God’s Forgiveness in Islam and Christianity – Mansur Ahmad vs Christian Ladies

Mansur convincingly demonstrates that there is no free forgiveness of sins in Christianity, someone always has to pay a price. In Islam God freely forgives whomsoever He wills without demanding a payment.

Advertisements


Categories: Christianity, Daw'ah, Debates, Islam, Speakers Corner

45 replies

  1. Mansur has explained the issues further in this article:

    If it’s not the concept of God Himself that is the major dividing line between Muslims and Christians, then it is definitely the way to attain salvation.

    There are nine common questions that Christians usually pose to Muslims regarding the concept of salvation in Islam and we will attempt to briefly address them here in this article.

    1) Islam teaches that Allah’s will is arbitrary. He can forgive whomever He wills according to the Qur’an. If Allah can forgive you without punishing you, how does Allah balance between mercy and justice when granting or denying salvation to people? In Christianity, God has punished all sin so we don’t have to worry about this.

    Islam does not teach that Allah’s Will is arbitrary. In fact, Allah’s Will is exercised or expressed in accordance to His Divine nature and Wisdom. Sin is not a thing – that exists by itself independent of volitional actors – which needs punishing when committed. A woman is not sin, neither are our eyes, or our hearts. But the action of the eye or the heart when looking at a woman with lust is a sin. Sin does not exist as an entity – wrongly conceived in Christianity – which you can punish. Punishing the actors of sin has a meaning and not punishing the sin.

    We do not believe that Allah needs to express both His Mercy and Justice on every individual at the same time at all times. His Justice is carried out on every individual in perfect wisdom. No one will be wronged, for everyone gets their due (as good and bad is explained through the prophets and messengers at all times in human history). Any good one has done or any bad one has done – be they small or big – will be accounted for. That’s the Justice of God.

    His Mercy however, though in a general sense is open to all in this life (as understood from His name Al-Rahman). The Qur’an states:

    Surah 3:31

    Say (Oh Muhammad): If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful

    Here we see that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is commanded to tell the people that they must follow his guidance, which was revealed to him by Allah in order to receive Allah’s love. Allah says:

    Surah 21:107

    And We have not sent you but as a mercy to the worlds.

    So here we see that Allah is offering His love and mercy to everyone in the form of Islam. If one rejects Islam then he or she is rejecting Allah’s offer of love in turn. It’s not an issue of Allah not wanting to love the person, but an issue of the person not allowing Allah’s love to reach him.

    Allah has declared to humanity about His nature:

    Surah 7:156

    My Mercy encompasses all things

    Surah 6:12

    He has taken it upon Himself to be Merciful

    Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said:

    When Allah created the creation He put down in his Book, which is with Him upon the Throne: Verily, My mercy prevails over My wrath. (Sahih Muslim 4939)

    He has however, in a specific sense, reserved the abundant mercy (Surah 7:156) for the believers in the hereafter (as understood from His name Al-Raheem).

    God by taking on to Himself to be Merciful, which prevails over His wrath (i.e. punishing through Justice) has told us how He expresses these two apparently contradictory attributes. His attributes therefore are complimentary.

    There are two kinds of sins that could occur. One is sin against God and the other is sin against creation. If we sin against God, it is entirely within God’s prerogative to forgive us. If we sin against humanity more than one thing could occur. 1) He whom I sinned against could forgive me for my crime or 2) God could forgive me for my crime and then recompense the victim in order to ensure overall justice.

    Furthermore, God could punish me in this life for my crimes without punishing me in hell. For example, he could punish me with trials in this life. He could punish me in the grave. He could punish me and wipe out my sins by making me feel pain when the angel of death is pulling out my soul. He could temporarily punish me in hell for any sins that I committed.

    This doesn’t contradict God being All Merciful. We don’t define All Just and All Merciful as meaning that God should be fully just and fully merciful with a human being at all given times. Surely, Muslims and Christians alike would agree that God won’t be merciful to the disbelievers on the Day of Judgment for instance. Rather, when we say that God is All Merciful or All Just we mean to say that His ability to exercise these two attributes is infinitely vast, but whether He decides to exercise them is entirely up to His will that is in accordance with His nature.

