Thanks, Kristonium, if we were physically discussing I would have stopped. But since this site may be here for years, you do not know who may visit in years to come and find answers here. Someone willing to understand, someone who found this page via google.

Jesoul, as you have truly said, no doctrine can save any. In fact, all that is required to save one is to accept that Jesus died to pay for their sins and has thus reconciled them to God if they mentally accept the offer (how Adam mentally accepted to sin). My entire explanation was background, which i tot DeepSight would appreciate cos he appears meticulous. Obviously i didnt need to do that.

mavenbox:

Thanks, Kristonium, if we were physically discussing I would have stopped. But since this site may be here for years, you do not know who may visit in years to come and find answers here. Someone willing to understand, someone who found this page via google.

Jesoul, as you have truly said, no doctrine can save any. In fact, all that is required to save one is to accept that Jesus died to pay for their sins and has thus reconciled them to God if they mentally accept the offer (how Adam mentally accepted to sin). My entire explanation was background, which i tot DeepSight would appreciate cos he appears meticulous. Obviously i didnt need to do that.

And "Accept Jesus and be saved" isn't a doctrine, a strange one for that to anyone without a Christian background? Well that is the whole point, sister: no doctrine can save anyone! Love, alone, can!

@Jesoul, Mavenbox;

What do you make of this scripture -

St. Matthew Cap 25 -

31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 “All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 ‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 unclothed, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or unclothed, and clothe You? 39 ‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’
41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; unclothed, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44 “Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or unclothed, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45 “Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Does it perhaps serve to cast some light on the perspective of Christ in terms of those who are really standing with him?

Deep Sight:

@Jesoul, Mavenbox;

What do you make of this scripture -

Does it perhaps serve to cast some light on the perspective of Christ in terms of those who are really standing with him?

  Exactly what it says and it is in concert with everything else we've been saying. That being in righteous standing is not a matter of words or professions of faith or expressions of the miraculous - But simply in FAITH which results in ACTIONS of love and righteousness. Faith without works in dead as we've been chanting since day 1.

  How does this differ from anything else we've been preaching Deep?

And this -

The Parable of the Good Samaritan -

Luke 10:30-37 Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side.  In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, ‘Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.’ Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?" He said, "He who showed mercy on him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

Why do you suppose that a "samaritan" is used in this example, if not to show that the leaning of tribe, doctrine and dogma is irrelevant but the leaning of the spirit is all that counts?

mavenbox:

Thanks, Kristonium, if we were physically discussing I would have stopped. But since this site may be here for years, you do not know who may visit in years to come and find answers here. Someone willing to understand, someone who found this page via google.

Jesoul, as you have truly said, no doctrine can save any. In fact, all that is required to save one is to accept that Jesus died to pay for their sins and has thus reconciled them to God if they mentally accept the offer (how Adam mentally accepted to sin). My entire explanation was background, which i tot DeepSight would appreciate cos he appears meticulous. Obviously i didnt need to do that.

 That being the #1 and only reason to persist in these discussions over and over.

Deep Sight:

And this -

The Parable of the Good Samaritan -

Why do you suppose that a "samaritan" is used in this example, if not to show that the leaning of tribe, doctrine and dogma is irrelevant but the leaning of the spirit is all that counts?

Still isn't different from anything we've already said:

JeSoul:
I have consistently maintained FAITH in God is what saves. There are scores of non-christians, non-jews lauded in the scriptures for their faith . . . they never had the Torah, never knew who Jesus was yet expressed the kind of faith in God that He requires.

Those who heard the gospel, understood it and still chose instead to hold onto their works - instead of faith in God/Christ - are the ones the bible condemns.

JeSoul:

 Exactly what it says and it is in concert with everything else we've been saying. That being in righteous standing is not a matter of words or professions of faith or expressions of the miraculous - But simply in FAITH which results in ACTIONS of love and righteousness. Faith without works in dead as we've been chanting since day 1.

