I politely asked for a link to the post you obviously despised and accused me of wrongdoing.
Please provide a link where this occurred.
This just another twist in the every winding path that our critics wander around on never seeming to get anywhere. If we disagree with you, then we're attacking you. If we say what we believe your doing, then we're accusing you of wrongdoing. The slug is deep in here.
I keep pointing out that doing good is important, but not necessary. Am I accusing you of wrongdoing? So, the question is, is doing good/keeping the commandments, is it necessary or not?
You're being combative. How dare you disagree with what we say.
apparently don't want an explanation by me.
apparently, we're not going to get one.
Let me say that the Bible tells me to contend for the faith.
I find it rather telling how you interpret that passage. It was not meant as a tool to use to bludgeon those who don't believe to death and condemn them to hell. I like the literal rendition of the word ἐπαγωνίζομαι - "to struggle upon, appropriately". It was given to the believers to struggle against those who entered the church, who were KNOWN and rejected, to keep them from corrupting the faith that they were given. Specifically, that those who had been rejected, used the "grace of God for license to immorality". That's the course our critics are on. Do I need to name certain evangelicals who did that very thing?
It has nothing to do with teaching your beliefs to others not of your faith or who disagree with your beliefs. We're certainly not advocating immorality, but it appears that you all do. I quote one post:
The bar is set at perfection. Not "good enough", nor "pretty close" but 100% perfection. Never, ever – wittingly nor unwittingly, in thought, word, or deed – is breaking a commandment acceptable.
Isn't the fact that we can never be good enough an excuse to immorality? After all, God will beat you with a few stripes (if that) and all will be well in the kingdom of God. He did all the work so you don't have to.
The question being pursued here has always been, are we to do nothing but stand by and watch God do all the work so we can go about our sins unmolested? At what point does such action make us any different that all the other sinners in the world? Where is the line to be drawn dividing the sheep from the goats? Don't the sheep have to do something? I believe the Bible says they do.
The problem, as I see it, is that you can't address that conundrum because it will destroy your argument that salvation is free. It's obviously not. Even you all must agree that those who are saved must do something that those who are not saved will not do. You must, but you won't. You'll all die on that hill refusing to accept the fact that salvation can only come through works of faith and therefore is works-based.
The sad things is that you may accept part of that, but you refused to accept that those who aren't of your faith may also be saved for the very same reasons you are, works. If God is not a respecter of persons, then it's not the person that wins the honor, it is what the person does that wins it. Work is the common denominator. This must be so or else the whole world who are ignorant of God through no fault of their own is damned. Do people have to accept Christ to be saved? The Bible says they do. You all have upended the Bible and decided for God that he will just know the hearts of those who come before him in judgment... but no one will ever really know until they have the opportunity, the same as everyone else did to receive Christ based on faith. The Bible explains exactly how this is done and still, you all are ignorant of it. John 5:29 makes that common denominator clear. It is works, whether they be evil or good. Religion or beliefs have nothing to do with it. Cornelius is a great example of how that works. I suggest you read and learn. We're all running out of time.