    Also, we should bear in mind that Justice does not always denote vengeance or punishment. Sometimes forgiveness and display of mercy could be an act of justice. Allah’s forgiving someone for a sin without punishing him for it does not mean that Allah compromised His Justice. Human beings are created weak and are meant to fall into sin from time to time. There is no reason to believe that we deserve to be punished for every single thing that we do. We will expand more on this point below.

    http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/answering_common_questions_on_salvation_that_christians_pose_to_muslims

    Liked by 1 person

    • In Christianity, God has punished all sin so we don’t have to worry about this.

      Not accurate at all. God has taken the punishment for sin onto himself through the death of his incarnate word – all he requires is our repentance as the means of acceptance of his mercy.

      Allah merely forgives “whomsoever he chooses” and their sin goes without redress. Hence, allah is an unjust god.

      Like

    • Not accurate at all. The trinitarian god requires bloodshed in exchange for forgiveness like some pagan deity. He also treats every person the same. So a murderer is the same as a man who stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving family. That is unjust.

      Allah (swt) forgives people based on His infinite wisdom. It is not a haphazard forgiveness.

      Like

    • FAther is not forgiving . the kristians r portraying son more merciful and forgiving than the father. Father sits on judgement seat and son gets murdered. The son even makes prayers in vain “father forgive them” knowing full well that father will not forgive the sacrificers of the son. The father is portrayed as distant,cruel and needing blood shedding of son.

      not only can’t the father forgive, he can’t even die for sinners.

      Like

    • Here is a short video on the same exact topic by Rabbi Tovia Singer, demonstrating that Christianity clearly contradicts the Hebrew Scriptures and the Prophets of Old and how the Christian conception of God is ruthless and brutal.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I remember Singer saying in one of his lectures that blood sacrifice is considered by Jews to be the lowest form of atonement since there is little effort involved. While the simple act of repentence is considered the highest form of atonement since it requires to humble ones self before God.

      Liked by 2 people

    • bro issam, the evangelist let all the hard work done by their “sacrificed” human being so they can live guilt free lives. James white clearly believes this because he said even his tawbah is not good enough, which literally means they have gotten away with all future and present sins.

      Like

  2. It’s like an extended exorcism session. Very painful to watch. Mansur is one of the most patient individual I’ve seen.

    Like

  3. Stop pedaling the myths. Free forgiveness only applies to the trivial sins of Muslims. Otherwise it’s eye for eye. Non Muslims live in a constant state of blasphemy under Sharia law so they are never forgiven. Same goes for apostates. Don’t pop the champagne yet.

    Like

    • ‘Free forgiveness only applies to the trivial sins of Muslims.’

      Wrong.

      “O My slaves who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of God: verily, God forgives ALL sins. Truly He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Quran 39:53)

      Liked by 1 person

  4. And punishes all the non-trivial sins. So how has he forgiven them? He forgives them and punishes them at the same? Islamic deity appears to be incoherent?

    Like

  5. “Sometimes forgiveness and display of mercy could be an act of justice. Allah’s forgiving someone for a sin without punishing him for it does not mean that Allah compromised His Justice.”

    How do we know when Allah has forgiven and not punished? A voice from heaven?

    Like

  6. In some religions flogging and amputations are forms of forgiveness. There is no accounting for taste.

    Like

  7. °Furthermore, God could punish me in this life for my crimes without punishing me in hell.”

    OK, so there was a still a price to pay in this life. No freebie there.

    Like

    • you agree that there is no forgiveness of sins in Christianity – just a payment of a sin dept ight?

      Like

  8. The best that Islam can do is a forgiveness that tips the scales in favour of good deeds weighed against bad.

    This is not enough for the holy God of the bible. One sin made Adam and all his progeny sinners.

    So forgiveness in Christianity has to be more than forgiveness in Islam because the God of the bible demands more.

    Like

    • are you saying this because you believe all your future evil deeds have already been cleared? notice how you pick up a violin and play sad music, telling ppl here how hurt and sad your “holy” god is for letting Adam out of the garden and at the same time you believe all your crimes today and in the future have been cleared.

      Don’t shed crocodile tears for sins when you believe your present and future ones have been cleared. please don’t tell is how “holy” god views sins when you think all the filth you will do in future has been cleared.

