So we agree that victory is possible and should be normative for true believers. We agree that victory is by Christ and His finished work. We agree that we cannot nor should not do it by ourselves with our own feeble efforts. We seem to agree that all humans have wills and responsibility. We agree that struggle is theoretically possible, and that the truth sets us free. It seems in the past you implied struggle is not even possible (or is that sozo's sinless views?). Now you say it is possible, but not necessary. Exactly what I have been saying for months. I have never maintained that the armor of God is our own works or that we resist Satan or the flesh in our own strength. Who is misrepresenting whom?
A Peculiar Kind of Gospel
- Thread starter Philip
- Start date
- Status
It seems you have misrepresented yourself. And we still don't agree on eternal security.
The difference between our beliefs is that you believe it's possible for a man who actually knows Christ intimately to leave Christ, and never return. I contend that it isn't possible, because those who know Him could never deny Him.
Brandon, if your bitterness and vulgarity is an indication of what I'm "missing," you can keep your concocted Bible, fake messiah, and leper pastors. I for one have no interest in rediscovering what I'm suddenly "missing." People like you just confirm why I left and remind me that it was a good decision.
Many people have known their spouses intimately and have left them through infidelity and divorce (never to return). Israel/Hosea is illlustrative of this. Some covenant people ended up outside of the promises of God to their eternal ruin. Collectively, those who remained faithful were secure and saved.
I contend that it is possible, because those who know Him should and would never deny Him (with the caveat that they could deny Him out of stupid rebellion...they may or may not respond to the Spirit's subsequent drawing and conviction just as some respond and some reject the Spirit's work before conversion...what has changed in our wills and intellect to preclude freedom?).
Relationship is the essence of our reconciliation with God. Receiving the life of Christ is not the only metaphor for salvation and cannot be divorced from the other truths about relationship/reconciliation. It is not an irreversible physical change in our genes. By definition, love relationships must be freely entered into and maintained.
Repentant faith is a condition of salvation. This is not a work (so do not accuse me of works salvation). The type of faith is not a one time belief in the past, but a faith that continues now and into eternity. It is not a work to continue to abide in Christ (you wrongly assume it is to say I think we keep our salvation by works and self-righteousness...look at the verb tenses Paul and Jesus used about persevering, continuing, abiding, trusting, following, etc. They are often present vs aorist tenses). If one ceases believing, the promises do not apply. Unless faith is a physical substance deposited in our bodies, it is possible for it to wax, wane, or cease.
The atheist Anthony Flew has just changed his mind and became a theist based on evidence. Some atheists were once theists or Christians and changed their minds. Logically, OSAS undermines the self-evident gift of free moral agency.
Jude 24, 25 I do not doubt my security in Christ.
Heb. 6 I grieve for those who knew Christ in Christian homes and have since apostasized or rebelled. It is a false sense of security and deception of the enemy to think they are not at risk of eternal peril because they said a sinner's prayer in the distant past. They need to restore their relationship in response to God's dealings or they may be sifted by the enemy of their souls.
This is probably a subject for another thread, not to hijack this one. To keep it short: A Christian is a follower of Christ, someone who believes Jesus is Lord, the incarnate savior, and redeemer of mankind. Add-ons such as believing in a triune godhead, virgin birth, and literal, physical resurrection are orthodox as is believing the Bible to be inspired of God and inerrant.
Like I said, you wanna spin off a new thread, go ahead.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Not at all, I don't claim to adhere to a religion that teaches turning the other cheek. You do. Period.
Oh it's another one of those commands that's not a command, eh? You folks seem to have a lot of those don't you? It seems like the only commands you recognize are those that don't apply to you... :chuckle:
Hey, I don't worship the "nailed god" as he was known to the Northmen. I'm not the one that came up with the "lowly Jesus meek and mild" for my deity. That's a product of your people's hymnody and theology. The burden for that interpretation rests fully on your folks, not outsiders.
The very problem is that you are on TOL and so are about two hundred other viewpoints on major Christian teachings. Until you tell me, I haven't the slightest idea what you really think. All I can do is try to cobble together what I believe you think.
How abour providing a link or two to some of these "numerous times" you've made your point here on TOL...
But your idea of love sends people to death by torture and butchers innocent babies in the name of love. Sorry, but that's not what I understand love to be. Give me covenant any day.
