Quote:
Originally Posted by bearbear
I've been answering your questions directly quoting from God's word and explaining from scripture how I arrived at it. You've just been dishing me your own thoughts. You're free to show me in scripture where I'm wrong, provided it's in context and according to the spirit of how it's stated.
|
When you actually provide an entire passage with the verse you are talking about inside of it and deal with the whole context rather than saying "what about these" after which you provide only 4 totally separate verses without any context and without any comment of your own. That is not answering a question. It is the throwing around of proof texts. You found a particular word. That word literally means "X," therefore this verse means "Y." A whole lot like Lee turning 1 Corinthians 15:45 into a discourse on the Trinity. It isn't there.
The funny thing is that you are not even giving a discussion — good or bad. Just quoting the verses. Reading fortune cookies. What happens when the next one says "Ignore previous cookie"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bearbear
The reason you and others and myself in the past are struggling with confronting God's word in its plain meaning may be because this sword is convicting all of us to repent and let go of what he hold so dearly in this world.
|
I am not struggling with confronting God's word in its plain meaning. I am seeking to find its plain meaning after being fed nonsense in the place of plain meaning for years. We spent years listening to a man who wanted everything to be a metaphor for his pet doctrines. Finally getting over that. But the way you get over that is not to assume that everything must be absolutely literal. Some things
are metaphors. Some things require a little thought beyond reading mere words. The outcomes are not usually surprising. Just not literal relative to the words spoken/written.
You seem bent upon forcing an Arminian view of scripture. While I do not find the Arminian view as "clearly wrong" as a 5-point Calvinist might, I do think that trying to prove loss of salvation to people who are busy serving God is a waste of time. The only ones you really need to prove it to are those who have simply chucked it all.
Unless you believe it like I did as a child in the Assemblies of God. I thought all you had to do was say a bad word (in other words commit any sin) and you were going to hell until you repented to God again. While I will not entirely dismiss the idea of losing of salvation, I now believe that, at the worst, it is a difficult thing to do. You seem to be determined to prove it easier. I really don't care for the discussion. You can whine about all your verses, but it is a little bit like all those 27 8x10 color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each that the judge was not going to look at because he came in behind a seeing-eye dog.
You are pushing a position that is not palatable. You don't need to preach this to combat the LRC. It may not be way off like the "my writing is is scripture" guys from a few years ago, but it is not getting the traction you want and is somewhat off topic.
What is in it for you to need to convince us that we better watch out (better not cry, better not pout, I'm telling you why . . .)? I hold to the core of the faith (which does not include anything about city boundaries) and while I believe a lot beyond that, I could be wrong about that part. And maybe others are instead. Or maybe we all are. I really don't care. Not because I'm flippant about it, but because the real requirements for faith that I see are much more about how we live than how we beat ourselves up or do "spiritual" things.
Less about definitions, formulas, meetings, etc. More about tires meeting the road in daily life.