[Tj3]

You might as well get some sleep. I think we'll be waiting till the 2nd, or maybe the 3rd or 4th coming of Christ before we get an answer (this is an inside joke folks).

You mean until you give me an answer to the questions that I asked you? :p

[Akoue]

Maybe your opinions. I am going to scripture to see what it says. God's word directed the Apostles, it is what Jesus used to resolve theologicial questions, and it is the source that I used to determine what sound doctrine is.

You're going to Scripture, sure, but you keep misunderstanding it. And you *still* haven't replied in a rigorous and thorough way to the objections I posted ages ago. Or, rather, the couple of times you did I showed that you were *still* mistaken.

Where did Jesus use a faulty understanding of Eph.2--or even a good understanding of Eph.2--to solve a theological question? When do you think the books of the NT were written?

[JoeT777]

Good night Joe.
Sleep well.
You have done well.
Fred

Thanks, God Bless.

[Tj3]

Akoue,
Points well made.
Tom Smith (Tj3) proves again that he has a closed mind which is made up full of bogus Church history.
Fred

Just like your denomination's Cardinal John Henry Newman who says the same thing.

Fred, I truly pray that some day you'll drop the bitterness and perhaps we can have a real discussion.

[Akoue]

I don't "ignore". But when I want to know what sound doctrine is, I go to the source.



The historical truth really gets under your skin, doesn't it Fred?

Where are you getting this historical truth? Can you offer any documentary support for you claim?

[Tj3]

You're going to Scripture, sure, but you keep misunderstanding it. And you *still* haven't replied in a rigorous and thorough way to the objections I posted ages ago. Or, rather, the couple of times you did I showed that you were *still* mistaken.

I know - only you are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. It may disturb you to know that you are not the standard of all truth, and I have responded to you.

[Akoue]

I don't "ignore". But when I want to know what sound doctrine is, I go to the source.



The historical truth really gets under your skin, doesn't it Fred?

Where are you getting this historical truth? Can you offer any documentary support for your claim?

[De Maria]

I'm not making any sense? I thought you were using this scripture to prove that unbelievers have the Holy Spirit before they are saved. I am not following the point of why you used this if that was not why.

Where do you get they were never saved? How could they have never been saved when it says they were

Where does it say they were saved?

and fell away?

It says they were enlightened and received the gift of the Holy Spirit. They fell away from this enlightenment. And yes, from salvation which they were approaching but they never possessed.

[Tj3]

You're going to Scripture, sure, but you keep misunderstanding it. And you *still* haven't replied in a rigorous and thorough way to the objections I posted ages ago. Or, rather, the couple of times you did I showed that you were *still* mistaken.

I know - only you are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. It may disturb you to know that you are not the standard of all truth, and I have responded to you.

[Tj3]

Where are you getting this historical truth? Can you offer any documentary support for your claim?

Sigh! I have many many times, and Fred knows it. But that is a topic for a different thread, don't you think?

[arcura]

N0help4u,
I believe the De Maria is saying that only those who are saved are really saved, not when some person says they are.
This bogus theology about one saved always saved and the other one called self assures saved is very much in error.
Only God knows who is saved or will be.
Judas may have been on the road to salvation but I believe he blew that when he betrayed Jesus.
But I might me wrong.
ONLY God knows for sure.
Fred

[Tj3]

Where does it say they were saved?

So let me get this straight. You were claiming this as an example of the unsaved having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit based upon your own assumptions that they are unsaved.

If that is not the case, then please establish your claim.

[N0help4u]

Arcura
I agree with what you are saying about once saved always saved is not correct because there are many professing Christians and so forth but I am not following De Marie's point on the Holy Spirit, the unsaved and this scripture.

[Tj3]

N0help4u,
I believe the De Maria is saying that only those who are saved are really saved, not when some person says they are.

So you reject the Biblical teaching that says that we have assurance of salvation.

[arcura]

De Maria.
I just read your post to NoHelp4U.
I made a post to her concerning what you said.
I hope I god that right.
If not, please correct me.
Fred

[N0help4u]

I believe the verse IS talking about believers that backslid.
I understand that many are not saved as we assume but the verse specifically is talking about ENLIGHTENED and falling away. The Bible does say that believers CAN fall away.

I do not believe it is referring to unsaved that believe they are saved but are wrong and if it does how and why would they actually be enlightened yet unsaved?

[Akoue]

Sigh! I have many many times, and Fred knows it. But that is a topic for a different thread, don't you think?

Oh, I don't know. We are talking about understanding Scripture. Some of us find it useful in understanding Scripture to consider how thoughtful people have understood it. And, in this case, since your reading cuts directly against the grain of the understanding-and practice--of the earliest Christians... Yeah, I see the relevance. (And come with Newman if you like. I'd enjoy that greatly.--Do you have anything other than Newman?)

[De Maria]

Where are you getting this historical truth? Can you offer any documentary support for you claim?

Gosh! I thought he'd shown that to everyone. It's a joke. Cardinal Newman calls the Christian religion the "New Religion" in Rome and from that statement, TJ builds a whole new history of Christianity.

Obviously, Cardinal Newman was speaking of "new" religion in relation to the "old" pagan religion which Christianity replaced.

When he produces it again, and he's very proud of it, so he will. Go to entire document, and read one paragraph prior to the one snippet TJ will provide and the whole thing will be made clear.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Tj3]

I believe the verse IS talking about believers that backslid.
I understand that many are not saved as we assume but the verse specifically is talking about ENLIGHTENED and falling away. The Bible does say that believers CAN fall away.

I do not believe it is referring to unsaved that believe they are saved but are wrong and if it does how and why would they actually be enlightened yet unsaved?

I think that you are right. I think that De Maria is trying to read into it what she wants it to say and that is why her explanation is so confusing.

If that is the strongest argument that she has for her belief that the unsaved can be indwelled by the Holy Spirit, then I'd say that her argument is in serious trouble.

[De Maria]

De Maria.
I just read your post to NoHelp4U.
I made a post to her concerning what you said.
I hope I god that right.
If not, please correct me.
Fred

You are correct Fred.