      Like

  9. Demanding no payment leaves the account of the debtor empty or in minus. If he had no money to start with and he had to borrow to raise the capital.

    This is the islamic position.

    The christian position is that by a third party paying the debt the debtor’s account is credited to such a point that not only is the minus wiped out but there is a surplus left in his account. Due to the generosity of the third party.

    Which is the greater forgivness? It’s obvious.

    Like

    • “The christian position is that by a third party paying the debt the debtor’s account is credited to such a point that not only is the minus wiped out but there is a surplus left in his account.”

      Exactly.

      No forgiveness.

      Just an accountant’s transaction.

      Where is the mercy?

      Only in Islam. God tells mankind:

      ‘Despair not of the Mercy of God: verily, God forgives ALL sins. Truly He is Oft-Forgiving’

      Liked by 2 people

    • “The christian position is that by a third party paying the debt the debtor’s account is credited to such a point that not only is the minus wiped out but there is a surplus left in his account. Due to the generosity of the third party.”

      do you get a buzz out of putting all your future crimes on third party and then pretending to be guilty faced and responsible when you already ,in ur mind, beaten the shit out of third party for ALL your future Debts?

      Like

  10. Well I’m sorry but we don’t believe that all of our crimes just go away by believing that some innocent person payed the price for it. That’s the most unjust way of settling things. Why was this never the case in the Tenakh? I’m sure you’ll use verbal gymnastics to try and justify it all and work your way around it as Xtians always do.

    Liked by 4 people

  11. “The christian position is that by a third party paying the debt the debtor’s account is credited to such a point that not only is the minus wiped out but there is a surplus left in his account. Due to the generosity of the third party.”

    quote :
    The primary condition of the moral value of guilt is that the person who displays it must be the same person who owes it. To test this, imagine the RD producing a fine torrent of guilt, complete with tearful eyes and a shame-faced apology, all on behalf of the real debtor, the one who entered into a contract to return a sum of money, who shook hands with the creditor, taking on a personal as well as a legal responsibility. What value could the creditor place on this display of guilt, even if it appeared genuine and heartfelt, so long as it issued, as it were, from the wrong heart? The reason the RD’s guilt would be morally worthless is that guilt is the recognition of one’s own wrongdoing. A thousand other people could be well aware of the debtor’s fault, but only the debtor’s own sorrowful self-acknowledgement would be properly called “guilt.” The notion of stand-in guilt is incoherent. Such guilt could at best be a simulation, at worst a fraud, a bogus, superficial display

    ///////////////

    this is why jesus’ ACTS in FINITE flesh for human beings = USELESS. they mean absolutely NOTHING because as the writer says , “GUILT is the recognition of one’s own wrong doing”

    in your beliefs your GUILT has already been taken away so you can CONTINUE to sin and hide under “sacrifice”

    i don’t even get why jimmy swaggart was teary faced.

    quote :

    The second problem is that the punishment is set up as something
    that’s transferable. Punishments aren’t like that. I can’t go to
    prison in someone else’s place. I can’t have points put on my driving
    record in place of someone else. I can’t die in the place of someone
    on death row, even if I and the criminal agree. If any of these
    happened, it would be called “corruption.”

    A monetary debt analogy is often used to explain how someone could
    “pay” a penalty for someone else. However, the analogy is flawed at
    precisely the point that the analogy is designed to make. With a
    monetary debt, it’s not that the debtor has to pay, the point of the
    agreement is that the creditor needs their money back. Someone else
    can pay the debt, just as someone else can give money to the debtor
    who can then give it to the creditor. This isn’t some special
    exception; it simply follows naturally from the fact that wealth is
    transferable. Non-monetary penalties aren’t like that. The point is
    not that the victim of a crime needs someone, anyone, to serve 20
    years for them. The point is that the criminal needs to serve 20
    years. Either the criminal “pays” the “price” himself or it goes
    unpaid.

    //////////////////////////////

    Like

  12. The Jewish people feel that their temple sacrifices are being mocked by the fstians. why would their god create complex system only to have it undone by the shedding of human flesh? Pagans shed jesus, does this mean yhwhs love of shedding animal could be undone?

