Posted on 03/04/2020 7:44:23 AM PST by Gamecock
All cults and manmade religions are based in “works righteousness.” Their adherents believe they have to do something to earn their way to heaven—pray five times a day, lie on beds of nails, do good works, fast, repeat certain prayers, etc. They do this because they are ignorant of God’s standard of righteousness. This is why they need the Law of God to show them that the leap they are trying to make is infinitely wider than the Grand Canyon. However, before you take them through the Law, help them see that they are indeed trusting in “works” for salvation.
Let’s say there are a couple of cult members at my door. I warmly ask for their names, and then say, “I have a knife in my back. I am dying and have only three minutes to live. What do I need to do to enter heaven/paradise/the kingdom of God?” They look concerned. One says, “A lot.” I ask, “What do you mean ‘a lot’? I have only two minutes to live. Help me.” They will normally say they cannot help someone who has just a couple of minutes to live, because their salvation is based on gaining knowledge and doing “good works.” The fact that they must do things to be saved reveals that they are trusting in their “self-righteousness.”
When I then ask if they think they are “good” people, they almost always say they are, and that is the root cause of their deception. While they know they are sinners, they believe their sin is not so bad that they cannot earn their own way out of it and “merit” heaven. So they must be taken through the Law and made to understand that they are criminals in the sight of a holy Judge, and are guilty of countless crimes. They must be taken through the Law and made to understand that they are criminals in the sight of a holy Judge, and are guilty of countless crimes. They must understand that God is perfect and holy, that He considers lust to be adultery and hatred to be murder, and He will see to it that absolute justice is done. That means adulterers, murderers, liars, and thieves will be damned forever. Once they recognize that, they will understand that their “good” works are not good at all, but are in reality a detestable attempt to bribe the Judge of the universe. Hopefully they will trust in His mercy alone to save them.
That is how the thief on the cross was saved—through mercy alone. He didn’t go anywhere or do anything to save himself. He couldn’t, because he was nailed to the cross. He had no other avenue but to humbly turn to Jesus and say, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom” (Luke 23:42). In doing so, he acknowledged Jesus as Lord, and believed that He would rise from the dead (Rom. 10:9).
That is all that any who are involved in “works righteousness” religions need to do to be saved. They are condemned by the Law. They cannot go anywhere or do anything. All they can do is turn to Jesus and trust in Him alone for their salvation. We are saved by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves; “it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Eph. 2:8,9). So plant that seed in the hearts of those who think they can be saved by their own works, then pray that God causes it to grow and produce fruit.
And where else would I go? Jesus Christ has eternal life. (John 6:66-68)
Jonathan Edwards distinguishes Saving Faith from Common Faith. It is a long and complicated read but extremely valuable.
I picked ‘this thing’ up from the years 1986 to 1994, which i heard at every service, even midweek, while attending Smithtown Gospel Tabernacle, in Smithtown, Long Island, NY. I, then, heard it from a small nondenominational church, in Portland, Oregon, from 1994 to 2000, when I left Portland. So this is no small thing I heard, in a backwater of America.
Your imagination is aiding your reasoning to go down the wrong path. Taking back America is not a gun totin’ exercise ... yet. If Christians succeed in regaining power, politically, these you speak of will live under less regulated, more truthfully tolerant times.
They will, admittedly, heard the Gospel of Salvation more frequently, albeit from mouths and lives, not from the point of a gun as you are perhaps imagining.
So just was it that your heard that was different from the restoration message i described? Despite numerous responses to you, you have yet to make it clear what you are referring to as using ‘freedom of religion’ to trample the 1stA rights of another citizen. Just how is this being done and what are you proposing as the ideal?
‘My heard’? (Scratches head ...)
Oh, how i heard! Oh, well, quite easy!
All that you prposed doing, as it stands in America today, would be reviving the infamous puritanical ‘blue lawsx, that existed in the 1950’s, as I remember them. Now, I admit, I would not sneeze at anti-Communist laws, also from the ‘50’s, however, I do not wish to see America become Alabama, the home of the anti-dildo sale state. Nor would I care to see any anti-witchcraft law, since the religion of Wicca has been part of a military chaplains’ manual since 1976, and is legally recognized by the V.A. since 2007. (Did you know the 1st witch was hung on this continent just 27 years after the Mayflower dropped anchor?)
I hope that you ‘heard’ this plain enough, for I refuse to spend another of my fleeting life’s time on you.
Goodbye.
I did not say that, while that simply kept most stores on Sunday closed, which helped preserve the family, reflected the Constitutional character of America far more than the liberalism that replaced it. You simply cannot have a country whose moral laws do not reflect distinctive beliefs, thus they vary, even while called secular, To insist liberalism is what the Founders believed in is to impose that upon history.