 How does this differ from anything else we've been preaching Deep?

Have you noted that your statement is at odds with the parable of the good samaritan. What peculiar faith did the samaritan have?

Why did Jesus use that samaritan as an example of the right way.

^ at odds?

What were Jesus' first words before He told that parable? why did He tell that parable?

Luke 10:25
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.
28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"


  and then Jesus went on to tell the parable of the Samaritan specifically to show who is ones neighbor, and what true love is -  which comes after loving God. If this isn't faith I dunno what is.

  Jesus wasn't insinuating the Samaritan's good works were what would save him. He was simply showing Love for God, and love for one's neighbor results in actions such as was expressed by the Samaritan. Instead of the empty doctrinarians that were prevalent at the time and even now, who simply professed but never showed evidence by their actions.

The Samaritans were considered inferior by the Jews. Why? Simply because they did not worship in Jerusalem - that did it for the Jews. People today are considered damned by some Christians just because they hear about a gospel and refuse to accept the article of faith that Christ died for your sins - that does it for Christians. There is a clear parallel here.

Jesoul, you must tell me what peculiar faith the good samaritan is said to have had.

If you cannot do this, your discussion on faith fails.

Particularly tell me why the parable did not simply say - a good plumber - or a good man from Judea?

Why was it so cardinal that someone outside the given belief system was selected to make a parable on.

Is it a coincidence that the parable ends by justifying that person who is of a different belief system.

Matthew 22:36-40 (New International Version)

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Now look at the Scripture above and tell me Jesus did not single out Love as the overarching rule for finding the Lord?

@MyJoe: Lol. Thats no doctrine. Its faith, without which no man can please God. Doctrines interprete the basics of faith, howbeit from varying perspectives. Faith unites our view.

@DeepSight: Ok. Can you please explain why those on the right were called righteous (no pun intended) and "blessed of My Father" and they were said to do those things for "these BROTHERS of mine"? Does that not indicate that this is not fundamental, but instead a secondary criterion? How does one attain righteousness, blessedness and a place in God's family? What is the yardstick? Did Ghandi definitely attain it? How do you know for sure? Do you know that from two people, you may have tried but not tried hard enough, or you may have done your best? Only God would be an impartial judge, and do you know his standards? Can a man know them? If man cant know the yardstick wont it be unjust of God to expect us to just try our best and possibly fail just short of the passmark? No he is just, so since men fell short of their consciences and the law, he made a simple foundation that makes him accept us: his Son. So that we dont need to bother about acceptance, we will ALL be accepted once in Christ, or if you never heard the gospel, it will be based on your mind (only seen by God. Do you know if Gandhi had evil thoughts?) and your outward works seen by all men. But for us, our works will count for our benefit in heaven, just as there are hierarchies on earth, in heaven everyone gets his reward for post-salvation works and thats what Jesus meant here. When we return to earth, the hierarchies will count as well.

I will return to your question, but first heer are some of my earlier thoughts on this -

You made it clear that those who hear of Christ must unconditionally accept him.

Might i ask you this: Consider two morally upright men, living in different parts of the world.

Would you not agree that the one who does not hear the gospel will have a HUGE advantage over the one who hears it (according to your analyses). Because the one who hears it is suddenly caught between the devil and the deep blue sea: he must unconditionally accept it (whether it makes sense to him or not), along with the burden of dogma. Failure to do so will, according to you, lead to the torment of eternal hell fire. You have made it clear also that it is absolutely irrelevant that he happens to be a very good person, sincere, kind, generous, charitable and humble. In fact, according to you it is irrelevant if, in addittion to all these things, he actually has a conception of the Almighty Creator (Olodumare, Chineke etc) and actually worships and prays to God.

All of these things (goodness, kindness, love of fellow man & worshipping God) will earn him hell-fire, so long as someone tells him about Jesus, and he does not accept Jesus.

Does this not seem absurd to you? How do you marry this with your vision of a just and merciful God?

