Activity

@kari-karst: “Does that mean the sword/bow drawing s done?” *blinks* hehe, oh ya… *instead of responding to everyone goes and sits down to draw. Spends at least an hour trying to draw this really cool battle scene he can see in his head. Utterly fails. Remembers why he’s not an artist and just sketches the blade* O well, not as cool as I imagined it looking but here’s the general idea…

(add picture here)

“Oh you’re not emotionless? -pumps fist in air- ” *glares at you with his fiery eye.* No hugs. “Like that time I was fangirling before choir. I think I freaked out/slightly scared several people.” how do you fangirl a choir XD? Also, that is like the last thing you would ever find me doing XD But hey, *shrugs* if that’s what you like to do! “Or so that there aren’t any writing ranks anymore. Or something like that.” *face palms*

@hgm_barnes18“Oh, I forgot you live in NZ! I still think that’s so cool. Do you have an epic accent, then?” actually I’m from colorado! I’ve just been over here for the last 2 or so years… But, ya, it is pretty cool : D

@catwing“I am confused… wife fiery eye? That is one typo I can’t seem to decipher” XD I meant to say ‘wide’. “That is a long post. I see why it took you so long. It’s as long as a chapter in some books.” I know right! I need to spend less time on here XD.

@the-fledgling-artist “(It’s cool that you’re a writer instead! Are you the only writer in your family?)” yep! The only problem with that is both my siblings refuse to reading my writing… the only time my bro (the one that drew the helmet) has read some of my short stories is when I bribed him with my participation in a game that could not be played without me (hehe, desperate times call for desperate measures XD) but I don’t think they want to come on story members…

@emgc“You had a lot of excellent thoughts and I can tell you’ve already studied this topic quite a bit. Now I have a lot to think about…” ya you too! Look forward to reading your response : D

@dekreel:wait, first, how do you have two guild badges!!! And second “Hiiii. . . *walks back out*” why? XD

@serenity: “Are you an Arminian?” : D, not quite… (it’s illogical logic, I explained it earlier XD) anyway, ya here is good for me and I would love to talk (and you can respond at what ever pace you want : D) “I am not 23. and the kids in the pictures aren’t mine” darn! *kicks the dirt* uh how about 19 then? “I haven’t watched that video yet… I will soon though. I’m definitely interested there. (= *scrolls through calendar looking for an hour opening* maybe… Wednesday? *looks up sheepishly*” cool! Thanks for taking the time : D  “nope, not 19 either” oh darn, not 19 huh… how about 20 (I do realise I’m breaking the stereotypical rule about guessing a girls age (aka always guess younger XD) but I hate being stereotypical so I’m taking the risk!”

@selah-chelah: “INTJ life exposed… they DO have emotions!” *crosses his arms* I refuse to admit this fact… XD

“So I will post replies in bits and pieces. I will go one by one with your Scriptures, Prince Inc” Hey no worries! Alright, well let’s get into this!

Ok, I agree ‘enlightened’ could (keyword there) refer to simply the intellectual knowledge of christ, even if it does I don’t think I have a problem with this.

However I do have a problem with your (well the commentators) second point. He said Christ’s “”tasting of death” was obviously momentary and not continuing or permanent. All men experience the goodness of God, but that does not mean they are saved.”  and I have a problem with this. Now here, as far as I can tell, he takes a bit of a logical leap here by seeming to say the goodness of God is the ‘heavenly gift’ this passage is speaking of which is not necessarily (though it could be). So first I think I need some proof that God’s general goodness to mankind is all this passage is speaking of when it says ‘heavenly gift’. Second I think it’s important to note that, just because an experience may be temporary, it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. To use his own reference Christ was only momentarily dead but that does not mean He did not die. A person may have only been momentarily saved but that does not mean they did not believe. Hey you know what this makes me think of? That parable about seeds in dirt and stuff. Let me find it:

(it’s in Matthew 13: 3. I think this hebrews verse is describing a ‘type 2 christian and I’m not sure who’s point it helps XD Anyway, I was going to add it but I realised it would be distracting and probably not help my cause… so ya, you can check it out if you want! Sorry for the side track!) anyway, your comontary guy said “Whether the gift refers to Christ (See John 6:51; 2nd Corinthians 9:15) or to the Holy Spirit (See Acts 2:38; 1st Peter 1:12), experiencing either one was not the equivalent of salvation (See John 16:8; Acts 7:51).” Now, the way I see it, this debunks the earlier ‘ the heavenly gift is the general goodness of God’ thing so really he’s claiming “Men can experience Christ/the Holy Spirit” and that does not mean their saved” which is true, depending on the type of experience (and what you believe about certain other subjects *coughs* calvinism) So my problem isn’t with the point, just how it was portrayed : D. So to sum up what our commentator has said so far:

“It’s possible to have intellectual knowledge of the word and an experience of God and not be saved.”

Ok, this is where he loses me: “Even though the concept of partaking is used in 3:1, 3:14, and 12:8 of a relationship that believers have, the context must be the final determining factor. This context 6:4-6 seems to prelude a reference to true believers. It could be a reference to their participation, as noted above, in the miraculous ministry of Jesus, who was empowered by the Spirit (See Luke 4:14, 18), or in the convincing ministry of the Holy Spirit, which obviously can be resisted without experiencing salvation.” first, he even starts off by saying “in the other passages of hebrews, ya, partaking in the Holy Spirit is referring to the relationship believers have with God…” And at this point I’m nodding and thinking back to Ephesians 1: 13 which says (NASB) “In [q]Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also [r]believed, you were sealed in [s]Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, ” Guys, the Holy spirit is the seal of being a real christian. But then this guys like “however we must let the context be the determining factor.” so going off of his two, previously established maybes, he concludes this verse is talking about “the miraculous ministry of Jesus, who was empowered by the Spirit (See Luke 4:14, 18), or in the convincing ministry of the Holy Spirit” and that when the verse says ‘shared in the Holy Spirit’ it means ‘shared in the Holy Spirit’s ministry’. Now, hopefully I’m not being too harsh here, but lets use his own words and let “the context must be the final determining factor” In other parts of Hebrews, as he said, sharing in the Holy Spirit is talking about, well, sharing in the actual Holy Spirit, not ‘sharing in the ministry of the spirit’. Moreover we can see that’s the same in other parts of scripture as well. So I guess my issue is, at least from my point of view, the context says ‘sharing in the Holy Spirit’ means being a legit and real christian and there’s little to suggest it refers to ‘sharing in the Holy Spirit’s ministry.’ Anyway, moving on!

