oldiesman

I don't know Rascal ... from your unrelenting accusative posts against VP LCM the Bot and TWI in general, I'd say you manifest hatred and wrath against all of them... Just an observation ... But, thank God we are born again, and if we hate or have wrath, God won't cast us out because he loves us.

Mo, I'd say the same thing about "fruit" as I would about "SIT" I still believe SIT proves that one is born again. You believe "fruit" proves that one are born again. But neither get you born again. You don't have to SIT, or produce fruit, to be saved. Salvation is not by works, it's by God's grace.

Alright, here are the exceptions: 1Cr 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. All those who fall in that category, except of course VP, LCM, and whoever else it shant apply to...

Those who have committed fornication shall go to hell. No exceptions. No deviations. Ever get drunk? Burn baby burn.

Fornicators? :( Rascal... Fornicators?

Coolwaters, a reviler is one who uses abusive language. So then those who use abusive language shall go to hell?

Coolwaters, even the Apostle Paul said of himself that he was carnal, and a sinner, in Romans 7:14-25, so even if he stopped his murdering, he was still a sinner and sin worked in him. And when one interprets Galatians 5 like Rascal does, it doesn't matter whether Saul was converted or not, because he did the dirty deed and there is no mercy or forgiveness. She takes that verse literally, throws out others. *********************** You say VP never changed... were you around him 24/7? I spent a month with the guy in June of 1984.... didn't notice him murdering and raping... He was still teaching God's word ... How do you know he and LCM and others didn't ask God for forgiveness for their sins?

Scriptures on getting born again, and receiving forgiveness of sins, to name two. According to Rascal's condemnation of these men and others, they have no inheritance in the Kingdom of God, because they did those works of the flesh stated in Galatians 5. ( I should say some of "us" even, because some of "us" may have done some of those things in Gal. 5 :unsure: ) But that blanket condemnation ignores Christ's death on the cross for our sins, their sins, everyone's sins. Also ignores that these men believed in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, believed in Christ's sacrifice, ... proclaimed it, taught it, ooodles of times .... so they weren't unbelievers or Christ rejectors. Also, ignores I John, that says when we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. She must believe that these men didn't do that since she believes they are destined for hell. But how could she possibly know they didn't ask God for forgiveness? I don't know, but she does! And so, these men are going to hell because they committed those evil acts in Galatians 5, and to heck with any other evidence to the contrary. Did I answer your question?

That's interesting, because I think your argument is completely invalid as well. Not because the scriptures don't say what you are saying, but because you consistently elevate certain scriptures way way way up there to the skies, while simultaneously ignoring other scriptures in your assessment. If you said "I don't know" because there is evidence on both sides, it'd be more believable.

Naturally. When all you consider in your judgment is works of someone's flesh, and toss everything else about their life, for example what good they have done, you can't come to any other conclusion. Guilty as charged.

You say you trust the scriptures but from what I observe, you trust only those scriptures that support your position. So yeah you trust some, but you ignore many others.

Another telling admission here. A persons' fruit and / or what is inside of them is either good OR bad? Cannot be a combination of both?

Coolwaters, I notice some of your posts have been a tad insulting lately. Doesn't seem like you. Are you ok? I still like ya. :) Have one on me:

Yes! That is part of the point I make with Rascal's interpretation of Galatians 5. She looks at the works of VP and LCM and others, and says they are not going to inherit the Kingdom of God, and she goes by Galatians 5. Yes, when you take Galatians 5 literally, yes, they (and maybe even "we" :unsure: ) shall not inherit the Kingdom. Yes, that is what happens when you take one verse, literally, and throw out other verses to the contrary. And when you do that, Saul of Tarsus falls under that as well.

I think we need to get our definitions in sync. I would define unrepentant sinners as those who have not yet repented. Maybe you define it differently.

If I am mischaracterizing you, then you need to be more clear about what you are promoting and your interpretation of Galatians 5. I get the idea from your interpretation of Galatians 5, that since VP and LCM and others (perhaps even "we") have committed some of those works of the flesh spoke about in Galatians 5, that they shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. If that is the truth, then I apply that same truth to Saul of Tarsus, who also committed some of those things. No double standards.

You know what they say when you foot-u-me? :) I would never assume that just because an internet opinion is not refuted, it is agreed upon.

But why mention his conversion, what difference would that make since he committed those evil acts? I know you wouldn't think of white-washing those evil acts, would you? And, what difference would Saul's conversion make, according to your interpretation of Galatians 5:19-21? You consistently repeat that they who do those things are *of the flesh*, and shall not inherit the Kingdom of God ...

Suda, I emailed them a few days ago but didn't get a response. Am I missing something? I want to order if I am allowed.

Saul of Tarsus, anyone? Was just speaking with a friend of mine who believes everyone is saved, regardless of what they believe, or even do, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I haven't gone quite that far yet, but it is an interesting thought.

Do you want the TWI/PFAL answer or are you looking for a different answer? :)

Yes. The gift of holy spirit, being born again, sonship rights, all those goodies... doesn't innoculate the believer from getting possessed. Remember the teaching in PFAL about SIT and snake charming? You can speak in tongues and snake charm all at the same time. The SIT is genuine... the snake charming is possession. ...

All about curses? I wouldn't say that at all. Depends on who you are talking about, what time period, and what circumstance/incident. I have to assume most folks in twi have their own lives to worry about without blessing/cursing folks they don't have fellowship with, just like most of us. Although, I have to say that "some" of the internet defamation that goes on against twi may promote a blanket, one-size-fits-all condemnation of twi, evening cursing of twi, which I think can be unfair.

Saying that one who has left twi is playing in the "devils camp" is entirely different than saying that one is no longer a son of God, and no longer has sonship rights.

Who says that? A Christian's righteousness is not based on works, but on the sacrifice of Christ. We stand righteous before God because of what Christ did, not because of what we do.