I'm not sure I understand your point. It says believe that...or you will die in your sins. Believe that...and the Father is your friend. Believe that...and you will find life in his name. Obviously those are synonymous with salvation. If you're arguing otherwise, then with all due respect I'd say that's just a whole other level of stubbornness.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That IS the "stubbornly literal way" to read it, isn't it? Never does it literally say "believe THAT.... and you are saved".Sam Lowry"Whosoever believes IN ME...." Believing in someone is not the same thing as believing about someone. said:It does if one reads it in the stubbornly literal way that you tend to do. You take one verse as proof that works don't matter, but you're happy to read in the concept of faith if it supports your beliefs. This is completely arbitrary. The works verses are just as much a part of the context.Quote:No, they don't necessarily. You're making it so they do. "Believe that...or you will die in your sins" is not the same thing. And "Believe that....and by believing have life in his name" (actual verse) is not the same thing as "believe that.... and by believing that have life in his name" (what you're saying it means).Quote:Sure they do.Quote:We know that Jesus said repeatedly that faith in him is what saves. Those two verses you referenced say that as well, if you would just let them. They are not proof-texts of the contrary. They don't even say "believe that... and you will be saved".Quote:They do entail a belief with faith. There's just nothing in those verses that says so. My point is that anyone can play the proof-texting game. That's why we need context, tradition, and history to tell us what Christ's followers actually believed.Quote:There's no deviousness, otherwise he would have just said "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ and by believing that have life in his name."Quote:You're reading in an awful lot. There's no reason to assume he deviously altered the meaning of the word in the middle of a verse, much less that that's the "key" to understanding it.Quote:John 16:27 isn't referring to salvation. Let's look at those other verses:Quote:8:24Quote:Which passages are you referring to?Quote:
That distinction is far from clear in the text, but in any case there are at least three passages in the Gospel of John where Jesus seems to predicate salvation on "belief that" rather than "belief in." So the question remains.
16:27
20:31
John 8:24-25 - "I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." So they said to him, "Who are you?" Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been telling you from the beginning."
The "that I am he" is the important part. That's where it's faith, not just head knowledge. What Jesus had been telling them "from the beginning" was that he was the Messiah who came to save them to eternal life. If they believe THAT he was who he said he was, they are believing he saves them. They are believing IN him.
Another way to look at it is that Jesus didn't say "believe THAT I am he, and you are saved", he said that they will die in their sins if they didn't. Meaning, they can't come to faith in him, if they don't even believe who he is to begin with.
Here's John 20:30-31 - "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
There's two "believe"'s there - that's key. John is saying he's writing the book so you'd believe that yes, Jesus is the promised Messiah in Scripture, and because of this fact you can believe IN him and have eternal life. In other words: "these are written so that you may believe (factually) that Jesus is the Christ.... and that by believing (in faith) you may have life in his name."
There's no reason to assume the "believe thats" you're referencing don't entail a belief with faith.
And never have I said that "works don't matter". I've said what the bible repeatedly teaches, that works don't save, faith does. It isn't just one verse.
Contemporary Evangelical Church Discussion
14,099 Views |
419 Replies |
Last: 2 hrs ago by BusyTarpDuster2017
It's not being stubborn, it's being precise and being faithful to other parts in Scripture where Jesus directly says "believe IN me and you will be saved/will have eternal life/will never die" and where he actually did save people for believing IN him.Sam Lowry said:I'm not sure I understand your point. It says believe that...or you will die in your sins. Believe that...and the Father is your friend. Believe that...and you will find life in his name. Obviously those are synonymous with salvation. If you're arguing otherwise, then with all due respect I'd say that's just a whole other level of stubbornness.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That IS the "stubbornly literal way" to read it, isn't it? Never does it literally say "believe THAT.... and you are saved".Sam Lowry"Whosoever believes IN ME...." Believing in someone is not the same thing as believing about someone. said:It does if one reads it in the stubbornly literal way that you tend to do. You take one verse as proof that works don't matter, but you're happy to read in the concept of faith if it supports your beliefs. This is completely arbitrary. The works verses are just as much a part of the context.Quote:No, they don't necessarily. You're making it so they do. "Believe that...or you will die in your sins" is not the same thing. And "Believe that....and by believing have life in his name" (actual verse) is not the same thing as "believe that.... and by believing that have life in his name" (what you're saying it means).Quote:Sure they do.Quote:We know that Jesus said repeatedly that faith in him is what saves. Those two verses you referenced say that as well, if you would just let them. They are not proof-texts of the contrary. They don't even say "believe that... and you will be saved".Quote:They do entail a belief with faith. There's just nothing in those verses that says so. My point is that anyone can play the proof-texting game. That's why we need context, tradition, and history to tell us what Christ's followers actually believed.Quote:There's no deviousness, otherwise he would have just said "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ and by believing that have life in his name."Quote:You're reading in an awful lot. There's no reason to assume he deviously altered the meaning of the word in the middle of a verse, much less that that's the "key" to understanding it.Quote:John 16:27 isn't referring to salvation. Let's look at those other verses:Quote:8:24Quote:Which passages are you referring to?Quote:
That distinction is far from clear in the text, but in any case there are at least three passages in the Gospel of John where Jesus seems to predicate salvation on "belief that" rather than "belief in." So the question remains.
