33 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

The conjunctive makes both necessary... but the initial salvation cannot be of works in any form of deed or of thought according to Scripture

Titus 3:5-7

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
KJV
The world is completely brainwashed by the do to get scenario but the whole of Scripture is pin pointed to that which goes on from here for eternity souls of humanity and His Word... now find works of here in that! 

You say "the conjunctive makes both necessary... but the initial salvation cannot be of works in any form of deed or of thought according to Scripture" Does not it remind  you the hen and its egg problem. Which is first? It is like theory and practice. Practice without theory is blind and theory without practice is dead. Please continue arguing with James 2, 14. 

2 hours ago, Who me said:

Unfortunetly those who stress good works seem to do so over and above the need for saving faith.

The blunt and brutal truth is that it is "faith alone" that saves and that we show our faith by our good works.

Sermons I enjoy an element of humour, but I want in a sermon to be instructed, rebuke and challenged to follow Jesus. If people don't like that, find it too challenging then if the truth of the gospel offends and they leave, that is their loss.

Any church that preaches something pleasent to the ears is unlikely to be preaching a message from God.

Did not you read my message that I consider faith and good works as one together. Why do you insist that I stress good works. I said I did not. I just do not leave them out.

Just now, vlad said:

Wrong again. A false accusation. I am not stressing good works. This is one more interpretation against good works in my collection.Neither am I putting them before faith! ( I expect someone to falsely accuse me of putting good works before faith.So I war you beforehand that I do not) For me faith and good works are just inseparable.

  I am not stressing good works. I stress faith and good works together! This is one more interpretation against good works in my collection.Neither am I putting them before faith! Waiting for further wrong accusations.

10 minutes ago, Who me said:

Unfortunetly those who stress good works seem to do so over and above the need for saving faith.

The blunt and brutal truth is that it is "faith alone" that saves and that we show our faith by our good works.

Sermons I enjoy an element of humour, but I want in a sermon to be instructed, rebuke and challenged to follow Jesus. If people don't like that, find it too challenging then if the truth of the gospel offends and they leave, that is their loss.

Any church that preaches something pleasent to the ears is unlikely to be preaching a message from God.

Wrong again. A false accusation. I am not stressing good works. This is one more interpretation against good works in my collection.Neither am I putting them before faith! ( I expect someone to falsely accuse me of putting good works before faith.So I war you beforehand that I do not) For me faith and good works are just inseparable.

1 hour ago, Neighbor said:

Nah, no more than ever.

That is a lament, evidently first mentioned by Satan to God  as he spoke of God's servant Job.

Satan the accuser declared with confidence that  Job would  deny God because of his plight of his wealth and health being gone from him, showing God that man only loved the blessing of material wealth. But it was not so, and is not so today.

Born again saints in Christ Jesus are not motivated to love things, but instead to love opportunity to worship God doing all things that are to be done to His Glory ( and not to personal gain in prosperity).

 

You say " Nah, no more than ever." That is not right. Making it a show is the invention of the 20th century.

Nobody is lamenting. This is a false accusation! I am happy. Be it known to you that if the world loves you - God doesn't. And the other way around.

Under the impression of “Forensic Files” I have noticed a statistic regularity. Of all the hundreds of ideas GOOD DEEDS are chosen to be “under attack” even though this idea is in John, James, Matthew, in the very words of Jesus, in the practice of Jesus and the Apostles. It would take a dissertation but what is on the surface is clear. There is a collection of methods to oppose GOOD DEEDS. To name just a few 1).Attempt to separate good deeds from faith Nobody considers good deeds alone to be saved but that is the standing accusation. 2). Attempts to draw the idea of being perfect to the subject although one can easily perform good works without being perfect. 3)translation flaw 4) Attempt to designate the idea to one period only. 5)Attempt to designate the idea for one people only, 6)Creation of a derogatory name for the supporters  and so on to name just a few.

The reason for that in my opinion is this. If I had a parish I would lose it on the next day. How would I support my family ? Modern people demand a show and pleasant impressions. The sermon is to be permeated with humor and fun and modern music and what not. I would certainly do that. But there is one more thing. If I tried to tell them the bitter truth about good works and that few will be saved they would go to an easier preacher or worse they would seek another religion. The world would hate me (in fact it does already for my downright attitude).

On 11/7/2018 at 5:58 PM, n2thelight said:

Does taking the mark condemn one forever?