From your point of view... if I ever was a Christian you'd be wrong. Since the infallible lighthouse can never be wrong, ipso facto, all those who have rejected Christianity must never have been True Believers™ in the first place... very convenient circular reasoning.
,,, and intellectually bankrupt.
:darwinsm:
It does not make sense because this anecdotal example does not square with your preconceived OSAS theology.
Granite may or may not have been a genuine Christian. There is no reason to assume a person could not have possibly been a Christian if they become apostate. This is one of two possibilities.
Originally posted by granite1010
This is probably a subject for another thread, not to hijack this one. To keep it short: A Christian is a follower of Christ, someone who believes Jesus is Lord, the incarnate savior, and redeemer of mankind. Add-ons such as believing in a triune godhead, virgin birth, and literal, physical resurrection are orthodox as is believing the Bible to be inspired of God and inerrant.
Like I said, you wanna spin off a new thread, go ahead.
Being a Christian is more than a mental assent to the truths of Christianity. Many claim to follow Christ without knowing Him or having a heart transformation through surrender to Him.
Rediscover? Maybe you should try actually discovering it, first.
I agree that lighthouse uses circular reasoning/begs the question on assuming someone who once embraced Christ cannot have been a Christian if they now reject Him. This is one possibility, but the other one is that apostasy is possible (fall from the truth).
Of course, Zakath is intellectually bankrupt for rejecting the historical truths of Christianity.
For the record, do you think you ever were a true Christian, or were you going through the motions and skeptical most of the time? Did you ever sense the love, presence, and reality of Christ or was it an academic exercise and game playing?
You're never going to get it, are you? Humans are humans, but Christ is God. Think about it.
When Christ saves you, He keeps you. End of story.
Of course it's not physical!:doh: It's spiritual!:duh:
Aaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!:sozo2:
Last edited:
So, what does turning the other cheek mean?
I obey the great commision. But it is a commission, not a command. Difference.
Lowly Jesus? Meek and mild? What frail facsimilie of Jesus is that? I don't worship a frail savior. I worship the risen Christ who came to bring a sword.
And all you do is make assumptions. You jump to conclusions based on your definition of terminology, which doesn't coincide with my definition [mainly of sin].
Well, if you'd listen the first time, this wouldn't be an issue. But I don't expect you to listen now, either.
Who butchers innocent babies? Who sends people to death by torture? That's not my idea of love, you twisted nutjob. You're just jumping to stupid-*** conclusions, you quack!
:doh:
I am not infallible. I've been wrong, and I can still be wrong. My stance is that those who deny Christ never knew Him. How do you not understand that? How is that illogical? How is it wrong?
This is true. But love is love. Relationships are relationships. Communication is communication. Intellect is intellect. Emotions are emotions. Choices are choices.
God is transcendent, but He is also immanent.
The triune God loves, communicates, fellowships.
Man does the same.
God and man also love, fellowship, communicate.
There may be differences in perfections and degrees, but we are in the moral, spiritual, and personal image of God. We are not like Him in His unique, uncreated, infinite aspects. We are like Him in other ways.
The principles of relationship between God and man are not totally dissimilar to human relationships.
Ephesians compares our relationship with Christ to the human relationship of marriage. There is some similarity.
God is expressed as a perfect heavenly Father. Christ is our elder brother, friend, and God. We can relate to God because He is not totally unlike us (we are in His image!). We are not God.
So, what is your point? Christ is God, but we can have a relationship with Christ. What is the essence of relationship? Our relationship with Christ is different than our human relationships, but this does not mean you can support a preconceived theology on this basis alone. There are also similarities or we have nonsense and abstraction.
What do the verses say? Believers are secure in Christ. The question really is can a believer become an unbeliever. If not, why not? If an unbeliever can become a believer through repentant faith and response to God, why can't a believer become an unbeliever through willful defiance against great light and love? Thousands of people find themselves in this boat and Scripture seems to warn against that very possibility.
Those who continue in the faith (not a work) and overcome in the end through Christ's power, will be saved. Those who return to the dog's vomit and mud will be under their previous circumstance.
In Christ= secure.
Outside of Christ= lost.
Once in Christ, but now renouncing Him to their death bed= lost.
granite now denies Christ. See your post following the one quoted above for a description of granite and Zakath.
:Grizzly:
- Status