16:27
20:31
John 8:24-25 - "I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." So they said to him, "Who are you?" Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been telling you from the beginning."
The "that I am he" is the important part. That's where it's faith, not just head knowledge. What Jesus had been telling them "from the beginning" was that he was the Messiah who came to save them to eternal life. If they believe THAT he was who he said he was, they are believing he saves them. They are believing IN him.
Another way to look at it is that Jesus didn't say "believe THAT I am he, and you are saved", he said that they will die in their sins if they didn't. Meaning, they can't come to faith in him, if they don't even believe who he is to begin with.
Here's John 20:30-31 - "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
There's two "believe"'s there - that's key. John is saying he's writing the book so you'd believe that yes, Jesus is the promised Messiah in Scripture, and because of this fact you can believe IN him and have eternal life. In other words: "these are written so that you may believe (factually) that Jesus is the Christ.... and that by believing (in faith) you may have life in his name."
There's no reason to assume the "believe thats" you're referencing don't entail a belief with faith.
And never have I said that "works don't matter". I've said what the bible repeatedly teaches, that works don't save, faith does. It isn't just one verse.
Like I've been saying, it doesn't say "believe that and you will find life in his name". It says "by believing you will find life in his name". You're adding the "that".
The "believe that I am he, or you will die in your sins" could mean the "that" (I am he) is the necessary prerequisite for a belief with faith, without which they will die in their sins. It's not necessarily stating that the belief in "that" is what saves. The context should be all the times Jesus had directly stated that believing IN him is what saves and the times he actually did save someone for believing IN him. You may think this is pedantic, but again, it's just harmonizing Scripture and being very precise with language. You'd really have to be unfaithful to Scripture to think that where it says "believe that" it means a belief only in facts and without faith.
Quote:
There's no such thing as 10%, 25%, 80% saved
In one sense there is not. That is, if your name is in the Book of Life it is either there or it is not. However, as the race is being run, you do not know if you will finish it. You may run straight through from start to finish. You may trip and fall and get back up a few times. You may start running, walk for a while, and run when the finish line comes into sight. Or you may drop out and not finish.
The race *is* salvation. No one who is running it can say "I am saved" until it is over.
The historical understanding of salvation is "I was saved, I am being saved, I will be saved."
Realitybites said:Quote:
There's no such thing as 10%, 25%, 80% saved
In one sense there is not. That is, if your name is in the Book of Life it is either there or it is not. However, as the race is being run, you do not know if you will finish it. You may run straight through from start to finish. You may trip and fall and get back up a few times. You may start running, walk for a while, and run when the finish line comes into sight. Or you may drop out and not finish.
The race *is* salvation. No one who is running it can say "I am saved" until it is over.
The historical understanding of salvation is "I was saved, I am being saved, I will be saved."
Don't think so, at least not according to the New Testament.
D. C. Bear said:Realitybites said:Quote:
There's no such thing as 10%, 25%, 80% saved
In one sense there is not. That is, if your name is in the Book of Life it is either there or it is not. However, as the race is being run, you do not know if you will finish it. You may run straight through from start to finish. You may trip and fall and get back up a few times. You may start running, walk for a while, and run when the finish line comes into sight. Or you may drop out and not finish.
The race *is* salvation. No one who is running it can say "I am saved" until it is over.
The historical understanding of salvation is "I was saved, I am being saved, I will be saved."
Don't think so, at least not according to the New Testament.