    Jews say no:
    quote:
    So Dr. Brown is arguing for the importance and the centrality of the blood offerings described at length in the book of Leviticus. Does Dr. Brown hear what he is saying? Is he encouraging you to obey the Torah and bring the offerings that Moses commanded us to bring? When was the last time that Dr. Brown brought a goat to the Temple in Jerusalem to atone for his sins? Does he yearn to fulfill God’s commandments concerning the sacrifices as do the Jewish people? Of course not! He doesn’t care about the animal sacrifices that are described in the Torah.

    But it gets even worse. Does he really believe God when He says that the animal sacrifices brought in the Temple have the power to atone? Or does he believe that Book of Hebrews which declares that the animal sacrifices never atoned to begin with (Hebrews 10:4)? Dr. Brown believes that the sacrifices described at length in Leviticus never really atoned for sin at all and that once Jesus came on the scene, they were discarded and done away with. Is this “acknowledging the centrality of the offerings”? I am sorry, this is just a mockery of God’s word.
    end quote

    Like

  13. fristians always like to concentrate on one thing “shedding of blood” but they don’t like to concentrate on human EFFORT which yhwh requires for ANIMAL offerings

    Quote:

    Paul, can you show us where in the Tanach human blood can remove sins? You are comparing clean blood with unclean blood. Can you also show us where a beaten animal would be an acceptable sacrifice? Or, when can a sacrifice can be brought outside of the temple and still be good for remission of sins? Or maybe, can you show us where it was OK to martyrize an animal to death and still be OK for G-d as a sacrifice? Would G-d has pleasure if we would bring such a sacrifice to him? Why Jesus is different?

    end quote

    so this IMPLIES human effort is required before the item is offered, giving a poorly looked after animal don’t appease yhwh

    Like

  14. Christians don’t like to inform about bloodless offerings:

    You wrote: ““but they were NOT given without blood.”

    I showed you this flour-only sin offering was COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF BLOOD – NO BLOOD AND NO ALLOWED.

    You admitted: “You are correct that this offering is bloodless, that is obviously true. Ive never seen fine flour that bleeds.”

    This flour-only sin offering helped to obtain atonement and forgiveness for the penitent WITHOUT BLOOD and WITHOUT CONTACT WITH BLOOD. You are trying to make a homiletical teaching to connect this bloodless offering to blood and to therefore say that blood is required. This may be a homiletical teaching but in reality, the penitent here gets atonement and forgiveness even if NO BLOOD WAS EVER SPILLED IN THE TEMPLE. THIS OFFERING STANDS ON ITS OWN WITHOUT BEING DEPENDENT ON ANY OTHER OFFERING. Do you not understand this?

    Like

  15. It had to be placed and burnt on the altar, which was sprinkled with blood, by the priest who was also sprinkled with blood. Do you understand this?

    Like

  16. “The point is that the criminal needs to serve 20
    years. Either the criminal “pays” the “price” himself or it goes
    unpaid.”

    That’s true in the case of temporal punishments. The sacrifice of Christ does not annul any temporal punishments imposed upon sin by any form of human government. It does away with the eternal punishment of sin.

    So God can choose his own modus operandi.

    “The Jewish people feel that their temple sacrifices are being mocked by the fstians. why would their god create complex system only to have it undone by the shedding of human flesh? Pagans shed jesus, does this mean yhwhs love of shedding animal could be undone?”

    It wasn’t undone, it was fulfilled.

    Why did Allah command Jewish “Muslims” to create a complex temple system when they could just kill and eat the animal in their backyard with the same piety?

    Why was the temple necessary when a simple Kaaba did the trick?

    Like

    • “So God can choose his own modus operandi.”

      He did clearly.

      “Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent — the Lord detests them both.”
      Proverbs 17:15

      Like

    • “Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent — the Lord detests them both.”
      Proverbs 17:15

      Great Quote!!

      So, God would never have then condemned Jesus who was innocent of the sins of all mankind, for such is detested by the Lord.

      Like

  17. God is not held to any law that dictates how humans punish crimes.

    Like

  18. ” In Islam God freely forgives whomsoever He wills without demanding a payment.”

    He is only forgiving Muslims and the payment is to be a Muslim and perform all the works associated with that.