Do you really think that Jesus would have reasoned in this fashion?

Is it lost on you that Jesus clearly states that he will welcome people to heaven who did not even know that they were his followers? Yes, people who did good all their lives. . .

By contrast, the man who never heard the gospel, according to you, is free from the burden of dogma, and can live according to his conscience and yet be confident of Salvation. If this is the case, is it not safer for all men of good conscience to avoid ever hearing the gospel, as it will exert upon them a terrible dogmatic weight, failure to accept which, will result in eternal torment in hell fire. I ask you in all good conscience, does this sort of reasoning make sense to you?

mavenbox:

@MyJoe: Lol. Thats no doctrine. Its faith, without which no man can please God. Doctrines interprete the basics of faith, howbeit from varying perspectives. Faith unites our view.

Now, you really surprise me. This attempt at redefinition to conform with entrenched dogma is fatuous. I won't waste time on it.[quote][/quote]

MyJoe:

The Samaritans were considered inferior by the Jews. Why? Simply because they did not worship in Jerusalem - that did it for the Jews. Today people today are considered damned by some Christians just because they hear about a gospel and refuse to accept the article of faith that Christ died for your sins - that does it for Christians. There is clear parallel here.

 I take particular exception to this.
 It is not christians that peddal this teaching, IT IS THE BIBLE! Please see John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

 I don't understand why some would pick certain parts of the scriptures they like and chant love love love, when the bible taught so many other things first and above - SIN, SACRIFICE, REDEMPTION, THE CROSS etc


  It would be wiser and more honest to reject the entire bible, than pick the parts that suit you and then proceed to declare that "the way".

---

Deep Sight:

Jesoul, you must tell me what peculiar faith the good samaritan is said to have had.

If you cannot do this, your discussion on faith fails.

Particularly tell me why the parable did not simply say - a good plumber - or a good man from Judea?

Why was it so cardinal that someone outside the given belief system was selected to make a parable on.

Is it a coincidence that the parable ends by justifying that person who is of a different belief system.

Now look at the Scripture above and tell me Jesus did not single out Love as the overarching rule for finding the Lord?

 I just pointed this out:

JeSoul:

 Jesus wasn't insinuating the Samaritan's good works were what would save him. He was simply showing Love for God, and love for one's neighbor results in actions such as was expressed by the Samaritan.

 Jesus did not tell that parable to establish the foundation on how to be saved! not by any stretch of the imagination. I dare you to prove otherwise. He told it to express who was one's neighbor, and how to show love to them, even neighbors the Jews had scorned, showing how even they with their expression of love were better than the so-called "called and chosen".

 And please salvation by faith is not my position, you keep trying to make it such. It is the biblical position and it could not be more explicit:
Luke 7:50
Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

Ephesians 2:8
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God

Romans 5:2
through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.

and the greatest of them all

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is[u] impossible[/u] to please God  

  How does Heb 11:6 square with your insinuation the Samaritan's good works, divorced from faith was what will save him?

 I certainly didn't write Luke, Ephesians and Romans.

Don't try to play a fast one Jesoul.

Christ had since described love of God and fellow man as being the supreme rules.

In the parable of the good samaritan he showed a person outside the mainstream belief system applying those supreme rules.

In his conclusion he makes it abundantly clear that such a person has done that which God requires.

It amounts to sleight of hand for you to attempt to insinuate that Jesus was not describing the proper path in that parable. Come on! How far will you go on this? Next you will state that the meek will not inherit the earth or that the peacemakers will not be called sons of God - since Jesus again in the beatitudes is not describing the path to salvation, eh?

JeSoul:


 I take particular exception to this.
 It is not christians that peddal this teaching, IT IS THE BIBLE! Please see John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

 I don't understand why some would pick certain parts of the scriptures they like and chant love love love, when the bible taught so many other things first and above - SIN, SACRIFICE, REDEMPTION, THE CROSS etc


  It would be wiser and more honest to reject the entire bible, than pick the parts that suit you and then proceed to declare that "the way".

