Satan's doctrinal temptation: Believe in falling with salvation

[Ghada]

Wow. I'm not playing your game.

I know. It's the question. answer game of yes/no answers to yes/no questions.

See how you decide for me how I stand in relation to your false premise?

If we're not going to answer questions plainly, then we open the door to others doing it for us.

And you call this honesty?

Your many words to not answer a question plainly? No.

You really don't know what you're doing here.

I do neither. It is not ok, and sin is not "no problem".

Not with Satan's doctrine of not dying by it. It's no problem at all. Maybe to the flesh some, but certainly not to eternity. And compared to eternity, what's a little problem with the flesh by sinning?

Eat, drink, and be merry! for the morning after doesn't stop us from going to heaven!

 

[Ghada]

My doctrine isn't Satan's.

You never show any error in the proof of it in the first post. You don't even try to.

That's called consent by default.

 

[Ghada]

I have not claimed to be Christ's example to you,

You just don't know what you're doing, when you presume to tell others what they are based entirely upon what you are.

You are a doctrinally imputed righteous sinner doing unrighteousness, not me.

As they say, deeds speak much louder than words, including of the doctrinal sort.

 

[Ghada]

I don't have to go back to remember your attempted answer, where you said you repented. That did not answer the question.

Try again.

Your original post presented your point of view but proved nothing. There is no need to prove it wrong.

I.e. you presume to denounce it, without every showing any flaw in it. In debate, that's called consent by default.

You just don't know what a standard debate is.

The one passage I presented did, however, give reason to believe it wrong,

As I said at the time. You didn't show any flaw in my argument, but only proceeded to twist more Scripture to support Satan's doctrine of unconditional eternal security.

and you have not shown how your op fits that passage. All you did was to double down and describe [what you took to be] my teaching as Satanic.

I gave the argument, that you show no error in. I continued to repeat it, when you went on to support Satan's doctrine and temptation to fall into sin with salvation.

 

[Ghada]

The flaw is there and obvious.

Then show it. Quote me and show the flaw I make.

Eternal security is, as I said, by the work of God and not by the redeemed.

Having no part in being saved, and being justified without works, is only accompanying points to Satan's tempting doctrine, that sons shall not surely die while disobeying God.

It is a sure thing, not accomplished by the person.

And now you affirm the old serpent's promise:

Ye shall not surely die. Ye surely shall not die.

 

[Ghada]

Your example is about putting God to the test as far as one's temporal (in this life) safety. Unrelated.

Now you finally make an objection that must be considered. Good job.

So, you say Satan's temptation was only pertaining to the physical body, not to the soul.

This of course is an objection only made by someone, who believes what we do with our bodies, has nothing to do with our soul's salvation.

Unconditional eternal security of the soul by faith alone, without works. Which is the old serpent's first doctrine: Ye shall not surely die by disobeying the Lord...

Also, you condone suicide as a way to go to heaven sooner, since it's 'only' temporal safety, and not salvation of the soul.

For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Independent of that, the error in the objection is both context and doctrine of Christ:

The context of the temptations, including with the body, is that of the spiritual things of the heart: Living by the word of God, not tempting the Lord, and not worshipping the devil.

The doctrine pertaining to the temptation of sons willingly casting ourselves down, is falling away into sins:

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

So, you have made one specific objection. I appreciate it. It falls short, but still it provokes me to disprove it by disciplined Bible response.

You see, specific objections are good for the teaching. They either correct the doctrine, or the doctrine is strengthened by refuting the objection. Either way, it's the doctrine that benefits by proving it.

You could have just brought it up at the first to save a bunch of time, but better late than never. So, thanks.

 

[Ghada]

No, it does NOT make it ok.

This is where children have more character than some adults paying word games: tell a child that something is not punished, that
makes it more than ok, It makes it A-Okay.

I call it the fact of God's sure salvation, or other words to that effect.

Let me help you:

Ye shall surely not die...

In the end, it is not even a question of eternal security,

Then why preach it?

but a question of who is accomplishing precisely all he set out to do.

Unrepented sinners set out to accomplish resurrection unto life, while sinning unto death. They do so by doctrinal fiat alone.

I still would like to know who teaches this. So far, it seems to be a strawman of your own making, in your zeal for self-determinism.

Could you please tell me who teaches this? Just an example, a citation or quote, maybe a video, would be nice.

Go back and reread the quote I give several times.

But your teaching of sin being no problem with eternal security (which you surely have no question about) is sufficient.

 

[makesends]

Our own righteousness is choosing what to repent of at our own will and convenience: Progressive Christianity for unrepented sinners.

Our own safety is doctrine to uphold us with salvation, while still sinning: Unconditional eternal security

Aka: Satan's doctrine of surely not dying to God while sinning. And falling to sin with salvation.

And you are saying those constructs, as you have written, are Calvinism?

 

[Ghada]

And you are saying those constructs, as you have written, are Calvinism?

No. It's about the doctrine of unconditional enteral security made from Satan's recorded doctrine, that sons of God will not surely die by disobeying God. They will rather be 'upheld with salvation', while purposely falling to sin.

This simple fact, so far, has only one challenge made to it. That there was only danger to Jesus' body in the temptation. As though what we do with the body has nothing to do with our soul's spiritual life or death. Which is simply another way of saying, Ye shall not surely die while sinning and tempting God with the body.

For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

This is how some people try to support Satan's doctrine as true.

Ye shall not surely die while disobeying God, is first recorded lie and doctrine of unconditionally secured salvation and sure security of the soul, that is first spoken and taught by that old serpent the devil and Satan on earth.

Some unrepented sinners call it OSAS. Once saved always saved. The Bible teaches OSASS: One saved always stay saved, or the born again sons shall surely die as Adam by transgression.

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

We know that whosoever is born of God is not sinning; but he that is begotten of God is keeping himself, and that wicked one is touching him not.

He that saith, I know him, and is not keeping his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.