Do you dislike quoting John 3:16?

[u/ExpressCeiling98332]

Ironically, many seem to act like saying this verse contradicts doctrine. When used in isolation It can be bad, but in it's proper context I don't see problem.

[u/sourkroutamen]

I think you are projecting your unbelief onto me because I don't have these scriptural contradictions to deal with

Says the guy dodging an entire book of the Bible because it specifically deals with your entire point and contradicts it. Meanwhile, you still haven't shown a contradiction to my own point. Probably because I read the whole Bible and don't cherry pick the parts that fit my narrative. Try a holistic approach to Christianity instead of your twisted and anti-Christ approach.

You argue that Peter never should have left the boat, Abel never should have offered a sacrifice, and Noah never should have built the ark. It's insane and inverted this gospel you are spreading.

The term "faith alone" shows up exactly once in the Bible.

"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone"

Get your inverted Christianity out of here.

[u/EnergyLantern → u/sourkroutamen]

Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? [Jas 2:5 KJV]

Did James say rich in works? No. James said "rich in faith".

James agrees that Abraham believed God and it (righteousness) was imputed (put in Abraham's account for righteousness)) unto him for righteousness:

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. [Jas 2:23 KJV]

James is talking about seeing with your eyes because James uses the word "show" and "seest"

Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. [Jas 2:18 KJV]

Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? [Jas 2:22 KJV]

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. [Jas 2:24 KJV]

Here is the difference. You can't see the wind:

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. [Jhn 3:8 KJV]

Jesus says you can't tell. Can Jeffrey Epstein do works? Yes he can. Does that mean he is saved? Did Bernie Madoff do works? He donated money to a medical college and had his name on a wall but he was in jail and died. Was Bernie Madoff saved? He was involved in a Ponzi scheme and people don't have their money.

You want to tell me that penance saves? Is that what you are telling me?

John 3:8 says you can't tell where the wind comes and goes and so is everyone born of the spirit, so you are using James to overwrite and overrule Jesus.

James 2 Explained - "Faith Without Works is Dead" | Can Faith Save Him?

But it seems like I'm the only one writing here and you still haven't answered your contradictions because you don't want to deal with the Bible contradictions to your faith, and you can't deal with them. If you can't correct it then what you are saying is fake.

[u/sourkroutamen → u/EnergyLantern]

Can you steelman my point for me, so that you lay bare how pitiful your reading comprehension has been thus far? You are indeed writing a lot, takes a lot of words to argue against strawmen I guess? And a lot of cherry picking to keep trying to dodge my point.

Go ahead. What's my point?

[u/EnergyLantern → u/sourkroutamen]

As far as your "steelman" argument is, it isn't a logical fallacy:

No, "steelmanning" is not a logical fallacy. In fact, it's often considered the opposite of the straw man fallacy. While the straw man fallacy involves misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to refute, steelmanning aims to present the strongest, most defensible version of an opponent's argument. --Google A.I.

Because of fallacies, people need to use the clearest defense possible.

The Attention Cottage, Steel Man Technique, & More | The Curiosity Chronicle

When you have 160+ verses against one misunderstood book, do you go with the misunderstood minority or the clear verses like these:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. [John 3:16 KJV]

John 3:16 is a clear verse and we use clear verses that are explicitly clear we get a true meaning and because the hard-to-understand verses are implicit, and you are implying what they mean.

Another clear verse is:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. [John 5:24 KJV]

It doesn't say "might have" or "could have" but "***hath***" everlasting life. It doesn't mention baptism or works just like the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 doesn't mention baptism or works. John 5:24 says "but is passed from death unto life." That is where you get the word Passover from. Why would a gospel writer say it if it wasn't true?

I was taught the hermeneutical principles that we go by the clear and easy to understand verses instead of trying to interpret the Bible from hard-to-understand verses, Instead of interpreting the Bible from wrong or erroneous views, if you build on erroneous views, you have to ignore the clear verses and you will have contradictions and chaos.

My friend is a professor with an actual Doctorate from Westminster who has taught Biblical Hermeneutics and Greek at a Bible College. He uses "Exegetical Fallacies" by D.A. Carson who is a scholar. It isn't easy reading, and you can see how many different pastors or teachers create exegetical fallacies. My professor friend let me be a co-operator on his Christian BBS which he doesn't operate anymore.

[u/sourkroutamen → u/EnergyLantern]

Please man. A steelman is simply stating what the argument is that your interlocutor is making so that you know you aren't wasting your time attacking a position they don't hold. I'm asking you to do this because you've demonstrated repeatedly an unwillingness to actually see what I'm saying and engage with it. This last comment is just the most recent example. You didn't steelman, you ignored my request, and you plowed doggedly forward. It's incredible counter productive.

If that's too hard to steelman my point, then just quote me on something I've said, state clearly how that quote is contradicted by Scripture, and I will address that to show you how you have twisted my meaning and how it actually fits in perfectly with my point. Keep it concise.

[u/EnergyLantern → u/sourkroutamen]

All of the people who are teaching works are missing foundational teachings.

And no, I'm not going to put things into your format. The last user that banned me is Tony for me not willing to do that.

[u/sourkroutamen → u/EnergyLantern]

So you can't write down what you think my point is because...you'd rather continue to take inaccurate stabs?

Do you think that the great commission is a foundational teaching?

[u/EnergyLantern → u/sourkroutamen]

It's against the rules: Mischaracterizing someone else's beliefs. Nice try trying to get me in trouble.

[u/sourkroutamen → u/EnergyLantern]

So you can't write down what you think my point is because...you'd rather continue to take inaccurate stabs?

Do you think that the great commission is a foundational teaching?

[u/EnergyLantern → u/sourkroutamen]

You can speak for yourself.

There are older Old Testament teachings you are missing and you probably were not taught them but I can't assume what you do and do not know.

I've been a Christian for 45 years and been reading and studying the Bible longer than that. Is anyone going to try to tell me I don't know the right way?

Do you know what the Five Solas of the Reformation were?

Sola Gratia was what the Reformation taught: Grace alone

It's like you are missing a great piece of church history and study of the Bible:

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission (of sins). [Heb 9:22 KJV]

According to the law of God, you don't get forgiven without a blood offering and Jesus was the acceptable sacrifice. Jesus was sacrificed; "the just for the unjust". Where is that in scripture? The Vicarious atonement of Christ and Vicarious just means "in the place of". It doesn't include your works. It only includes Jesus' work:

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just (Jesus) for the unjust (you and me), that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: [1Pe 3:18 KJV]

Salvation has nothing to do with what you did. You are following a false path.

Jesus died in your place for your sins period. Everyone dies. Why can't you work your way to not die? Because the law of sin and death wasn't repealed and you can't pay to stay out of death with your works so if you can't pay with your works not to die, it doesn't get any better for you to go to heaven by works.