    Our Saviour Jesus performed his works in a similar way.

    Like

    • madmanna

      July 18, 2017 • 3:25 pm

      ” In Islam God freely forgives whomsoever He wills without demanding a payment.”

      He is only forgiving Muslims and the payment is to be a Muslim and perform all the works associated with that.

      Our Saviour Jesus performed his works in a similar way

      I say;
      You are wrong. In Islam God forgives a non Muslim who

      -has not heard about Islam
      -Some scholars will add distorted version of Islam
      – babies and young who have not reached puberty no matter their religion or parents religion.
      That is the beauty of Islam.

      Jesus will put all thje above in fire because the condition is to believe he died for your sins. Wicked.

      Allay says if He wills He can forgive ANYONE except those who add any image in worship besides HIm.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Thinkverywell said:

      “babies and young who have not reached puberty no matter their religion or parents religion.
      That is the beauty of Islam.

      Jesus will put all thje above in fire because the condition is to believe he died for your sins. Wicked.”

      These are good points and it’s good you brought up the issue of babies who die in infancy. According to Islamic teachings, they will not be held responsible because they never reached the age of choosing. But what about madman’s religion? What does it say? If anyone has read madman’s blog, he states that he is a follower of the “Westminster Confession of Faith”:

      “I am a 5 point Calvinist and Amillenialist observing the ideological clash between Islam and Christianity. I also take the stance of the Dean Burgon Society on the primacy of the KJV in the English language. My name is Paul. I adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith” (https://badmanna.wordpress.com/about/).

      Well, that means that madman believes the following tenet. This is from chapter 10 of the Westminster Confession of Faith (On Effectual Calling):

      “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]

      IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,[15] and may have some common operations of the Spirit,[16] yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved…” (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/).

      So according to this “confession”, those infants who are “not elected” (whatever that means) and die in infancy “cannot be saved”! This is madman’s religion. Not only does his religion believe that God commanded the murder of infants. It also says that those infants (or at least those are “not elected”) will not be saved.

      Like


    • Nowhere does the bible teach that the death penalty for the actual physical act of adultery was negated but secular governments don’t apply it. All men should be under this law.”

      i was talking about lustful thoughts which are adultery in the mind of jesus. if you lusted, according to jesus you already did the act. jesus recommended you pluck out your eye , he didn’t say he would DIE for your lustful thoughts, he said pluck out the eye.

      if PHYSICAL act of KILLING the adulterer is not abrogated, then jesus DID not ATONE for ALL the physical ACTS of adulteries past, present and future.

      in other words you can’t repent and have him as an atonement for that specific sin because you yourself need to pay with your life ,according to you .


      It’s absurd to claim that Christians seek to be saved in order to live a life of sin or that they enjoy impunity from the punishment of sins.”

      okay, did jesus die for past, present and future christian LUSTFUL thoughts? since you have accepted jesus died for your sinful thoughts which REQUIRE the death penalty in the torah, then it implies you are hiding under jesus’ SKIRT because you ALREADY got away with the ADULTERIES in your heart and mind.

      Like

  19. “It had to be placed and burnt on the altar, which was sprinkled with blood, by the priest who was also sprinkled with blood. Do you understand this?”

    that was an act done to yhwh through human deeds, when did yhwh ever say he was going to use temple sacrifices to make himself into an offering to himself?

    sacrifices go to yhwh, yhwh does not go to yhwh.


    That’s true in the case of temporal punishments. The sacrifice of Christ does not annul any temporal punishments imposed upon sin by any form of human government. It does away with the eternal punishment of sin.”

    so you are punished if you break laws imposed by human government but if you break the laws god imposed upon human beings, then you can break them because god VIOLENTLY punished himself?

    so you are free from DIVINE consequences because god VIOLENTLY poured wrath on himself?

    this is corruption. did god lose trust in his laws? did the VIOLENT pinning of himself become so close to his heart that he forgot about divine consequences ?

    “The Jewish people feel that their temple sacrifices are being mocked by the fstians. why would their god create complex system only to have it undone by the shedding of human flesh? Pagans shed jesus, does this mean yhwhs love of shedding animal could be undone?”