There is a difference. You can not buy or sell anything without this mark. That is one thing.

But there is another thing. Many people are willingly taking this mark literally on their foreheads and on the hand ( I mean implanting microchips). This is exactly what I personally do not accept for myself and would not advise others to do.

3 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

Yes, you are absolutely correct.

But all men do not "require the same thing." 

All I need to do to justify my approach is show one individual who needed additional evidence. And one of the Disciples by the name of Thomas did. Secondly we see that Paul argued in Ephesus for two years, arguing with pagans and Jews alike using evidence and argument from presuppositions that his hearer held. So while it is hardly "Required" to demonstrate to an atheist professor at a college evidence from the fact that astrophysicist agree the universe had a beginning, or that they agree that the universe appears to be fined-tuned for life, it is "effective." And the scriptures seem to show us how disciples like Philip went out of their way to engage the Ethiopian eunuch with arguments and evidence from testimony and prophecy. So many methods are demonstrated in scripture. 

As Paul says that he strives to be all things to all men so that some are saved, and proves this at Mars Hill in Acts 17 by commending the religiosity of pagans who are worshiping false gods (demons), if Paul is aloud that latitude why can't a Christian present arguments based on facts known about the world that every person on the planet believes to be true, as a demonstration of God "by the things that were made, so that men are without excuse." (Rom. 1:19,20)

So is this method required, absolutely not. 

Is it profitable in certain scenarios, well... I'm going with Paul on this one.

I forgot to tell you 1) that for humans there is Universal Limitation that covers all including knowledge, 3)that the word of God is not a human sequence of sounds associated with some sense, a day of God may be millions of human years. That is if you read Genesis it is an easy explanation to people like you sometimes explain very complex things to kids. Once Jesus said something to the effect that human minds are not capable of grasping heavenly things as they are. I compare it with man and his pets. You can teach your dog many tricks but it will never learn how your smartphone  really operates. The distance between God and man is that big if not bigger for once it was a comparison of a pot-maker and his pots in the Gospel. Imagine the distance and difference: a Pot-maker and a pot he is making.

You say   " ... why can't a Christian present arguments based on facts known ... " . There are some wonders I have personally seen as facts but if you have not seen them they are no arguments to you. I have no videos, no photos. I still do not understand where you are. If you are looking for proof that really may come to you and hope not too late. Talking about Paul you remember how he got the proof the hard way. But not everybody is that lucky.

20 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

Okay, I think I know what you are saying now. 

Can one argue for the existence of God without assuming the Bible is true?

My answer was "Yes and here are several examples."

Your answer is "No, God is not something or someone we can know even the smallest thing about (like does he exist), because God is in a category that is unknowable to humans without special divine revelation like the Bible." At least I think that is what you are suggesting. 

Thomas Aquinas gave his five ways of knowing God and then later suggested we can say anything about God. Some (maybe all) modern Thomists beleive this to be true. I don't find it compelling given the verses in Romans I quoted or evangelical methods alluded to in Acts 13-19 specifically. But I am aware of the arguments. 

But just to be sure I understand you, you are claiming that a rational argument like the Kalam Cosmological argument is not helpful at determining if God exists?

anything that begins to exist has a cause 

the universe began to exist 

therefore the universe had a cause

if the universe has a cause that cause is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, all-powerful and uncaused.

i know of several atheists who have responded to that type of rational argument favorably. Why think that is not the case?

To give you a short answer faith does not require demonstration as in experimental physics. I can not see what you are trying to prove.  Express your opinion in a sentence or two to make a clear-cut conclusion, please. I have not been able to understand your attitude. Are you an atheist? What is the purpose of your messages? 

20 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

I have no idea what this sentence means. Please rephrase.

I meant to say that the word "knowledge" (that is exact knowledge) which you have in your message is not applicable  to humanities and missing the point when we speak about faith.

On 11/5/2018 at 10:45 PM, Uber Genius said:

Can we gain knowledge of God based on observed facts and experience apart from divine revelation?

50+ years ago in the US, the culture still accepted the truth of the Bible. Evangelists like Josh McDowell or Billy Graham could expound truths in the Bible to lead people to the gospel message.
Today no such assumptions are held by our culture. Trying to convince them that the Bible is a legitimate source of knowledge, let alone "truth," meets with derision or at best, suspicion.

And yet we spend our entire lives gaining knowledge about our world by using our faculties.

1. Memory
2. Testimony
3. Sense perception
4. Rationality
5. Introspection

These faculties are all potentially defeatable (fancy term meaning they can be wrong from time to time). Despite the fact that a stick appears to bend when we put it in the water, through the use of our other faculties (memory, rationality, and introspection) we overcome our misunderstanding of our sense experience alone.

When we perceive that the universe began to exist what does that imply?

When we recognize that nothing can't possibly produce something, what does that imply?

We perceive desires such as the one to live a meaningful existence, again what does that imply?

When we experience natural beauty do we stop and ask why is anything beautiful? What would create a universal standard of beauty?

When we are upset that someone mistreated us do we ask why is there a moral value or duty to treat people a certain way? What is the origin of that duty? To whom do we owe that duty?

There are dozens of similar questions that lead one to the inference of a Creator. 

Please feel free to comment on other features of our world that appear, upon some careful reflection, to be transcendent in their origin.

Or are these just brute facts? Or perhaps accidents or coincidental to evolution and therefore not actual features of our external world but rather delusions?

And there are things that you can not explain rationally with your faculties. I remember there was a student who could do such things. I put a picture  of a very complex installation with wheels, barrels, boxes and many other things into a thick book and the book in my case at home and in the morning just as he came I asked him to draw a picture which was in my case on the blackboard. Then I went out (with my case , of course) so that he could not see my reaction to his progress. When I came there it was all drawn with all the minor details that I had not noticed in the original myself. There are wonders. Wish you could see some.

On 11/5/2018 at 10:45 PM, Uber Genius said:

Can we gain knowledge of God based on observed facts and experience apart from divine revelation?

50+ years ago in the US, the culture still accepted the truth of the Bible. Evangelists like Josh McDowell or Billy Graham could expound truths in the Bible to lead people to the gospel message.
Today no such assumptions are held by our culture. Trying to convince them that the Bible is a legitimate source of knowledge, let alone "truth," meets with derision or at best, suspicion.

And yet we spend our entire lives gaining knowledge about our world by using our faculties.

1. Memory
2. Testimony
3. Sense perception
4. Rationality
5. Introspection

These faculties are all potentially defeatable (fancy term meaning they can be wrong from time to time). Despite the fact that a stick appears to bend when we put it in the water, through the use of our other faculties (memory, rationality, and introspection) we overcome our misunderstanding of our sense experience alone.

When we perceive that the universe began to exist what does that imply?

When we recognize that nothing can't possibly produce something, what does that imply?

We perceive desires such as the one to live a meaningful existence, again what does that imply?

When we experience natural beauty do we stop and ask why is anything beautiful? What would create a universal standard of beauty?

When we are upset that someone mistreated us do we ask why is there a moral value or duty to treat people a certain way? What is the origin of that duty? To whom do we owe that duty?

There are dozens of similar questions that lead one to the inference of a Creator. 

Please feel free to comment on other features of our world that appear, upon some careful reflection, to be transcendent in their origin.

Or are these just brute facts? Or perhaps accidents or coincidental to evolution and therefore not actual features of our external world but rather delusions?

Sorry. you repeat knowledge, knowledge.  That applies strictly to exact sciences that deal with discrete countable  elements. All other spheres defy scientific approach due to their extra complexity and consequently subjective approach that reflects a certain group interest at best, that is as against  exact science. As you know in exact sciences there is for humans such thing as absolute truth that is in the comparison of quantities (three chairs in this room is absolutely more than two chairs in the next room). There were attempts to treat social subjects as sciences some centuries back and in the recent past but they failed  for the reason mentioned above. Nothing has changed so far. You can never apply science to humanities so that they would be universally accepted.  Belief is a different thing. If you don't believe, don't. God gives this gift to some people. Regard that as talent. If a person has not got it, it is o.k. but why fight others who have this talent or strictly speaking gift. If I am tune deaf why tell everybody that all music sucks. And remember belief is not hinged to the number of followers. They may be few. So when you speak about derision it makes no sense. It is not the number of believers that matters. It is not winning elections or anything like that. All what you have written is just parallel (that is missing the point). Sorry for my frank reply if it hurts you.