Nor would I care to see any anti-witchcraft law, since the religion of Wicca has been part of a military chaplains’ manual since 1976, and is legally recognized by the V.A. since 2007. (Did you know the 1st witch was hung on this continent just 27 years after the Mayflower dropped anchor?)
So you really believe that getting the country back to God includes hanging witches, yet the theocracy that did that would also censure that "back to God" preachers liker Jerry Falwell Sr.
Or do you believe that the 1st Amendment means all religious practices must be allowed. Actually, while freedom of religion in its plurality is protected, yet freedom of religion is limited in accordance with the beliefs of the state as to whether it crosses a line where it imposes a great or permanent degree of clear physical harm. Thus the 1st Amendment will not enable a religion that practices female mutilation or starving children to death to do so.
If homosexuality was a religion, then the practice of sodomy would be banned or restricted, as would the consensual practice of the Lord's supper if it also was the cause of HIV transmission in over 80% of cases among men, and at significant cost to taxpayers for prevention and treatment .
However, the state is not to forbid the general theology that is behind actions, and while witchcraft chaplains are a distressing sign of increasingly post-Christian America, I do not see Restorationists wanting to outlaw all other faiths but their own, though due to the theocratic nature of Islam and beliefs that are antithetical to American values many support outlawing it like as a practice such as .
However, your response to "How Do You Witness to Those in Cults and Other Religions?" makes it sound like you want to curtail the freedom to do so, as if that was in line with the 1st Ammenment as understood up until modern times.
And all in all, you still have not provided much of any details that explains your opposition to the article of the OP.
Thank you for your view on this.
Please don’t take offense to this, but I’ve argued every single point and verse you brought up in that post - a lot.
There are several sources on both sides of this issue that really get into the weeds. I’ve read them, I’ve read the bible, I’ve read much of the historical context of the bible, and I’ve come to the conclusion to which I’ve come based on that.
I now see the hell issue as Adiaphora. That is, Christians can disagree on it and it has no bearing on our salvation. Paul said to live your life according to what you believe. Do you believe Saturday is the sabbath, then treat it as such. Otherwise, don’t bother. Do you think drinking is bad? Don’t do it. Otherwise you are free to do it.
It’s all audiaphora stuff: https://www.google.com/search?q=adiaphora
I look at it this way. If I form an opinion on a biblical concept, and it turns out I was wrong, if I get to the gates and I am told that because of my wrong opinion, I will not see eternal life, then it is NOT an audiaphora issue. Otherwise it is.
You impugn your own argument with this recourse, since freedom in areas of personal liberty is not the same as doctrine.
And when Christ warns of everlasting punishment in the same lake of fire that the devil will forever be tormented in forever, (Mt. 25:41,46; Rv. 20:10) of flaming fire taking vengeance on Christ-rejectors, of everlasting destruction, (2 Thessalonians 1:8," and of "weeping," "wailing" and "gnashing of teeth,"(Mt. 8:12; 13:42,50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30) of "unquenchable fire," that is so real that one should ruthlessly cut out of their life whatever actually leads us to sin, (Mark 9:43-48) then we are not dealing with freedom to eat pork, but a basic doctrine of dire consequences for forfeiting one's day of grace.
OK, using my “litmus test”, is Jesus going to say to you or me, at the GWTJ, “Sorry, you had that hell thing wrong. You are not saved.”
My take is, no. So it falls under 2 Timothy 2.
Regarding that lake of fire stuff, I’ve argued this as much as is necessary in the past. I know what I believe and I know what I teach my students. And I can back it up.
The “Goldilocks” argument, for me, is Jewishnotgreek.net. That is, it’s not exhaustive, and it’s not overly simplistic. It covers all the bases enough for most people.
The fact that souls of penitent faith in the Lord and Savior Jesus can be either ignorant or wrong about some doctrines (from predestination, to the perpetuity of Pentecostal gifts, to female pastors, etc.), and still be saved (if obeying light they have) simply does not relegate these teachings to be akin to issues of personal liberty, and does not place them in 2 Timothy 2:
Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. (2 Timothy 2:14) But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. (2 Timothy 2:23)
And, if anything, the teaching on the afterlife is too clear and thus opponents of eternal punishment engage in laborious work in trying to disallow it.
I’m not talking about ignorance. I’m talking about disagreement.
You and I don’t disagree because I’m ignorant and I assume you are not either. However, I am having a bit of dejavu on this. I seem to remember someone here, a few years ago, basically making the argument that if I disagreed with them, it meant I was ignorant. That one is kinda funny because I adhere to the belief that the less someone knows about the bible, it’s content, and it’s historical and cultural context, the more sure they are that they are right in their beliefs and interpretations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.