---

 I just pointed this out:  Jesus did not tell that parable to establish the foundation on how to be saved! not by any stretch of the imagination. I dare you to prove otherwise. He told it to express who was one's neighbor, and how to show love to them, even neighbors the Jews had scorned, showing how even they with their expression of love were better than the so-called "called and chosen".

 And please salvation by faith is not my position, you keep trying to make it such. It is the biblical position and it could not be more explicit:
Luke 7:50
Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

Ephesians 2:8
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God

Romans 5:2
through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.

and the greatest of them all

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is[u] impossible[/u] to please God  

  How does Heb 11:6 square with your insinuation the Samaritan's good works, divorced from faith was what will save him?

 I certainly didn't write Luke, Ephesians and Romans.

You cannot overemphasise love because it just covers some many things - the sacrifice you believe in, everything. As for accepting the whole Bible, that would require a treatise, but let me just say you are not entirely blameless with regards to dismissing parts of it. And if anything I said made you angry, let it pass, for that is never my intention.
Sleep well.

Fast ones are not my style and the discussion is getting muddy so I will ask simply one question again Deepsight:

Deep Sight:

Jesoul, you must tell me what peculiar faith the good samaritan is said to have had.
If you cannot do this, your discussion on faith fails.

JeSoul:

Heb 11:6  And without faith it is[u] impossible[/u] to please God

  How does Heb 11:6 square with your insinuation the Samaritan's good works, divorced from faith was what will save him?

If it is impossible to please God without faith, how is the Samaritan going to be saved?

---

Romans 1: 16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

MyJoe:

You cannot overemphasise love because it just covers some many things - the sacrifice you believe in, everything. As for accepting the whole Bible, that would require a treatise, but let me just say you are not entirely blameless with regards to dismissing parts of it. And if anything I said made you angry, let it pass, for that is never my intention.
Sleep well.

Angry ke? not at all my brother, not at all.

I agree Love is indeed the greatest. I'm just trying to show you and Deepsight, that according to the bible, love is not the way to be saved - but Faith in God is - and love is what naturally follows this genuine faith.

JeSoul:

Fast ones are not my style and the discussion is getting muddy so I will ask simply one question again Deepsight:


If it is impossible to please God without faith, how is the Samaritan going to be saved?

---

Romans 1: 16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

Jesoul - I see you are unable to indicate what particular faith the good samaritan is said to have. Rather you seek to present a contradictory verse from Hebrews as fodder. That will not do.

For these simple reasons -

 1. The parable deliberately mentions a Levite and a priest. does it miss you that these represent men of faith?

 2. For the umpteenth time i must mention that the parable selects a samaritan for a reason; a person outside the mainstream belief system! Is the significance of that lost on you? Because if, as you claim, it was merely trying to show "neighbourliness", Jesus needn't have used a samaritan as an example. Any person would have been sufficient. But he used a samaritan as an example to show clearly that priority is not in belief systems, but in compassion. Note that he uses a person outside the belief system against persons who are in the deepest core of the belief system - Levites and Priests! Surely that nails it!

 3. I do not accept the Bible as inviolable truth, so quoting Hebrews on Faith is nothing to me: but anything i quote to you should mean something to you since YOU accept the bible as inviolable truth. Also i see no reason to take the words of Paul above the words of Christ?

Deep Sight:

I do not accept the Bible as inviolable truth, so quoting Hebrews on Faith is nothing to me: but anything i quote to you should mean something to you since YOU accept the bible as inviolable truth. Also i see no reason to take the words of Paul above the words of Christ?

  Well, I already knew that. And at this point and with your permission, I must quietly dismiss myself. Certainly everything I may subsequently put forth as it is from the body of the scriptures will be meaningless and of no consequence to you.

But please I hope you see the problem with using only one verse or teaching from the scriptures and holding onto it as your position while ignoring others that contradict it or teach in addition other requirements. Cheers.