On 11/14/2018 at 11:12 PM, Pencil24 said:

I asked this question once before or very similar and I want to get advice again. I was raised to believe in the Church of God they believe when the scripture talks about backsliding in Romans that means you can lose your salvation. That salvation is a choice given freely and God won't take it away but that you can walk away from it and lose your salvation. I then switched to Baptist were they believe you ask God to forgive you it can never be taken away but at the same time I found by speaking with them they feel if you really are seeking Christ and following after him the desire to sin should not be there buy that you won't lose it if you do sin. I guess my question is this why does it seem we put a measure to sin when God doesn't he sees them all the same in His eyes. So why is it some seem ok but others are not. I am a little confused where I stand I feel that if someone anyone believes and accepts that once he or she is forgiven then they are saved. I guess where I am going with this is there is a sin that seems worse than others but in Gods, sin is a sin. Does anyone out there believe that if a person is a homosexual that they can go to heaven when they die if they have asked God to forgive them for there sin? 

 

Hi, You say:  "why does it seem we put a measure to sin when God doesn't he sees them all the same in His eyes." Did God tell you this?  I would not be sure about that even though most people are and ready to quote the Scripture. The point is that God is unsearchable. You can not corner God even with quotation from the Scripture. He is a living God and there are many instances in the Bible when He makes decisions. He is not a program and if He makes a sudden decision about human beings, who will be against it? I suppose that apart from punishment there will be billions of disappointments when people are judged.  You are more safe if you fearful. There is a notion of deadly sins and in some churches there is a gradation of sins. This is an open question. I only know that if you change churches you do not change things as they are in Heaven. I always reserve from saying anything for God Himself. As for salvation it is possible but it is not guaranteed whatever you are thinking about yourself. A person who is too sure may be punished for his pride.

28 minutes ago, Jayne said:

I have had more cats in my life than you can imagine - inside cats and outside cats an inside/outside cats.  Usually 1 or 2 at a time.  I've had them all spayed and neutered because I didn't want kittens.

Unwanted cats and dogs is an epidemic in my area. 

I am lucky I did not have to spay cats. There is a place here where many cats are like stray cats. I have been feeding them for many years and there is no overpopulation so far. Some die some go some stay. I have noticed that it is more or less automatic in nature when humans do not interfere. There are stray cats, feral cats but the epidemic mostly comes from mice, squirrels and foxes. These are left alone as they do not know how to control their numbers.

19 hours ago, other one said:

Well I got neutered, so to speak, after our second child so why is a cat to much better than me.....    most of my friends did the same...

 

Well, a pussy cat can be sterilized after the first or the second litter. As for tom cats  they  are castrated. Men are not castrated. That is the difference. They should leave at least tom cats alone. I am worried because in some countries of Europe all tomcats ate castrated and if a normal tomcat is found outside its home in the streets the fine is several thousand Euros. The tendency is to castrate all of them. Only the licensed breeders are allowed to sell cats (castrated ones). What begins with animals in good time may end up with human beings

For thousands of years cats were with people and there were principles of mutual “respect”. In the 21 century the rules were suddenly broken and cats are neutered everywhere. Acting God for egoistic purpose is no good. Better no pet than a neutered cat. I think it is a sin.

I am not a Catholic. I love Catholics as brothers. Do you love Catholics?

Having read the messages I come to the conclusion that we usually speak about ideal abstract cases. In real life things can be much more complicated. All possible types of human minds are too many. We assume here a certain normalcy of the mind be it evil or good. In practice there are many people who are abnormal to a different degree. Who can tell where normalcy stars and where it ends? What is abnormality? What are its boundaries? May be some sinners are abnormal by nature. Are they all innocent? I have no definite answer here. I only know that the percentage of abnormal people is growing and what was abnormal some decades ago is quite normal today. Psychiatry itself is constantly changing. If this tendency continues we will have to deal with many more new types of minds. 

19 hours ago, Yowm said:

Do you understand the differences between the aorist, perfect, imperfect and present tenses in Greek? English often does not reflect those differences. So for example 1Jn 3:8 in the KJV says 'commits sin', that can be misunderstood as one or two times. The NASB reflects the Greek better and translates it 'practices sin' giving the clearer and more accurate picture of a continuous pattern of sin.

Two helpful translations in showing this in the passages we mentioned  are the Amplified and Expanded Bibles which read...