"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Romans 5:10
It clearly states it in black and white. Reconciliation and salvation are two different things.
The misunderstanding of salvation results from 100 years of altar call/sinners prayer/boarding pass to heaven easy believism..
Could not the thief on the cross or the sinful woman in Luke 7 say "I am saved"? If not, then what Jesus told them was false. And if Jesus was true, it didn't depend on any kind of "race" they had to run.Realitybites said:Quote:
There's no such thing as 10%, 25%, 80% saved
In one sense there is not. That is, if your name is in the Book of Life it is either there or it is not. However, as the race is being run, you do not know if you will finish it. You may run straight through from start to finish. You may trip and fall and get back up a few times. You may start running, walk for a while, and run when the finish line comes into sight. Or you may drop out and not finish.
The race *is* salvation. No one who is running it can say "I am saved" until it is over.
The historical understanding of salvation is "I was saved, I am being saved, I will be saved."
Reconciliation and salvation are effectively the same thing, because everyone who is reconciled is saved. There isn't anyone who is reconciled but NOT saved, and there isn't anyone who is saved but NOT reconciled. The distinction isn't really relevant.Realitybites said:D. C. Bear said:Realitybites said:Quote:
There's no such thing as 10%, 25%, 80% saved
In one sense there is not. That is, if your name is in the Book of Life it is either there or it is not. However, as the race is being run, you do not know if you will finish it. You may run straight through from start to finish. You may trip and fall and get back up a few times. You may start running, walk for a while, and run when the finish line comes into sight. Or you may drop out and not finish.
The race *is* salvation. No one who is running it can say "I am saved" until it is over.
The historical understanding of salvation is "I was saved, I am being saved, I will be saved."
Don't think so, at least not according to the New Testament.
"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Romans 5:10
It clearly states it in black and white. Reconciliation and salvation are two different things.
The misunderstanding of salvation results from 100 years of altar call/sinners prayer/boarding pass to heaven easy believism..
Evidenced in works, I might add.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You'd really have to be unfaithful to Scripture to think that where it says "believe that" it means a belief only in facts and without faith.Sam Lowry said:I'm not sure I understand your point. It says believe that...or you will die in your sins. Believe that...and the Father is your friend. Believe that...and you will find life in his name. Obviously those are synonymous with salvation. If you're arguing otherwise, then with all due respect I'd say that's just a whole other level of stubbornness.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That IS the "stubbornly literal way" to read it, isn't it? Never does it literally say "believe THAT.... and you are saved".Sam Lowry"Whosoever believes IN ME...." Believing in someone is not the same thing as believing about someone. said:It does if one reads it in the stubbornly literal way that you tend to do. You take one verse as proof that works don't matter, but you're happy to read in the concept of faith if it supports your beliefs. This is completely arbitrary. The works verses are just as much a part of the context.Quote:No, they don't necessarily. You're making it so they do. "Believe that...or you will die in your sins" is not the same thing. And "Believe that....and by believing have life in his name" (actual verse) is not the same thing as "believe that.... and by believing that have life in his name" (what you're saying it means).Quote:Sure they do.Quote:We know that Jesus said repeatedly that faith in him is what saves. Those two verses you referenced say that as well, if you would just let them. They are not proof-texts of the contrary. They don't even say "believe that... and you will be saved".Quote:They do entail a belief with faith. There's just nothing in those verses that says so. My point is that anyone can play the proof-texting game. That's why we need context, tradition, and history to tell us what Christ's followers actually believed.Quote:There's no deviousness, otherwise he would have just said "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ and by believing that have life in his name."Quote:You're reading in an awful lot. There's no reason to assume he deviously altered the meaning of the word in the middle of a verse, much less that that's the "key" to understanding it.Quote:John 16:27 isn't referring to salvation. Let's look at those other verses:Quote:8:24Quote:Which passages are you referring to?Quote:
That distinction is far from clear in the text, but in any case there are at least three passages in the Gospel of John where Jesus seems to predicate salvation on "belief that" rather than "belief in." So the question remains.
16:27
20:31
John 8:24-25 - "I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." So they said to him, "Who are you?" Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been telling you from the beginning."
The "that I am he" is the important part. That's where it's faith, not just head knowledge. What Jesus had been telling them "from the beginning" was that he was the Messiah who came to save them to eternal life. If they believe THAT he was who he said he was, they are believing he saves them. They are believing IN him.
Another way to look at it is that Jesus didn't say "believe THAT I am he, and you are saved", he said that they will die in their sins if they didn't. Meaning, they can't come to faith in him, if they don't even believe who he is to begin with.
Here's John 20:30-31 - "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
There's two "believe"'s there - that's key. John is saying he's writing the book so you'd believe that yes, Jesus is the promised Messiah in Scripture, and because of this fact you can believe IN him and have eternal life. In other words: "these are written so that you may believe (factually) that Jesus is the Christ.... and that by believing (in faith) you may have life in his name."
There's no reason to assume the "believe thats" you're referencing don't entail a belief with faith.
And never have I said that "works don't matter". I've said what the bible repeatedly teaches, that works don't save, faith does. It isn't just one verse.
But we can disagree all day. It's almost as if we need an authoritative tradition to help us discern what Christians have historically believed.
But not based on works. Evidence may or may not be present depending on the situation, like with the thief on the cross.Sam LowryYou're reading in an awful lot. There's no reason to assume he deviously altered the meaning of the word in the middle of a verse, much less that that's the "key" to understanding it. said:Evidenced in works, I might add.Quote:You'd really have to be unfaithful to Scripture to think that where it says "believe that" it means a belief only in facts and without faith.Quote:I'm not sure I understand your point. It says believe that...or you will die in your sins. Believe that...and the Father is your friend. Believe that...and you will find life in his name. Obviously those are synonymous with salvation. If you're arguing otherwise, then with all due respect I'd say that's just a whole other level of stubbornness.Quote:That IS the "stubbornly literal way" to read it, isn't it? Never does it literally say "believe THAT.... and you are saved".Quote:It does if one reads it in the stubbornly literal way that you tend to do. You take one verse as proof that works don't matter, but you're happy to read in the concept of faith if it supports your beliefs. This is completely arbitrary. The works verses are just as much a part of the context.Quote:No, they don't necessarily. You're making it so they do. "Believe that...or you will die in your sins" is not the same thing. And "Believe that....and by believing have life in his name" (actual verse) is not the same thing as "believe that.... and by believing that have life in his name" (what you're saying it means).Quote:Sure they do.Quote:We know that Jesus said repeatedly that faith in him is what saves. Those two verses you referenced say that as well, if you would just let them. They are not proof-texts of the contrary. They don't even say "believe that... and you will be saved".Quote:They do entail a belief with faith. There's just nothing in those verses that says so. My point is that anyone can play the proof-texting game. That's why we need context, tradition, and history to tell us what Christ's followers actually believed.Quote:
There's no deviousness, otherwise he would have just said "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ and by believing that have life in his name."
There's no reason to assume the "believe thats" you're referencing don't entail a belief with faith.
And never have I said that "works don't matter". I've said what the bible repeatedly teaches, that works don't save, faith does. It isn't just one verse.
But we can disagree all day. It's almost as if we need an authoritative tradition to help us discern what Christians have historically believed.
We don't need an authoritative tradition when we have the authoritative written word. If the Holy Spirit does not make Scripture perspicuous for the "priesthood of all believers", then it certainly won't be so for man-appointed priests in a Christianity that compromised with pagan Rome.
Seriously, how trustworthy can a tradition that led to Marian idolatry and heresy be, anyway?
Realitybites said:D. C. Bear said:Realitybites said:Quote:
There's no such thing as 10%, 25%, 80% saved
In one sense there is not. That is, if your name is in the Book of Life it is either there or it is not. However, as the race is being run, you do not know if you will finish it. You may run straight through from start to finish. You may trip and fall and get back up a few times. You may start running, walk for a while, and run when the finish line comes into sight. Or you may drop out and not finish.
The race *is* salvation. No one who is running it can say "I am saved" until it is over.
The historical understanding of salvation is "I was saved, I am being saved, I will be saved."
Don't think so, at least not according to the New Testament.
"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Romans 5:10
It clearly states it in black and white. Reconciliation and salvation are two different things.
The misunderstanding of salvation results from 100 years of altar call/sinners prayer/boarding pass to heaven easy believism..
Your idea that a Christian cannot know if he or she is saved until he or she dies is not consistent with scripture.
