oldiesman

VERY good points. Thanks WhiteDove.

Doojable, Thanks for the correction. To be more accurate in the future, I will use the word "alleged", since I didn't witness it. So here's my modified statement: "The parallel I'd make is that both were alleged adulterers, both had great messages, and the messages are worth considering and repeating despite their alleged sins."

Roy, I think you summed things up pretty good in your book:

Hi Roy, God loves you too. My reading of John Chapter 3 is very simple, and summed up in verse 16 "for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosover believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life". That's how to get born again. Its a very simple truth. I'm not sure "adding the stage of seed" would help simplify matters and make it more logical, but feel free to communicate your thoughts.

The parallel I'd make is that both were adulterers, both had great messages, and the messages are worth considering and repeating despite their sins.

Sirguessalot, I think your analysis over complicates a very simple promise in the Word. Remember the word is so simple "a fool need not err therein". It is simple faith. When faith is lacking, it gets complicated.

Cman, What do you mean by "accepting"? By accepting, do you mean "doing"? Well I do think Christians should try to do all that Jesus said to do, the biggest among those is "love God with all your heart, soul mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself". HOWEVER, I do not believe in salvation by works. I believe it's solely by the grace of God through faith alone. Thanks bowtwi.

Rascal, I think the key is in your own statement "he claimed it was necessary to teach the dog not to disobey." That was his intent. So he employed corporal punishment as a training tool. In today's world, corporal punishment seems to be less and less accepted. For instance, many believe spanking is child abuse. But I would say that if it was his intent to beat the crap out of the dog out of pure meanness and hatred, then yes he'd be in severe violation of scripture. If not, then I'd be open to consider other avenues.

Cman, What it means to me is an individual's full belief in and acceptance of all the works of Jesus Christ while he was on this earth, personal belief in all the accomplishment of those works, personal confession of him as one's lord and saviour, belief that God raised him from the dead, and personal acceptance and belief of God's redemptive plan for mankind through belief in his son Jesus Christ, the Messiah.

DWBH, good post, thanks. BTW, it is widely known that Martin Luther King Jr. was a womanizing adulterer. So once again that old addage is proven, "the sins of the teacher do not negate the truth in the teachings." Thanks, DWBH.

Eyesopen, thanks for your comment about my personal experiences. It is appreciated. Regarding Rascals posts, has it ever occured to you that my attacks against Rascal's posts are giving them credence and respect enough for a detailed response? As opposed to your statement, "you are not worth that much energy to me". Well for me, Rascalian Theology is worth responding to! I think that's better than putting her posts on ignore or saying her posts aren't worth that much of my energy.

Bowtwi, When someone says that Romans 10:9 and 10 is a formula, that comment is trashing scripture. It's making a derogatory comment about a promise of God. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it. I don't think so Bowtwi. It's not a personal attack to say that someone's post is trashing scripture. We are talking about ideas here, not people. But if you do think that a posting is getting personal with a poster please go ahead and report it and see what the moderators say. What way? Being direct? Challenging viewpoints and communicating what I think of those viewpoints? This is exactly what the forums are here for... I AM addressing others as I would like them to address me. I am speaking to the viewpoints, not getting personal. I like that others do the same. Bowtwi, please, if you don't understand the difference and what it means to get personal, please email Paw and he will explain it to you. But wasting your time judging my posts are just that, a waste of your time and mine. Let's talk about the issues.

Rascal, I don't know about the treatment of his dog but whenever I viewed one they didn't look abused. Regarding my experiences with the man, I'm bearing witness to what I saw and experienced. Anything other than that for me would be bearing false witness.

Ham, It's still a question of faith. The whole bible is like that for us today. Did anyone here ever actually see Jesus? I haven't. Its faith. "Blessed are those who have not seen yet have believed". Bowtwi, the forums are here for lively discussion and debate. This was never meant to be a safe zone where ideas and viewpoints go unchallenged.