You know that ·Christ came [he has appeared/was revealed] to take away sins and that there is no sin in ·Christ [him].  So anyone who ·lives [abides; remains] in ·Christ [him] does not ·go on sinning [or sin; the Christian ideal, an implicit call to avoid sin]. Anyone who ·goes on sinning [or sins] has ·never really understood Christ and has never known him [neither seen him nor known him].
      Dear children [2:1], do not let anyone ·lead you the wrong way [deceive you]. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as ·Christ [he] is righteous.  Anyone who ·continues to sin [or sins] belongs to the devil [John 8:44], because the devil has been sinning since the beginning. The Son of God ·came [was revealed; appeared] for this purpose: to destroy the devil’s work.
      ·Those [All] who are ·God’s children [born of/begotten by God; 2:29] do not ·continue sinning [or sin], because ·the new life from God [or God’s message; or God’s Spirit; his seed/sperm] ·remains [abides] in them. They are not able to ·go on sinning [or sin], because they ·have become children of God [Lare born of/begotten by God].  ·So we can see [In this way it is apparent/revealed/evident] who God’s children are and who the devil’s children are: Those who do not ·do what is right [practice righteousness] are not ·God’s children [from/of God], and those who do not love their brothers and sisters are not ·God’s children [from/of God]. 1 John 3:5-10 (Expanded Bible)

You know that He appeared in visible form and became Man to take away [upon Himself] sins, and in Him there is no sin [essentially and forever].
   No one who abides in Him [who lives and remains in communion with and in obedience to Him—deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] commits (practices) sin. No one who [habitually] sins has either seen or known Him [recognized, perceived, or understood Him, or has had an experiential acquaintance with Him].
   Boys (lads), let no one deceive and lead you astray. He who practices righteousness [who is upright, conforming to the divine will in purpose, thought, and action, living a consistently conscientious life] is righteous, even as He is righteous.
   [But] he who commits sin [who practices evildoing] is of the devil [takes his character from the evil one], for the devil has sinned (violated the divine law) from the beginning. The reason the Son of God was made manifest (visible) was to undo (destroy, loosen, and dissolve) the works the devil [has done].
   No one born (begotten) of God [deliberately, knowingly, andhabitually] practices sin, for God’s nature abides in him [His principle of life, the divine sperm, remains permanently within him]; and he cannot practice sinning because he is born (begotten) of God.
   By this it is made clear who take their nature from God and are His children and who take their nature from the devil and are his children: no one who does not practice righteousness [who does not conform to God’s will in purpose, thought, and action] is of God; neither is anyone who does not love his brother (his fellowbeliever in Christ). 1 John 3:5-10 (Amplified Bible)

If we say we ·have no sin [or have no sin nature; or are not guilty of sinning], we are ·fooling [deceiving] ourselves, and the truth is not in us.  But if we confess our sins, he will forgive our sins, because ·we can trust God to do what is right [he is faithful and righteous/just; Deut. 32:4]. He will ·cleanse [purify] us from all ·the wrongs we have done [unrighteousness].  If we ·say [claim] we have not sinned, we make God a liar, and ·we do not accept God’s teaching [his word is not in us]. 1 John 1:8-10 (Expanded Bible)

If we say we have no sin [refusing to admit that we are sinners], we delude and lead ourselves astray, and the Truth [which the Gospel presents] is not in us [does not dwell in our hearts].
   If we [freely] admit that we have sinned and confess our sins, He is faithful and just (true to His own nature and promises) and will forgive our sins [dismiss our lawlessness] and [continuously] cleanse us from all unrighteousness [everything not in conformity to His will in purpose, thought, and action].
   If we say (claim) we have not sinned, we contradict His Word and make Him out to be false and a liar, and His Word is not in us [the divine message of the Gospel is not in our hearts]. 1 John 1:8-10 (Amplified Bible)

The senses in I John 3 (5-10) are clear on the surface and correct today. The whole Gospel in English is correct today.

4 hours ago, Yowm said:

I do take the words literally, including the moods and tenses of the Greek verbs which many English translations gloss over. That will help your understanding greatly of 1John.

The sense is the same. Hundreds of scholars were checking the text of the Bible. The sense is practically the same. There is no need to rewrite the Bible or any part of it now. All English versions are correct. It is the Holy Bible trusted by practically every Christian. I have read the Gospel in Gothic (what remained of it) and in Old English and in Russian. The senses are practically the same. And that is the main thing. For instance some scholars insist that it was not a camel to pass through the eye of the needle but a rope in Aramaic. But the sense is the same.