Deepsight, in answering your question, i want you to know that God knows the human heart in-depth. He made a solution available, but definitely not everyone may understand it. But unlike a school teacher who does not know the limits of her students' understanding, God knows who UNDERSTANDS Christ's sacrifice and yet scorns it. And he knows those who never heard and those who heard but never understood. He knows the moment one gets it and makes a choice to discard it or accept it. So, those two men you mentioned will be justly considered because the one who worshipped Amadioha and was good to men and had the mind to understand Amadioha's rules for life, and lived by it, but was shown the truth, AND UNDERSTOOD IT LIKE HOW HE UNDERSTOOD AMADIOHA but he still rejected it, has rejected God. E.g. The fact that one had always believed that eating fish causes skin cancer, and has researched in it for 30 years does not mean when new undeniable evidence is presented, it should be deliberately ignored. It would be a different matter if they did not understand. This thread is evidence that all the discussants understand, we are just trying to fit it into logical boxes. God and his intents cannot be boxed up this way.

Jesoul: before you take to flight, might i enquire if Hebrews says faith must be in the sacrifice on the cross, or it speaks about faith in God.

My memory does not serve me well, so please help.

Thx mi love.

And if you do not take the Bible as inviolable truth, Deepsight, the argument is moot so I may need to stop this discussion just like my friend JeSoul. And why is that? All my responses are by the help of the Holy Spirit, and they are all backed up by the Bible (i have not been quoting the scriptures cos im still posting from my phone, and i like quoting in context using various versions if need be), so all I know of God is invariably found in the Bible, and also from my experience living for God. I cannot discuss salvation outside the whole Bible but from the sermon on the mount.

Please read Hebrews 6 to see the order in which perfection can be attained. Works of love come as a result of faith which is a doctrine of Christ, after the repentance from dead works.

Deepsight, your question to JeSoul is answered in Hebrews 11:13,39,40 those patriachs of faith were not complete before Christ. That was why Jesus said Abraham rejoiced to see his day.

JeSoul:

  There you go again.
  Is this the gospel of Maven and Jesoul and Noetic? or the Gospel of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John? please direct the credit to the proper authority.

  Overall, I'm not so sure we're saying completely different things. I have not now nor ever said a doctrine is what saves, please show me a quote where I insinuated such? so please don't dash me wetin I nor do. I have said FAITH FAITH and FAITH in Christ - which must lead to good works is what justifies and saves.
Forgive me, I meant John 3:18.
And Pastor please kindly read this thread to see where I stand, cos it seems in your beef against pentecostalism you're lumping everyone into the same box.   https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-361617.32.html#msg5065947

Sorry, did I call anything the Gospel of Jesoul. I meant to say the doctrine of JeSoul. Yes, I'm aware of the gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John. I am also aware that the text in these gospels are used to support and argue for a variety of doctrines. I'm sure that you know what Orthodoxy is.

The word orthodox, from Greek orthodoxos "having the right opinion", from orthos ("right", "true", "straight" + doxa ("opinion" or "praise", related to dokein, "to think",[1] is typically used to mean adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy

Why would anyone need to impose an orthodoxy if the right and proper doctrines were already laid out in the bible? Who could read the bible and come up with a different idea of what it was saying. Why the need to impose orthodoxy? It idea of it kind of reminds me of the thought police in oppressive societies. What's so bad about someone having a different opinion of you. Oh, I see, you have a hotline to the absolute truth and anyone who thinks differently from you is a damned heretic. (Hey I know you don't think like this, I only joking! )

edia, the free encyclopedia
The Thought Police (thinkpol in Newspeak) is the secret police of Oceania in George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.
It is the job of the Thought Police to uncover and punish thoughtcrime and thought-criminals, using psychology and omnipresent surveillance from telescreens to find and eliminate members of society who were capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police

But really, independent contrary thought must be such a dangerous thing.