How untrustworthy can a tradition be that gave us the Bible? Even if you don't agree with everything that came later, you've at least acknowledged that Scripture is infallible. This implies that the Church spoke authoritatively as recently as the Council of Rome, when it established the canon that we have today. The early Church had had plenty to say on the subject of faith and works by that time.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But not based on works. Evidence may or may not be present depending on the situation, like with the thief on the cross.Sam LowryYou're reading in an awful lot. There's no reason to assume he deviously altered the meaning of the word in the middle of a verse, much less that that's the "key" to understanding it. said:Evidenced in works, I might add.Quote:You'd really have to be unfaithful to Scripture to think that where it says "believe that" it means a belief only in facts and without faith.Quote:I'm not sure I understand your point. It says believe that...or you will die in your sins. Believe that...and the Father is your friend. Believe that...and you will find life in his name. Obviously those are synonymous with salvation. If you're arguing otherwise, then with all due respect I'd say that's just a whole other level of stubbornness.Quote:That IS the "stubbornly literal way" to read it, isn't it? Never does it literally say "believe THAT.... and you are saved".Quote:It does if one reads it in the stubbornly literal way that you tend to do. You take one verse as proof that works don't matter, but you're happy to read in the concept of faith if it supports your beliefs. This is completely arbitrary. The works verses are just as much a part of the context.Quote:No, they don't necessarily. You're making it so they do. "Believe that...or you will die in your sins" is not the same thing. And "Believe that....and by believing have life in his name" (actual verse) is not the same thing as "believe that.... and by believing that have life in his name" (what you're saying it means).Quote:Sure they do.Quote:We know that Jesus said repeatedly that faith in him is what saves. Those two verses you referenced say that as well, if you would just let them. They are not proof-texts of the contrary. They don't even say "believe that... and you will be saved".Quote:They do entail a belief with faith. There's just nothing in those verses that says so. My point is that anyone can play the proof-texting game. That's why we need context, tradition, and history to tell us what Christ's followers actually believed.Quote:
There's no deviousness, otherwise he would have just said "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ and by believing that have life in his name."
There's no reason to assume the "believe thats" you're referencing don't entail a belief with faith.
And never have I said that "works don't matter". I've said what the bible repeatedly teaches, that works don't save, faith does. It isn't just one verse.
But we can disagree all day. It's almost as if we need an authoritative tradition to help us discern what Christians have historically believed.
We don't need an authoritative tradition when we have the authoritative written word. If the Holy Spirit does not make Scripture perspicuous for the "priesthood of all believers", then it certainly won't be so for man-appointed priests in a Christianity that compromised with pagan Rome.
Seriously, how trustworthy can a tradition that led to Marian idolatry and heresy be, anyway?
The thief on the cross argument is frivolous. He followed Jesus in the time that he had, which is what God asks of everyone. Whether it was five minutes or five decades is beside the point.
Christ himself said even a lustful thought is as bad as the act in God's eyes, so I am not sure how you arrived at this conclusion.Sam Lowry said:
A simple thought crossing your mind isn't a mortal sin. It must be entertained with full deliberation and with knowledge of the seriousness of the matter. At least in that moment, it constitutes a rejection of Christ and your walk with him. It would be as if the thief was forgiven, then turned around and spat in Jesus' face. In that case we'd be talking about a whole different story.
Do you have any scripture you are relying on to reach this conclusion?
EDIT: In our previous hypothetical, you said the man who had been a Christian all his life who had a lustful thought right before having a stroke (for which he was unable to repent) would go to hell. Are you now saying that is not the case?