1 hour ago, Yowm said:

I do take the words literally, including the moods and tenses of the Greek verbs which many English translations gloss over. That will help your understanding greatly of 1John.

o.k.

9 hours ago, Oseas Ramos de Siqueira said:

What the Apostle John revealed it fulfils itself in the life of a man if he be born again, that is, he be born of the water and the Spirit, as Jesus taught. (John 3:v.5&7)  

There are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in One. (1John 5:v.8)

JESUS explains: That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3:v.6)      John said: In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the Devil: (1John 3:v.10)   See: God is a title, the Word is God. God is Word, God is Spirit, the Word is Spirit, therefore, be born of Spirit is be born of the Word.    

Then that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, but that which is born of the flesh is flesh, as said JESUS (John 3:v.6).  Hence the reason by which the apostle John explained, saying: In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the Devil, in other words, the children of God are spirit, and the children of Devil are flesh. As we can see, to be born again signifies a change of nature, ie, from a devilish nature (ie, born of the flesh) to a celestial or heavenly nature (ie, be born of God, or of the Spirit).   

That being said, we conclude that our Lord JESUS Christ is the only one who was not born of the Devil, because He is the own Word made flesh, the Word is God. All mankind was born of the flesh, ie was born of the Devil, so that only those who was born of the Spirit will enter into the Kingdom of God that will be established on Earth (Rev.5:v.10 and 11:v.15 and its consequences in the verse 18) in this seventh and last millennium, or seventh and last Day, the Day of the Lord.

Peter Apostle warned, saying:  2Peter 3:v.7
7 But the heavens (TWO HEAVENS) and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto FIRE against the Day of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men.   (Remember: The Word is a consuming FIRE)

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one Day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one Day.(We are already living in the beginning of the first century of this seventh and last millennium, or seventh and last Day, as we can see by Scriptures) 

9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

10 But the Day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens (TWO HEAVENS) shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the WORKS that are therein shall be burned up.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be DISSOLVED, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the Day of God, wherein the heavens (TWO HEAVENS) being on FIRE shall be DISSOLVED, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for NEW heavens and a NEW earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of Him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

 

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches

As I said I take the words of St.John literally and correct even today.  There may be many modern explanations and theories of sin to every taste. We have the freedom to differ without pressing each other or opposing each other with corresponding citations on each side.  May be some other people share my point of view. And that is all. I do not accuse any one else nor do I allege that someone is surely wrong. No point arguing. As someone said in a form of a joke to every 10 people in this forum there are 12 opinions. There is no changing that. Agreeing to deffer is the best and the most peaceful and loving each other way out. We will find it all out after death.

9 hours ago, Yowm said:

Your passage is speaking of sin as a pattern or even a habit. It does not mean 3 strikes and you're out! The born again Christian is not like that.

And so...

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
(1Jn 1:8-10)
 

 

As I said I take the words of St.John literally and correct even today. This truth is not pleasant. Human beings prefer encouraging and pleasant things that is why they seek what they want to find. In my opinion past sin was forgiven but not all the possible future sins. There may be many modern explanations and theories of sin to every taste. We have the freedom to differ without pressing each other or opposing each other with corresponding citations on each side. . As I said I personally  take the words literally. May be some other people share my point of view. And that is all. I do not accuse any one else nor do I allege that they are surely wrong. No point arguing. As someone said in a form of a joke to every 10 people in this forum there are 12 opinions. There is no changing that. Agreeing to deffer is the best and the most peaceful and loving each other way out. We will find it all out after death.

3 hours ago, Yowm said:

That's not what I meant. The God you described (one sin ask for forgiveness, repeat the sin and he punishes you is the allah god, that's what I meant).

3 hours ago, Yowm said:

That's not what I meant. The God you described (one sin ask for forgiveness, repeat the sin and he punishes you is the allah god, that's what I meant).

3 hours ago, Yowm said:

That's not what I meant. The God you described (one sin ask for forgiveness, repeat the sin and he punishes you is the allah god, that's what I meant).

3 hours ago, Yowm said:

That's not what I meant. The God you described (one sin ask for forgiveness, repeat the sin and he punishes you is the allah god, that's what I meant).

It is all right so far. I do not insist on anyone to accept that. But I accept it literally:

1 John 3 King James Version (KJV)

⁵ And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

⁶ Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

⁷ Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

⁸ He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

⁹ Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

¹⁰ In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.