When we are in the Kingdom of God for all eternity, do we have a choice to leave? I don't think so. Who would want to leave anyway? But if that's true, then when one becomes born again, they are a new creature. That new life has no choice, its eternal life. You can't kill eternal life. It's a different kind of life, a perfect life form without free will to reject God, like we have today in our bodies.

Oakspear, I believe when one rejects Christ, they are rejecting God's redemptive plan for themselves and mankind. Jesus is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Doesn't matter how "good" we are or appear to be or live, we are still sinners. Every one of us. But folks are not living a Christ-like life anyway who wilfully reject him, no matter how good they think they are and how many good works they think they do. I know it sounds a bit narrow, but there's only one Messiah to go around. Folks are not saved by good works. Besides why would any devout, honorable person who does good works want to wilfully reject Christ's messianic mission? Something else is going on there. To those who never heard about Christ, I believe God will take that into full account. Young children who died for instance. Perhaps even our beloved animals.

Waysider, I think he said that true SIT can't be counterfeited, and that makes sense. If a person knowingly fakes SIT, they know they are faking. If the same person knowingly SIT with a sincere belief in the heart, that is not faking. That is SIT to that person. Like a lot of stuff in the bible, it is an act of faith and belief. Anybody can say SIT is nonsense and many christians do. But at that point in PFAL when we asked God to manifest holy spirit, that was real. The born again experience we had, was real. Asking God to help us manifest the gift is real. Now, if someone says many years later that they were faking it, then I have to take them at their word. But it wouldn't negate anyone elses experience. Me too. Oklahoma, please clarify your belief about whether or not someone can be saved if they don't believe that Jesus is God. Thanks.

Sirguessalot, Romans 10: 9, 10 is the word of God, and a promise of God. So is John 3:16. Once you start mislabelling and disparaging the word saying they are "formulas" you're watering it down and doing it harm. You are trashing it. Yeah, your process sounds a little like "works", and you know what the bible says about salvation by works.

That's perfectly fine with me. :) Iron sharpeneth iron. Who said I ONLY address Rascal's arguments? My point was that the THEOLOGY is being targeted, not the person. This isn't about personal attacks; do you ever hear me whining that folks are ganging up on me? Please quit playing the victim card.

Eyesopen, if you saw love in a person, joy in Christ, peace in Christ, gentleness, goodness, etc. and Rascal who wasn't even there said it was a counterfeit; I think you too may be asking many questions and seeking specific clarification of that position. The bottom line is, and I'll say this as nice as I can: Rascal doesn't know what the heck she's talking about with respect to my experiences.

Rascalian Theology is the target, not Rascal. It isn't personal.

Oklahoma, do you believe that unless a person believes that Jesus is God, they are not saved? That's what I believe concerning Dr. Wierwille, because I saw him walk the talk of a born again Christian.

Waysider, I agree in part with you. I do think he operated the manifestions much in his life but would agree that his lustful behavior didn't seem to depict that. In that sense one needs to look at all the evidence of his life, including his good points, what his children have to say about him, and the benefit of his teaching ministry on folks who appreciated it, those who state they learned great truths about God and Christ from him; and not look just at his sins.

Rascal, it isn't straight forward when you say someone is viewing a counterfeit and you are viewing the genuine. You haven't explained how to detect the genuine. All you did here was list fruit of the spirit from scripture without showing how to identify that fruit. Until you do, its more hot air. Loving God and loving your neighbor are in the category of good thoughts and good works, and you said previously that good works are not fruit of the spirit. Are good thoughts? Moreover, non Christians have the ability to love God and love your neighbor as well. I'm thinking of Jews, Hindus, and Moslems, etc., and all religions have that potential. Therefore this is not evidence of Christian fruit of the spirit, or how to identify it.

BTW, here's another question for you Rascal: Was the fruit that Jesus was speaking of the same as the fruit of the spirit in Galatians? When Jesus spoke those words about fruit, pentecost had not yet come. Please explain.