“As per the guidelines of this discourse, this is something you can keep to yourself.”
Something tells me I should re-read the guidelines.
But its okay to ask each other questions on what they believe, so long as I don’t directly say, “Excuse me, but I think you’re going to the Lake of Fire”, correct?
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
236
None of the swathes above by the scribes and Pharisees, the doctors of the law, considers that the Saviour Elect took all humanity with Him to the cross and to the Father in Heaven.
I was addressing a comment that was stated off topic, and in being stated was pointedly ungracious. Patrick and I have had our private exchange over the matter.
We encourage asking people questions about what they believe. We discourage telling people what you think they believe or assessing whether or not their beliefs are Christian enough to meet your own standards. Or generally being a jerk to everyone who interacts with you. Patrick was evidently not able to participate here without making his complete disdain for multiple people very apparent on many occasions. So, he’s no longer with us.
What does it mean to " to live God’s way"? To “want to” live God’s way, surely you must first know what living God’s way entails.
Please point out where he scriptures make a distinction between WANTING to live God’s way and ACTUALLY living God’s way. Where does it say “keeping God’s commandments” means “want to keep God’s commandments”? If you want to not steal, but do steal, does that mean you haven’t sinned?
Really? Paul says otherwise: Romans 6:22 says the end result of “sanctification/holiness” is “eternal life”. Earlier in the chapter Paul explains that a believer obtains sanctification through “righteousness” - ie, works of righteousness. So Paul is here clearly preaching salvation through faith and works.
Hebrews 12:14 says the same thing - Strive for holiness, without which no one will see the Lord - which is salvation thru faith and works.
That is comparable to saying “The end result of my trip is the destination.” The trip itself is not the cause, it is just one descriptor of the process, and does not include every detail of it. It is certainly a necessary part of it, but it is especially missing what initiated the process in the first place.
That is a description of the vehicle. It is, again, not the cause.
So when Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15), he didn’t really mean “keep my commandments”. Twisting Scripture is typical of those who teach false doctrines.
If Jesus wasn’t against rich people, he would not demand that his disciples give up all their possessions. Luke 14:33. I know you want me to look to mark but I’m on Luke.
Have you read the book of Acts? Ch 4 around verse 30 is a good start.
Sort of like when Jesus said “woe to you who are rich” in Luke 6 and that disciples must forsake all possessions, he didn’t mean it’s bad to be rich and he wants disciples to keep their possessions. Am I riight?
Well, I was born in a Christian home and was attending church since a very young age. What change could be expected in my case? I remember coming forward to repent and accept Christ when I was around 13-14. I prayed and studied the Bible before then and since then.
Sorry, I know too much. Gods way living is not possible and nobody is seriously following Gods way, not even you, I dare to say. For example, look at Luke 14:33. Jesus said you must forsake all possessions if you want to be his disciples. And this is where most Bible preachers will whip out an “interpretation “ whereby the text doesn’t mean what it is saying for them.
Your cynicism is showing. Do I need to hold your hand and walk you through them? The concept involved is context, the immediate context of the New Testament verse you quoted and hill you are willing to die on.
Those verses don’t change Luke 14:33. I’m aware of Christians using “context “ as a switch word so they can ignore what the text says. There’s even a YouTube video on it.
Search nonstampcollector and context.
You however have a few things going against you with the giving up possessions passage. 1). Jesus clearly told a rich guy he needed to sell everything and that man could not do it. If Jesus meant it figuratively like today’s American Christians then there’d be no reason for the rich guy to be sad at all. 2) disciples have left everything to follow Jesus. 3). Early church in the book of Acts consisted of people who gave up everything. Were they not aware of some special context?
Christians use context to more accurately understand what a text says. Others may use ignorance of context so that they can keep the text as a simplistic and almost certainly inaccurate straw man - which is understandable. If that’s the only level you have counter-arguments for, then certainly it’s understandable you would desperately try to keep the more grown-up understandings as far away as possible.
What fraction of Zacchaeus’ wealth did Jesus ask him to give away?
Well, in Matthew 25, what did the people have to believe to be saved? What part of Hosea talks about a future flight of baby Jesus out of Egypt? Bible is full of contradiction and that’s the point. All Christians pick and chose the bits they want to follow.
You ask a question about Zaccheus but perhaps we don’t know the whole story? Perhaps Zacchaeus did end up forsaking everything because as a tax collector he was expected to cheat and if he gives everyone back multiple times over, he would be in debt himself?