Many "Unpardonable" Sins. The New Theology.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Jeff and Sir. Know they can't defend their doctrine unique to Joseph Smith jr. Imagainary mind. Thus slience on their behalf speack loud and clearn to me.

That was pretty low of you to change the issue from apologette's obviously false and indefensible

"The same thing goes for Jeff. Have you noticed how he never addresses doctrinal issues with anything but mocking?"

to something you think might actually be slightly more plausible (but is still false, of course):

"they can't defend their doctrine unique to Joseph Smith jr. Imagainary mind."

And you thought you could get away with that? Not likely.

But wait, folks, that's not all: You THEN changed it AGAIN, to something about God having a father, and challenged me to "put up or shut up" as if that was the original issue. Pathetic attempt, really. That is grade-school-level bad rhetoric.

Why couldn't you just stick with the original accusation? Did you realize it was a loser for the anti-LDS side? Did you really think your goalpost-moving would escape notice? I am surprised at this low quality of debating from you, RFH. You must be recovering from a night out with Jose Cuervo or something. I hope your attacks soon rise back to the the higher quality they used to have.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by neverending

Jeff, since I've never seen any scripture references from you or Sir, then I have to say you don't know any.

The logical fallacy you have committed is the non sequitur--you reasoned that because you have personally never seen any scripture references from me (if it's true that you haven't EVER seen ANY), then THEREFORE, it MUST be because I don't know any scripture references.

That is like a tribesman in Africa saying "Because I have never seen a cell phone, they must not exist."

You should stick to accusations that are more defensible than this if you don't want to embarr*** yourself.

[James Banta]

[nrajeffreturns;149598]How many children could REALLY understand what you've been "preaching," Jim? Not many, IMO. Heck, there may not be many adults who would understand it.

I was the AWANA director at church for years.. The children seem to understand fine. To bad you couldn't have been there too, you may have learned a lot..

Is that what your church taught you? If I sent your pastor copies of the stuff you have been claiming is Bible-based Christian doctrine, would your pastor agree? Or would your pastor say "I have no idea where he got those ideas" ??

If God tells us that ALL sin will be forgiven except the denial of the Holy Spirit what would that denial be is not turning away from His prompting till death? The weird doctrine of having some special knowledge and turn away from that is incorrect.. Judas has no such knowledge and yet he was a son of perdition..

Your "Every sin is the unpardonable sin" theory calls into question your Calvinistic beliefs about God's omnipotence because it implies that God is unable to pardon ANY sin unless the sinner does something first. It also raises questions about what you think of Jesus' atonement: Whose sins did He pay the price for, if all sins are unpardonable?

I never said that I said the unpardonable sin is the denial of the Holy Spirit as He drew men to the cross and that dying without having come to Jesus about those sins is the unpardonable sin.. I could explain it to you 10,000 times but you still wouldn't have the capacity to understand..

You are also rejecting some important Bible verses that teach that only the "elect" are capable of committing the unpardonable sin.

Hebrews 6:

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 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.


Hebrews 10:

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

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Ok let's look..

The Heb 6 p***age is speaking of the elect? I see it addressing those that don't believe, or it shows a extreme circumstance that will never happen. Like saying "when hell freezes over I will go on a murder spree". It never says that any such believer actually exists. It says "If they shall fall away".. IF, not when.. I deny that this happens ever. It is an exaggeration used to make a point of how serious the crime against God is.. In Hebrews 10 you have to use the Bible to understand.. Paul told us that sin still live in Him, in His flesh.. But when he sinned it wasn't Him that sinned but sin that lived in Him.. (Oh I can just see the mormon denials of the Bible here as I teach this).. It's found in Romans 7:17.. In that verse we can see that all who are in Christ never sin , but it is sin within them that does it.. Look at the p***age in Heb 10 carefully it says that "sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins".. So these have been taught the truth but rejected it.. Oh Dear Jeff that is you!!!

So using your theory, suppose I have accepted Jesus as Savior, and the only sin I commit is one time telling my wife her new hairdo looked great when I really thought it was only mediocre, and 5 seconds later I die--would I be guilty of the unpardonable sin?

Jim, I am the one who told YOU that it said that. But you won't listen to me or Jesus or the Bible. You will only listen to your own imagination.

You are committing that sin daily in your life as you really believe that you can DO some work that will save you. Whether that is baptism or temple work, you are trusting things you can do to save you.. After all doesn't the BofM says that you are saved by grace, AFTER all you can do? God tells us that all liars will be cast into the Lake of Fire.. If you are guilty of lying (God doesn't divide between evil lies and protective lies) the p***age says that "the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and *****mongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire...(Rev 21:8)

You seem to always believe I am making all this up out of my own mind.. Jeff, it's all right there in the Bible.. So read it and tell me how just believing what it says is the wrong way of interpreting it.. Show me where I am wrong.. We have all sinned since we have said we believe, does that really mean that we have no more chance for salvation? Or could it mean that those that have heard it and rejected it are the ones the p***age is condemning? Could The chapter 6 p***age be an exaggeration to show the seriousness of this sin? You are pulling these two p***ages out of the context of the whole bible and making them your religion.. From Genesis to Revelations we see that God calls us to trust Him, to believe in Him.. We see the terrible consequences of turning away from such faith.. The p***ages you quoted explain that same old story.. So go check with Travis.. I am sure He will use his own words to tell you the exact same thing.. Tell me if He doesn't there are many Churches out there that do teach truth. That is am exaggeration. IHS jim

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

The logical fallacy you have committed is the non sequitur--you reasoned that because you have personally never seen any scripture references from me (if it's true that you haven't EVER seen ANY), then THEREFORE, it MUST be because I don't know any scripture references.