The Bible was not given to us by the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC only correctly recognized what Christians had already recognized as authoritative ever since the beginning. The Old Testament is the Jewish Scriptures, and the Gospels were already being circulated as Scripture in first century. The letters of Paul already had authority as being original apostolic tradition. Each were authoritative by their own merit; they did not need promulgation by Roman Catholic decree. In fact, Catholicism has actually recognized the wrong bible by decree of Council, having added the deuterocanonical books and even anathematizing anyone who doesn't recognize them as part of canon. This is in spite of previous Catholic councils having recognized canons that did NOT include the deuterocanonicals. This is just more evidence against the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church.Sam Lowry said:How untrustworthy can a tradition be that gave us the Bible? Even if you don't agree with everything that came later, you've at least acknowledged that Scripture is infallible. This implies that the Church spoke authoritatively as recently as the Council of Rome, when it established the canon that we have today. The early Church had had plenty to say on the subject of faith and works by that time.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But not based on works. Evidence may or may not be present depending on the situation, like with the thief on the cross.Sam LowryYou're reading in an awful lot. There's no reason to assume he deviously altered the meaning of the word in the middle of a verse, much less that that's the "key" to understanding it. said:Evidenced in works, I might add.Quote:You'd really have to be unfaithful to Scripture to think that where it says "believe that" it means a belief only in facts and without faith.Quote:I'm not sure I understand your point. It says believe that...or you will die in your sins. Believe that...and the Father is your friend. Believe that...and you will find life in his name. Obviously those are synonymous with salvation. If you're arguing otherwise, then with all due respect I'd say that's just a whole other level of stubbornness.Quote:That IS the "stubbornly literal way" to read it, isn't it? Never does it literally say "believe THAT.... and you are saved".Quote:It does if one reads it in the stubbornly literal way that you tend to do. You take one verse as proof that works don't matter, but you're happy to read in the concept of faith if it supports your beliefs. This is completely arbitrary. The works verses are just as much a part of the context.Quote:No, they don't necessarily. You're making it so they do. "Believe that...or you will die in your sins" is not the same thing. And "Believe that....and by believing have life in his name" (actual verse) is not the same thing as "believe that.... and by believing that have life in his name" (what you're saying it means).Quote:Sure they do.Quote:We know that Jesus said repeatedly that faith in him is what saves. Those two verses you referenced say that as well, if you would just let them. They are not proof-texts of the contrary. They don't even say "believe that... and you will be saved".Quote:They do entail a belief with faith. There's just nothing in those verses that says so. My point is that anyone can play the proof-texting game. That's why we need context, tradition, and history to tell us what Christ's followers actually believed.Quote:
There's no deviousness, otherwise he would have just said "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ and by believing that have life in his name."
There's no reason to assume the "believe thats" you're referencing don't entail a belief with faith.
And never have I said that "works don't matter". I've said what the bible repeatedly teaches, that works don't save, faith does. It isn't just one verse.
But we can disagree all day. It's almost as if we need an authoritative tradition to help us discern what Christians have historically believed.
We don't need an authoritative tradition when we have the authoritative written word. If the Holy Spirit does not make Scripture perspicuous for the "priesthood of all believers", then it certainly won't be so for man-appointed priests in a Christianity that compromised with pagan Rome.
Seriously, how trustworthy can a tradition that led to Marian idolatry and heresy be, anyway?
The thief on the cross argument is frivolous. He followed Jesus in the time that he had, which is what God asks of everyone. Whether it was five minutes or five decades is beside the point.
The point about the thief was that faith may not be evidenced by works in every case. But what it does evidence is that faith is what saves, not works.
A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
2) While we don't know that Dismas was his real name, since the Gospel of Nicodemus is unreliable, what we do know is that the thief could have lived hours after his interaction with Christ. We also know it's possible in less than a few seconds to sin. Like all of your ilk, you are making a lot of assumptions here, instead of simply relying on what the text says.
3) Likewise, as others pointed out, God also pronounced the woman at the well saved, and we know she continued to live her life after that event. This is yet another example of biblical text that doesn't support your position. Of course, there are many.
Pronouncing something frivolous because you can't reconcile Christ's words with Catholicism is an interesting position. More troublesome for your position, of course, is the woman at the well, who we know continued to live life following Christ's pronouncement that her faith had saved her.Sam Lowry said:The thief on the cross argument is frivolous. He followed Jesus in the time that he had, which is what God asks of everyone. Whether it was five minutes or five decades is beside the point.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But not based on works. Evidence may or may not be present depending on the situation, like with the thief on the cross.Sam LowryYou're reading in an awful lot. There's no reason to assume he deviously altered the meaning of the word in the middle of a verse, much less that that's the "key" to understanding it. said:Evidenced in works, I might add.Quote:You'd really have to be unfaithful to Scripture to think that where it says "believe that" it means a belief only in facts and without faith.Quote:I'm not sure I understand your point. It says believe that...or you will die in your sins. Believe that...and the Father is your friend. Believe that...and you will find life in his name. Obviously those are synonymous with salvation. If you're arguing otherwise, then with all due respect I'd say that's just a whole other level of stubbornness.Quote:That IS the "stubbornly literal way" to read it, isn't it? Never does it literally say "believe THAT.... and you are saved".Quote:It does if one reads it in the stubbornly literal way that you tend to do. You take one verse as proof that works don't matter, but you're happy to read in the concept of faith if it supports your beliefs. This is completely arbitrary. The works verses are just as much a part of the context.Quote:No, they don't necessarily. You're making it so they do. "Believe that...or you will die in your sins" is not the same thing. And "Believe that....and by believing have life in his name" (actual verse) is not the same thing as "believe that.... and by believing that have life in his name" (what you're saying it means).Quote:Sure they do.Quote:We know that Jesus said repeatedly that faith in him is what saves. Those two verses you referenced say that as well, if you would just let them. They are not proof-texts of the contrary. They don't even say "believe that... and you will be saved".Quote:They do entail a belief with faith. There's just nothing in those verses that says so. My point is that anyone can play the proof-texting game. That's why we need context, tradition, and history to tell us what Christ's followers actually believed.Quote:
There's no deviousness, otherwise he would have just said "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ and by believing that have life in his name."