Re: The Christian Trial & Debate
« #35 on: December 07, 2009, 04:24 PM »
Quote from: Deep Sight on December 04, 2009, 10:08 PM
Thus you subcribe to the view of your Team Lead, Noetic, that Mahatma Ghandi is going to hell?
Well, rather than tagging it "Jesoul and Noetic's view", I would much rather you see it as what it is - the biblical view, and anyone professing to be of the christian faith must unequivocally and unrepentantly subscribe to this position. The bible doesn't give the option to cherry pick with portions to accept or reject and still remain in good standing.

Now that being said permit me to speak a lil more on Ghandi.

-Like I had mentioned to Toney earlier, according to the bible, the way to be saved and gain approval from God has never changed, it has always been the same - and that is by Faith alone. It would appear you believe Ghandi's many many good works are his qualifications (far ahead of far less acheived, ordinary people) that will earn him admittance into heaven. That all the incredible good he has done in the world put him first in line front of the pearly gates.

-This is what the bible says about 'good works' done apart from the kind of Faith God seeks from us:
"Isaiah 64:6 All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.
"Romans 3:12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."

. . . and no one can ever possibly and truly do good. Why? Think of a leper. You can give him a nice long bubble bath, clean up his sores, and finally put on him a clean, shiny silk cloth. But after a while what happens? the sores will begin to bleed again and eventually seep through the new linen. He is filthy on the inside and no matter what he does on the surface, no matter what applications he tries on, he will still remain filthy from the inside out. His illness needs to be cured first.

- and this leper is every man, every woman, every person ever born on the face of the planet. Which is why no good action will save us - it is faith in God that saves.


The whole point of Jesus coming and dying was to save us from this sin and the very worst slap in the face of God is to say "I am without sin, and without need for a savior". 1 John 1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

So you see 'not believing in Jesus' is not just 'not believing in Jesus' but also a rejection of the fact that we all are inherently sinful, and hence subsequently have no need for Jesus and the unbelieveable sacrifice He made. This is to insinuate that "I am good enough, I can do enough good to please God and earn my way into heaven". This is in essence to commit the worst possible offense "Heb 10 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?"

I hope this does some justice to your one-line question

I see where you're coming from. I asked a question earlier. I said IF GOD IS LOVE, THEN HOW CAN AN UNGODLY PERSON PRACTICE LOVE?

What is the source of the Love that the ungodly person is experiencing.
Oops there I go again with that word, experience. What is the experiential basis for your Faith in Christ? Or did you just read the bible and say, "hmm, that seems to make sense".

I totally agree with you as regards faith and works, that you cannot put the cart before the horse. However if you see the cart bubbling along down the path wouldn't you say that it is safe to assume that the horse is actually in front of the cart. The fruits of the spirit are love joy and peace. Is there any other tree that you know that can provide these same fruits. or is it only the spirit? We need to know so that if there are any further distinctions to be made we can be prepared.

JeSoul:

Forgive me, I meant John 3:18.

Out of curiosity, how do you correlate believing in his name with believing in his sacrifice.

JeSoul:


What were Jesus' first words before He told that parable? why did He tell that parable?

Luke 10:25
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.
28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"


  and then Jesus went on to tell the parable of the Samaritan specifically to show who is ones neighbor, and what true love is -  which comes after loving God. If this isn't faith I dunno what is.

The really funny thing though is that Jesus never said to the Guy, "listen, in a couple of years I'm gonna die and rise again. If you believe this and profess it whenever anyone asks you then you'll be alright" (wink wink nudge nudge). In fact Jesus says nothing about his sacrifice.

Deep Sight:

Jesoul: before you take to flight, might i enquire if Hebrews says faith must be in the sacrifice on the cross, or it speaks about faith in God.

My memory does not serve me well, so please help.

Thx mi love.

From Hebrews, I'm not so sure the two are entirely different.