    “It wasn’t undone, it was fulfilled.”

    you either BREAK by undoing or you obey. how come in your religion human EFFORT with regards to the sacrifice of the animal is never looked at?

    pagans USED to shed baby flesh, the jews got tempted and did it too, but yhwh created a complex system in jewish temple to undo the shedding of human flesh. so why would yhwh undo complex system through VIOLENT MURDER of your god, when yhwh NEVER said that ANIMALS sacrifices CAN undo animal sacrifices ANYWHERE in his torah or any of his laws. .

    Like

  20. “That’s true in the case of temporal punishments.”

    ” The sacrifice of Christ does not annul any temporal punishments imposed upon sin”

    ” by any form of human government. It does away with the eternal punishment of sin.”

    brother faiz, you reading this? human punishments one should be worried about, but gods punishment one has FREEDOM from. no worries. divine consequences have been “switched of” because flesh got beaten the shit out of. but i thought god views ONE, just ONE sin as punishable IN THE depths of hell fire in their beliefs. when did SINS in ALL years “switch of ” this problem if you believe a god BEAT the shit out of himself?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Christians also live under the Father’s chastisement, which can include any form of evil or sickness, and ecclesiastical discipline.

      Nowhere does the bible teach that the death penalty for the actual physical act of adultery was negated but secular governments don’t apply it. All men should be under this law.

      Punishments for violent crimes should be as the law of Moses. Muslims exclude themselves if the victim was a non-Muslim.

      It’s absurd to claim that Christians seek to be saved in order to live a life of sin or that they enjoy impunity from the punishment of sins.

      More silliness from people who cherry pick from the bible.

      Like

  21. ““Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]”

    It could be that all human beings who died in infancy are elected ( chosen ) to eternal life. That’s up to God, not us.

    Like

    • More lies from the madman! You should be ashamed of yourself!

      If all could be saved then your idiotic creed should just say it. Instead, it specifically says that those who are not elected wI’ll not be saved.

      I think it’s clear that madman lies even against his own religion when it’s embarrassing tenets get exposed. Heretic! Hypocrite!

      Like

    • madmanna

      July 20, 2017 • 7:36 am

      ““Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]”

      It could be that all human beings who died in infancy are elected ( chosen ) to eternal life. That’s up to God, not us

      I say;
      Bingo. The first time I heard from a Christian that, people will be saved without the blood of Jesus Christ or can be saved without believing that Christ died for their sins or is their saviour.

      The above statements indicates the Christian God can call anyone to the elect IF HE(CHRISTIAN GOD) PLEASES.

      That is exactly Islamic here. Allah forgives anyone He pleases.

      Then why are Christians lying from their teeth that “only those who believed Jesus is their saviour” can be saved but it is a lie in the above statement by Christians.

      So, to those who were saved by the above statement, the blood of Jesus is useless. They never believed his blood will save them, and yet he saved them WHEN AND HOW HE HE PLEASES just like the Islamic God.

      Some Christians call it arbitrary. The above Christian creed shows exactly and arbitrariness in the Christian God forgiveness and it means as he wishes, even the person did not believed he died for their sins.

      So, there is a way of forgiveness without believing in the in Christ. Why tell us lies that it is the only blood of Jesus that can save?

      Thanks.

      Like

    • madmanna

      It could be that all human beings who died in infancy are elected ( chosen ) to eternal life. That’s up to God, not us.

      I say;
      THAT’S UP TO GOD, NOT US to eternal life.-madmanna.

      Exactly, madmanna, it is up to God to save and not us, so why tell us lies that “it is only through the blood of Jesus” that one is saved?

      Muslims are saying here everyday that it is up to God to forgive or save but you and other Christians says no, God can only save unless you believe he died for your sins.

      When you are totally cornered from your bad forgiveness, you turn to Islamic forgiveness where God can forgive anyone He pleases, without the person believing the death of Christ will save him.

      God can elect anyone He pleases without the blood of Jesus Christ. Thank you madmanna for involuntarily accepting Islam today because that is what Islam teaches. It is up to God and His Mercy to save and not that one has to believe in the death of Christ for the atonement of his sins.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • LOL, good job brother Intellect for exposing madman’s contradictory theology. He has been thoroughly embarrassed!

      Like

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: