No such action
From Kristos Vocabulary Booster
The action specified by the URL is not recognized by the wiki
Return to Main Page.
Gary McNees wrote:
> were basing their acceptance with God, upon their
>works, as do the JW's.
>The JW's are a very good example of an entire religion which thinks
>that by doing works they can be saved.
I wrote:
Gary this is absolutely not true. I am surprised at the number of
people who have this erroneous view of JWs. I think it stems from one
of Ron Rhodes' pedestrian books on JWs. Nobody can be saved by their
works but only by God's underserved kindness ("grace"). JWs have never
believed in salvation trhough works. NEVER. While we are speaking of
"works" James makes it plain, however, that true faith would be
accompanied by faithful "works" .
I and all JWs agree with you that trying to gain salvation by works
alone is not acceptable to God.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
In article <092.49.13.05.998177000@srcbs.org>, ResLight says...
>
>"Matthew Johnson"
>news:091.17.17.05.576714000@srcbs.org...
>>
>>
>> In article <090.24.07.05.649864000@srcbs.org>, basicallyblues says...
>>
>>>>Note that the Nicene Creed says that if a person doesn't "hold
>>>>this doctrine", he will be condemned.
>>>
>>>The Nicene Creed is not Scripture and the bishops that took part were
>>>not "inspired of God" like the Bible writers were (2 Tim. 3:16)
>>
>> You don't know that. But you like to believe it, since it gives you a
>> convenient excuse to persist in your destructive error.
>
>There is no reason to believe that the added-on philosohies of the apostasy
>are inspired of God.
There is no reason to believe that the Trinity _is_ an "added-on philosophy",
much less an 'apostasy'. The apostasy, 'reslight' is yours, since your
renouncement of the consubstantial Son is a return to warmed-over paganism.
>I will reproduce what I have written before on this:
Bad idea...
>===========
>The holy spirit of God has revealed his truth through the apostles. The holy
>spirit especially led the apostles into all the truths concerning Christ and
>what he said. (John 14:26; 16:4-13; Galatians 1:12; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Timothy
>2:2)
This does not help you, because the truth revealed to them was Trinity. Hence
Mat 28:19
> The truths revealed to the apostles and made available to us are
>recorded in the Bible itself.
Not all of them.
> (Ephesians 3:3-12; Colossians 1:25,26; 1 John
>4:6) Of course, without the holy spirit, these things that are recorded will
>still be a mystery to us. -- Mark 4:11; 1 Corinthians 2:7-10.
And as long as you deny that the Spirit is also consubstantial to the Father,
you shut the door against Him so that He cannot provide you any 'enlightenment'.
>Part of the truth revealed by means of the holy spirit was that there was to
>be an apostasy,
Yes, JW-ism was predicted, as was Arianism, Gnosticism, Nestorianism etc. -- and
all the various excuses for denial that Apostolic truth that the Son is
consubstantial to the Father in His divinity, and to us in His humanity.
> a "falling away" from the truth of God's Word, with strong
>delusions.
Such as the delusion that the Archangel Michael is the pre-incarnate Christ?
Such as the delusion that "the Word was A god"?
> (Matthew 13:24-30; Acts 20:29,30; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; 1
>Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 4:3,4) This falling away had already begun in the
>first century, with some receiving a different spirit and preaching "another
>Jesus";
Yes, the Gnostics, the Christadelphians, the Docetists etc. and their
ideological predecessors (just in case you deny these titles to the 1st century
heresies).
> the apostasy was restrained for only a short while. (2 Thessalonians
>2:7; 1 John 2:18,19; 2 Corinthians 11:4)
That does NOT follow from these verses.
>> The apostasy spread rapidly after
>the death the apostles and developed into the great "Man of Sin",
That does not follow either. You are engaging in an orgy of eisegesis.
> or more
>correctly "Lawless Man", or "Illegal Man", a great religious system,
Sounds like Charles Taze Russell to me! But come to think of it, a lot of 7th
day Adventists fit that bill, too.
> which
>claimed to have the authority to add to God's Word since their revelation
>was allegedly of God's Spirit.
More wild eisegesis.
>The central doctrine became the false
>teaching that Jesus had to be God Almighty in order to provide atonement for
>sins.
That is not 'false'. It may be an oversimplified statement, or it may
over-emphasize one aspect of the Redemption to the neglect of others, but it is
NOT false.
What are you smoking, that you dream of achieving anything by posting these
false accusations?
> With this spirit of error in mind, the writings of the apostles were
>totally reinterpreted to accommodate the error, and many of the Hellenic
>Jewish philosophies were adapted and added to and blended in with the New
>Testament, even as the Jews had done with the Old Testament.
Nonsense.
>
>Isaiah, in prophesying concerning the stone of stumbling (Isaiah 8:14;
>Romans 9:23) to both the houses of Israel (Romans 9:6,31; 11:7; 1
>Corinthians 10:18; Galatians 6:16), warns us: "To the law and to the
>testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there
>is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20, New King James Version)
What _are_ you prating about? Isaiah was NOT talking about Rom 9:23 etc. when he
spoke Isa 8:20. Are you in an eisegesis competition? I think you just took the
palm.
> The law, of
>course, is what we call the Old Testament;
No 'of course' there. By that time, the word already had three basic meanings.
You are prematurely dismissing the others. WHy? DO you dream that this will make
your deception easier?
> the testimony of this prophecy is
>the testimony of the apostles, as given in the New Testament.
This is nothing but pious-sounding gobbledy-gook. Why would anyone believe
_this_? WHy, it is not even obvious what it really _means_!
> This the way
>to test the spirits. (1 John 4:1)
No, it is not. Who do you think you can fool by referring to an irrelevant
verse? 1 John 4:1 and Isa 8:20 are about -COMPLETELY DIFFERENT- topics!
In fact, if only you really _would_ understand 1 John 4:1, you would have
-REJECTED- JW-ism! For the Apostle tells us to test the spirits by knowing that
if they confess Christ as LORD, then they are true. But when he says as LORD, he
does not mean ANY Lord, but LORD, i.e. JHVH.
But you deny this, as all JWs do, so your 'spirits' cannot be trusted.
> It is to these and through these
>scriptures that the holy spirit today gives true direction, and anything not
>in agreement with these scriptures is not of the light of the day.
Well that shuts you out of the light. For the Scriptures DO clearly testify that
the Son is consubstantial to the Father. It is only because you hide the truth
under layers and layers of equivocation and pseudo-philology that you do not see
this.
> (John
>11:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:5) The rejection of the true Jesus -- who while on
>earth before his death was only human,
That is not the 'true Jesus'. Have you never read the Gospel of John? Have you
never noticed that while speaking to Nicodemus, He told him that He was still in
heaven? Then read again, and pay particular attention to this verse:
No one has ascended into heaven but he who
descended from heaven, the Son of man who IS in heaven. (Joh 3:13)
And don't be fooled by modern translations that follow a reconstructed text: in
fact, if you want to accuse people of apostasy, you should accuse them who leave
off the last part of the above verse.
> a little lower than the angels, who
>gave his flesh for the life of the world -- is one of the greatest
>stumblingblocks to understanding the true Gospel revealed in scripture.
No, it is YOU who have stumbled over the stumblingblock: that this man Jesus
Christ is the Word of God, who was with God in the beginning (of all created
things), who is the consubstantial Son of the Father from before all ages.
> Thus
>Jesus becomes a stumbling stone,
And you insist on stumbling on Him.
> not only to the house according the flesh
>which was corrupted from true doctrine, but also the spiritual house which
>was also corrupted from true doctrine.
What was that gibberish supposed to mean?
[snip]
--
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
