the dead in his earthly ministry before He was crucified. Therefore it has to be talking about spiritual death. Jesus never sinned but became sin on the cross and the penalty for that was hell.
Also Acts Chapter 2 seems to me to say clearly that Jesus was in hell.
What do you guys think about the first born from the dead issue referring to spiritual death? Wouldn't that mean Jesus had to go to hell?
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on May 2, 2006 14:42:11 GMT -5
Welcome back Armen! I missed you. I started a thread asking about you in the random posts section. You may get a kick out of it.
Did you go to LA for the Azusa conference and did you come back speaking in tongues? Did you go there to preach against it?
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 23, 2006 20:44:09 GMT -5
biblethumper,
Praise God! I do not mean this as an attack on Calvinists as I appreciate many of them and consider them true brothers in the Lord. I also believe many are very Godly people. It is just that I have not met any Calvinists who will come out and say that it is possible to live without sin. I think many are probably living holy, obedient, sin free lives but they seem to have convinced themselves that it is pride to say that, or that they are unknowingly sinning all the time.
Maybe some of your thoughts on these issues would be better received by them than someone like myself. Would you please elaborate on some of the above issues I mentioned about pride and sins of ignorance, because this has been a point of contention on this board with some of the Calvinists and myself. Thank you and keep thumping that bible!
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 23, 2006 7:28:10 GMT -5
Excellent post Aaron! I agree exactly.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 22, 2006 21:39:43 GMT -5
Welcome to the board biblethumper! Great name and I give a hearty AMEN to your post!
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 22, 2006 13:20:36 GMT -5
Thanks Evan that was exactly my point of 1 John 3:4. Apparently it may be different in other translations.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 22, 2006 8:57:48 GMT -5
RevK,
I appreciate your last response. I apologize for bringing up the past. I should not have done that. I read that thread also and thought it was pretty good. I read through most of it at the time it was posted but did not really have much to add, because I thought it was summed up well.
I have been saying all along that for a Christian to love and obey God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength is as perfect as he can be. This would be a clear conscience.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 22, 2006 0:30:00 GMT -5
You do not remember correctly. I have posted many more scriptures other than 1 John 3:8-9. I certainly have posted alot more that show Christians do not sin than you can show that seem to indicate they do.
I have shown this on here many times, but I am not going to do it again at this time.
I am really sorry we had this discussion. I am not sorry about Josh giving me that version in the NASB but about you going into insults because you don't agree with me.
I am sorry I offended you. I would be more specific but I do not really know why I offended you. I am not sure whether I actually offended you or not or whether you just think I am an idiot. The way you have been speaking to me that is what it sounds like.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 22, 2006 0:05:17 GMT -5
No brother I am not changing the topic. You changed the topic by refusing to respond to my question. Please go back and read carefully.
Josh did a good job of answering my question. According to the NASB, I can agree with that. It is different in the KJV.
I never called you a soft preacher. I never even insinuated you were. You thought someone else was insinuating that. Again, you need to go back and read carefully.
You may have resolved that situation but your actions continue to be the same. Throw a tantrum if someone doesn't agree with you.
My doctrinal stance on holiness is all over the bible. Real Christians do not commit sin.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 21, 2006 23:24:02 GMT -5
RevK,
You know if you want to play rought then I can also play rough, but I do not think that is appropriate for this area of a discussion board where we are supposed to be having sincere dialogue with brothers and sisters on points of doctrine and theology.
In the open air we are to be calling sinners to repentance and that means naming and labeling specific sins. This is a much different setting.
When you felt someone was categorizing you as a soft preacher on here (not myself) you became offended, angered, began insulting and threatened not to post anymore. Now you compare my interpretation of the bible to that of homosexuals. This is really a ridiculous comparison. Your biggest problem with my interpretation is it does excuse sin at all. The homosexuals use the bible to defend their sin.
You talk often of others knowing how much we love them, but I have noticed you are quick to become angry, insult, and get offended.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 21, 2006 23:10:05 GMT -5
So how do you apply that to 1 John 3:4? Is it only when you practice a sin (commit) that you are transgressing the law? I believe it is clearly saying if you sin (once) by breaking the law of God then that is sin.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 21, 2006 22:22:01 GMT -5
RevK,
You know brother I asked a good question (at least I believed it was) and you became insulting with me accusing me of not being open to truth. I do not appreciate this and I do not think you responded properly. On top of that this is a section devoted to doctrine and theology where we discuss how we understand certain passages. Then you turn around and totally avoid my original question saying the bible says what it says. You did not waste any space earlier to give an in-depth analysis of the way you understand 1 John 3:8-9. Now I asked you to try to apply that same interpretation on verse 4 and you know it does not fit so you insult me. Maybe it is possible that you are not the one open to truth?
I am going to assume you do not have an answer for the question I brought up, and you are avoiding it by insulting me.
Can anyone say ad hominem?
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 21, 2006 21:44:28 GMT -5
Steve,
One a Christian has sinned if he does not repent then he is of the devil.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 21, 2006 21:42:46 GMT -5
RevK,
So as far as 1 John 3:4 that means it is not a sin unless you continually practice it right? It is not a lie unless you lie a whole bunch of times. It is not a sin to steal unless you continually practice stealing.