Because it starts out with men/women of the OT, some were of Abrahimic roots, others pagans, including one pro.stitute named Rahab - yet they were all commended for their faith. They knew nothing of Jesus or a cross and certainly millions have lived and died under the same circumstances.

But Hebrews culminates and comes full circle, saying the these people died still holding on to their faith - and then Hebrews points to Jesus as the fulfilment of that faith, calling Him in unequivocal terms the "fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith" (Heb 12). (Maven touched a bit on this) They may not have known Jesus in their minds, but they knew Him in their hearts through their faith.

I hope this answers your question?

Pastor AIO:

Sorry, did I call anything the Gospel of Jesoul. I meant to say the doctrine of JeSoul. Yes, I'm aware of the gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John. I am also aware that the text in these gospels are used to support and argue for a variety of doctrines. I'm sure that you know what Orthodoxy is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy

Why would anyone need to impose an orthodoxy if the right and proper doctrines were already laid out in the bible? Who could read the bible and come up with a different idea of what it was saying. Why the need to impose orthodoxy? It idea of it kind of reminds me of the thought police in oppressive societies. What's so bad about someone having a different opinion of you. Oh, I see, you have a hotline to the absolute truth and anyone who thinks differently from you is a damned heretic. (Hey I know you don't think like this, I only joking! )http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police

See as you just finished me here lol . . . you're right. Permit me to ask, in the simplest and most concise of declarations, what is the Gospel of Jesus Christ to you?

I see where you're coming from. I asked a question earlier. I said IF GOD IS LOVE, THEN HOW CAN AN UNGODLY PERSON PRACTICE LOVE?

What is the source of the Love that the ungodly person is experiencing.
Oops there I go again with that word, experience. What is the experiential basis for your Faith in Christ? Or did you just read the bible and say, "hmm, that seems to make sense".

Perhaps because we have a spectrum of characteristics in-built in us? we are after all made in the image of God aren't we? and we exhibit these characteristics at different times and to different degrees?

Perhaps because "ungodliness" is relative? not a definite state of mind/being? I daresay even Hitler would've loved his children while batting no eye lid in murdering that of another?

---

I totally agree with you as regards faith and works, that you cannot put the cart before the horse. However if you see the cart bubbling along down the path wouldn't you say that it is safe to assume that the horse is actually in front of the cart.

Very nice question. Safe to assume? maybe, because its never safe to assume. Our understanding and grasp of things we cannot see are very very handicapped.

The fruits of the spirit are love joy and peace. Is there any other tree that you know that can provide these same fruits or is it only the spirit? We need to know so that if there are any further distinctions to be made we can be prepared.

Lol, any other tree I know of? No I can't say that I do.

If you're refering to people who exhibit these qualities without having known or experienced the Holy Spirit - solid question. Perhaps its the same answer as the 'ungodliness'? we're made in God's image and hence have these qualities inherent in us? And when someone is transformed by belief in Jesus, He becomes their motivation?

Pastor AIO:

Out of curiosity, how do you correlate believing in his name with believing in his sacrifice.

I may have used the two interchangeably - forgive again. Where's the quote so I can clarify?

Believing in His name/sacrifice I lump together because it does no good to just believe in His name or sacrifice . . . it must inevitably be accompanied closely by a transformed life.

JeSoul:

I may have used the two interchangeably - forgive again. Where's the quote so I can clarify?

Believing in His name/sacrifice I lump together because it does no good to just believe in His name or sacrifice . . . it must inevitably be accompanied closely by a transformed life.

John 3: 18
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God


I understand name in the above in the sense of authority. If England goes to war against Iraq and half a million people march through the street shouting 'not in my name' I understand to mean that they want no part of it. That they do not condone it, that it is being done without their authority.
If someone bangs on your door shouting 'open this door in the name of the law' or 'in the name of the king' I assume that he is banging under authority from the law or the king.

If I believe in salvation in the name of Christ then I believe I am saying that my salvation is consonant with Christ, even authorized by Christ.