I think I’m fine with the next point… (I feel like that’s dangerous, just agreeing XD)

Yep, i’ve got problems with this too! He says “his Greek term occurs only here in the NT. In the LXX (The Greek Septuagint), it was used to translate terms of severe unfaithfulness and apostasy (See Ezekiel 14:13; 18:24; 20:27). It is equivalent to the apostasy in Hebrews 3:12” so apparently ‘unfaithfulness’ defined as, well “Not faithfull” XD and ‘apostasy’ defined as “the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief or principle.” so then he goes on to say “With full revelation they rejected the truth, concluding the opposite of the truth about Christ, and thus had no hope of being saved.” which then leads to. “here is no possibility of these verses referring to losing salvation. ” First, where did no possibility come from! Second, to say here that this ‘falling away’ is actually just a sort of unforgivable sin when you know everything there is to know about Christ and still reject Him and not a loss of salvation is crazy! I mean just look at this verse where falling away is mentioned “and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance” how do you ‘renew someone to repentance’ if they had never repented in the first place? Also, even just look at the two words he said this ‘falling away’ term could mean: “not faithful” (you have to have a task or job or whatever to be unfaithful. For instance I can’t be unfaithful to my wife if I was never married.)  or “the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief or principle.” you cannot abandon or renounce what you don’t believe in the first place. Anyway, I think I’ve made my point.

So ya, Allah, I’m sorry but your commentary guy hasn’t quite convinced me… if this is because of logical errors on my part (which quite possible, I only got 4 or so hours of sleep last night XD) then if you could show me where I went wrong that would be great! Anyway, if you decide that you want to still stick with this guys interpretation would you please tell me why so I can try and address anything I missed! As for my assurance, hehe, I actually already covered this whole thing with Egmc! Lets see if I can send a link… (this is my ‘out of the box’ position I was talking about.)

Any guys out there?

Anyway, thanks for talking and I hope you have a good time with your friends!

@ori-art: “Do you argue for the sake of arguing?” let’s hope not! (not saying I haven’t… It’s definitely been a thing for me as the past and I may find arguing fun but I dont think I’m arguing just for the sake of arguing right now. (can’t be sure of my intentions but I feel pretty good!) besides, when I do argue it’s always about stuff that matters, like biblical stuff that matters. I never argue about something I don’t care about! ) “Maybe I should have used the word debate.” XD ya that would be nice, it makes it sound less…mean spirited. “So if you really believe serenity’s position is Biblically grounded, then why don’t you believe it?” “let me explain. No, no, there is too much, let me sum up!” (I love that quote XD Though, might I say, I have explained my strange position before… I thought everyone did more stalking!)  “Just because you argued against it and felt like you ‘lost’ doesn’t mean you were wrong…but then I have no idea how you argued or how you actually felt about what you were arguing for. But I think it definitely helps to believe what your debating or arguing for.” no… I definitely lost XD. Let me give you the story: So, at 15 I was your typical freshman who, though unknowingly, was a full fledged arminian. I meet this weird bible teacher who believed that we were both predestined and had free will and I was like “pfft! That’s not real!” and then, AND THEN, I meet romans 9 for the first time! That verse is like a tank! So after being like “but, but, but…” for a while I finally decided to admit predestination was real… However, while I claimed to believe both, I didn’t really because, common, they’re like direct contradictions of each other! So then I came to NZ and went to this bible camp where I argued like crazy against the bible teachers there and, hehe, they got really annoyed at me XD. But, they couldn’t give me a convincing argument against predestination! (and they were all Armenians) so then I VERY begrudgingly accepted the fact that God choose people to be saved and others doomed to hell… I wrote quite a few little papers during that time including one where, I concluded that God was evil because, common, it’s just logical! Here’s the link to my brain about a year ago (DISCLAIMER: I was pretty upset when I wrote this… All you Calvinists don’t get mad at me XD)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F7Lq2CSZU0oR-b6SAbob0UWQ0vqJlcrRQEQsq8WAXq0/edit?usp=sharing

So ya, I was pretty passionate about this whole calvinism thing… and, long story short, because I was so sure Calvinism was true, I had literally no basis for believing God was good, and without that foundation, well, things went downhill. But then I met this guy, he’s a teacher at a bible school over here, and when I told him about my problems with God’s goodness. The first thing he did was not try and prove Calvinism is false (he was too smart for that XD) and the second thing he did was remind me that, guess what, I DON’T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION. I’m a finite human being with inferior logic and so, If God says He’s good, even though He doesn’t seem good, like at all, He is. So I just had to trust God and when I started doing that instead of trusting my brain, then I was finally able to see beyond the logical inconsistencies that holding two directly opposite beliefs causes and trust that, if God says we have real freewill and we’re really predestined, we are! So ya, that’s where I stand! Thanks for listening!

Ok cool, ya not super helpful but thanks anyway!

And thats another massive email done! 2467 words XD (How i wish this counted for word wars XD)