How do you apply what you are saying to 1 John 3:4?
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 21, 2006 17:40:02 GMT -5
Steve,
If a Christian commits a sin he is out of fellowship with God and has now aligned himself with the devil. If he dies, he dies in his sin and will end up in hell. He must repent and continue in loving obedience to Christ to remain in fellowship with God and call himself a Christian.
My main point of the above post was to show the word commit cannot mean to practice sin the same way someone practices a sport to be the best at it. Others on this board have tried to say that is the meaning of the word.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 21, 2006 15:19:57 GMT -5
Many Christians say that the word commit in 1 John 3:8-9 means to practice sin (like you practice at a sin to be the best at it).
If this is how this word is to be interpreted I was wondering why the same word is used in 1 John 3:4.
Whosever commits sin transgresses also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4
So does this mean a person only sins when they are practicing sin? It seems clear to me that commit does not mean to practice but just to transgress.
The exact same word is used in 1 John 3:4, 8 and 9.
I believe this deals a death blow to the myth that says a person has to actually practice (as in practice in a way to be the best at) a sin to commit a sin.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 29, 2006 18:21:43 GMT -5
Interesting article Steve, but I am trying to figure out what you are trying to do here. You are either trying to divert attention from the other threads that YOU STARTED with all the "spirited" debate or you are trying to stir things up even worse.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 28, 2006 22:43:45 GMT -5
Amen.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 30, 2006 0:30:02 GMT -5
Juli,
What gave me that impression was your response. I explained several things clearly in my post (whether or not you agree does not matter) that you asked, and then you reposted the same questions like you didn't even pay attention.
In particular I said I was saved from all sin because of the salvation of Jesus blood, and then you reposted the same thing you wrote before I responded that way saying that if we are without sin why do we need a savior?
I am without sin today because I have a savior from sin (Matthew 1:21).
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 29, 2006 15:44:33 GMT -5
Many times on here I have been accused of being prideful because I testified to being saved from all my sin. I have been told that NO Godly men from years past would ever say such a thing.
Do any of you know who Praying Hyde was? Would he be considered a Godly man? He prayed regularly for months at a time with hardly any sleep or food at all. He had lasting fruit in India and gave his life sacrificially as a missionary for the conversion of souls.
I heard Dr. Michael Brown tell the story of when Praying Hyde was a young man and preparing for the mission field he heard a minister testify of how Jesus had saved him from all sin. The Lord then asked Praying Hyde if he could truly tell others he was saved from all sin and he could not. Without having this testimony he knew he could not preach Jesus as Savior from sin when he knew he was not saved from ALL sin himself. He continued to seek the Lord for deliverance and sanctification until he had the testimony that he himself was saved from all sin.
What about the old Wesyelan Methodists? Weren't they Godly men?
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 29, 2006 15:37:14 GMT -5
So let's see, how should I answer? If I say yes, I will be accused of being prideful, lying, or trying to earn my salvation by works, or be told I can never do what God has clearly commanded me to do.
If I say no, then I am denying what the Word of God says will be my experience, and what my own experience is.
Hmmmm.....what a dilemma.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 29, 2006 0:15:25 GMT -5
Amen.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 28, 2006 20:01:08 GMT -5
Juli,
I appreciate your humility but I wonder if you even read anything I wrote.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 28, 2006 17:07:20 GMT -5
Juli,
The bible says we WERE dead in sins not we are. We are to be dead indeed unto sin but alive unto God but it sounds like you are reckoning yourself to be dead indeed unto God but alive in sin.
Galatians 5:24-And they that are Christs HAVE (past tense) crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. Why haven't you Juli? Are you Christ's or not?
You are making death your savior from sin and not Jesus. Jesus is your Savior from sin not death. Read 1 John 3:2-3, 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, 1 Thessalonians 3:13.
If you are not holy before death you will not go to heaven (Hebrews 12:14).
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 28, 2006 15:29:51 GMT -5
Very good!
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 28, 2006 20:11:24 GMT -5
Jules,
I am not offended, but by the same token your posts as well as others constantly infer that we are proud of our efforts to become holy and it is in our own strength.
As far as what to believe let's believe the Bible.
What do you folks do with these?
And every man that has this hope in Him PURIFIES HIMSELF EVEN AS HE IS PURE. 1 John 3:3 Is that our responsiblity or not?
Having therefore these promises dearly beloved, LET US CLEANSE OURSELVES FROM ALL (ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL) FILTHINESS OF THE FLESH AND SPIRIT PERFECTING HOLINESS IN THE FEAR OF GOD. 2 Corinthians 7:1
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 27, 2006 23:04:00 GMT -5
Good point Manna. Another verse to disprove the doctrine of original sin.
By the way, I say this from experience: Why don't you log on as a member? For some reason people take posts more seriously when it is written by a member. For the longest time I posted as a guest because I did not know I was supposed to log in (I did log in when I first came on the board back in July when it started) so it always showed me as a guest.
You will get more interaction if you post as a member. Even though I was in your shoes once (posting as a guest) I have noticed I still am less likely to read the posts of someone who is not logged in as a member especially if they are long.
God bless and thank you for that insight. I assume you are opposed to the doctrine of original sin?
|
|