That is like a tribesman in Africa saying "Because I have never seen a cell phone, they must not exist."

You should stick to accusations that are more defensible than this if you don't want to embarr*** yourself.

Well, then, as they say, put or.....................

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

That was pretty low of you to change the issue from apologette's obviously false and indefensible

"The same thing goes for Jeff. Have you noticed how he never addresses doctrinal issues with anything but mocking?"

to something you think might actually be slightly more plausible (but is still false, of course):

"they can't defend their doctrine unique to Joseph Smith jr. Imagainary mind."

And you thought you could get away with that? Not likely.

But wait, folks, that's not all: You THEN changed it AGAIN, to something about God having a father, and challenged me to "put up or shut up" as if that was the original issue. Pathetic attempt, really. That is grade-school-level bad rhetoric.

Why couldn't you just stick with the original accusation? Did you realize it was a loser for the anti-LDS side? Did you really think your goalpost-moving would escape notice? I am surprised at this low quality of debating from you, RFH. You must be recovering from a night out with Jose Cuervo or something. I hope your attacks soon rise back to the the higher quality they used to have.

Joseph Smith jr. Is your guy, and I would expect you and Sir to defend him and his imagination. If he were my guy I would at least try.
There you go again, in the words of Ronald Reagan. All I know is all my doctrinal beliefs are found in the Holy Bible, and thoughs you and the other TBMs have are not, and this is where I like to concentrate on the doctrinal beliefs you have that arent in the Holy Bible.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Joseph Smith jr. Is your guy, and I would expect you and Sir to defend him and his imagination.

You need to worry about your own imagination. You imagine that you can get away with pretending that the issue was God having a father, when it was really the false claim that I never address doctrinal issues with anything but mocking.

For those with adult ADD, it may SEEM normal to chase a squirrel around the yard instead of put out the fire in your living room, but in reality, it makes more sense to stay focused on the fire.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

That was pretty low of you to change the issue from apologette's obviously false and indefensible

"The same thing goes for Jeff. Have you noticed how he never addresses doctrinal issues with anything but mocking?"

to something you think might actually be slightly more plausible (but is still false, of course):

"they can't defend their doctrine unique to Joseph Smith jr. Imagainary mind."

And you thought you could get away with that? Not likely.

But wait, folks, that's not all: You THEN changed it AGAIN, to something about God having a father, and challenged me to "put up or shut up" as if that was the original issue. Pathetic attempt, really. That is grade-school-level bad rhetoric.

Why couldn't you just stick with the original accusation? Did you realize it was a loser for the anti-LDS side? Did you really think your goalpost-moving would escape notice? I am surprised at this low quality of debating from you, RFH. You must be recovering from a night out with Jose Cuervo or something. I hope your attacks soon rise back to the the higher quality they used to have.

Ninety-nine percent of your responses, Jeff, are wisecracks and mockery. Who can take you seriously anymore?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Apologette

[B]Ninety-nine percent of your responses, Jeff, are wisecracks and mockery.

What a coincidence--that's exactly the same percentage of your accusations and attacks that are worthy of nothing more substantial than a wisecrack and/or mockery! Weird, huh?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

You need to worry about your own imagination. You imagine that you can get away with pretending that the issue was God having a father, when it was really the false claim that I never address doctrinal issues with anything but mocking.

For those with adult ADD, it may SEEM normal to chase a squirrel around the yard instead of put out the fire in your living room, but in reality, it makes more sense to stay focused on the fire.

Then stop the mocking, put up or shut up. Where in the Holy Bible does it read Heavenly Father had a father, and his father had a father?
This is really a simple question that goes to the heart of believing or not believing in The Eternal God of the Holy Bible doesn't it?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

You need to worry about your own imagination. You imagine that you can get away with pretending that the issue was God having a father, when it was really the false claim that I never address doctrinal issues with anything but mocking.

For those with adult ADD, it may SEEM normal to chase a squirrel around the yard instead of put out the fire in your living room, but in reality, it makes more sense to stay focused on the fire.

Jeff your complaints about some imagined mockery doesn't address the doctrinal issue brought up.. Can you show us in the scripture that God the Father has a Father? Do you really deny the scripture (AGAIN) that teaches that God has been God from everlasting to everlasting? I would like to see that.. If you can't then all we can see is a man made, man invented doctrine that makes a mormon feel more important than he should feel.. We are NOT GODS IN EMBRYO, We aren't even God's children until we are born again spiritually of Him.. We are no more all the children of God than Geometry is the child of Euclid.. It's creator yes, but geometry is not his child.. God is our creator but to become His child we must be reborn.. That is the issue that you are ignoring.. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Jeff your complaints about some imagined mockery doesn't address the doctrinal issue brought up.. Can you show us in the scripture that God the Father has a Father? Do you really deny the scripture (AGAIN) that teaches that God has been God from everlasting to everlasting? I would like to see that.. If you can't then all we can see is a man made, man invented doctrine that makes a mormon feel more important than he should feel.. We are NOT GODS IN EMBRYO, We aren't even God's children until we are born again spiritually of Him.. We are no more all the children of God than Geometry is the child of Euclid.. It's creator yes, but geometry is not his child.. God is our creator but to become His child we must be reborn.. That is the issue that you are ignoring.. IHS jim

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.