There's no reason to assume the "believe thats" you're referencing don't entail a belief with faith.
And never have I said that "works don't matter". I've said what the bible repeatedly teaches, that works don't save, faith does. It isn't just one verse.
But we can disagree all day. It's almost as if we need an authoritative tradition to help us discern what Christians have historically believed.
We don't need an authoritative tradition when we have the authoritative written word. If the Holy Spirit does not make Scripture perspicuous for the "priesthood of all believers", then it certainly won't be so for man-appointed priests in a Christianity that compromised with pagan Rome.
Seriously, how trustworthy can a tradition that led to Marian idolatry and heresy be, anyway?
The idea that the thief's walk, or the woman at the well's walk, was better or different from other Christians is an interesting one. Unscriptural, but interesting.
Respectfully, I think some might say you are grasping at straws to try and justify Catholic dogma that has been proven inconsistent with scripture.
Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
[AI Sermons To Order
A pastor who subscribes e-mails:
How are users of Logos software to know how the software was programmed? What are its biases? If pastors outsource sermon prep to the Machine, they are getting sermons created with the Machine's biases. And if they haven't done the work themselves, they might not even know. Then they will put their authority as spiritual leaders behind messages that might not be true, or at least not true to their confession's understanding of Scripture. In this way, religious truth can be changed without pastors or their people understanding what is happening to them.
What's more, if pastors learn to rely on AI for sermons, and stop doing the work themselves, they will forget how to exegete Scripture and think for themselves. I am not good at math, and always defer to a calculator. I couldn't do anything but basic math if you put a gun to my head. That's not the worst thing, because mathematics follows fixed laws. Not so with Scriptural analysis and theologizing. But overreliance on AI will make the Machine your real pastor.
It's the same with the use of AI to write papers for college students. If you don't do the work yourself, not only are you presenting the Machine's judgments as your own, but you are also losing the capacity to reason. Soon enough, you defer to the Machine for all your judgments.] -Rod Dreher
A pastor who subscribes e-mails:
What he's talking about is a prompt from the organization for which he works urging pastors to sign up for Logos AI software, because it's a "game-changer in sermon preparation."Quote:
I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Logos software, but it is huge in Protestant, and especially Evangelical circles for exegeting scripture. My initial response to this is strong, because it smacks of laziness, and perhaps something more sinister.
Many evangelical pastors pride themselves on their preaching prowess, as the sermon is often the high point of the service, as opposed to the celebration of communion. However, we often have pastors who will steal other's sermons, and this seems to be in the same vein. To be fair, the demands of vocational ministry are great, and I am often guilty of giving my sermon preparation short shrift due to the difficulty in balancing family and ministry obligations. That said…
Your work on AI has really struck a chord with me. I would be curious about your two cents on this.
How are users of Logos software to know how the software was programmed? What are its biases? If pastors outsource sermon prep to the Machine, they are getting sermons created with the Machine's biases. And if they haven't done the work themselves, they might not even know. Then they will put their authority as spiritual leaders behind messages that might not be true, or at least not true to their confession's understanding of Scripture. In this way, religious truth can be changed without pastors or their people understanding what is happening to them.
What's more, if pastors learn to rely on AI for sermons, and stop doing the work themselves, they will forget how to exegete Scripture and think for themselves. I am not good at math, and always defer to a calculator. I couldn't do anything but basic math if you put a gun to my head. That's not the worst thing, because mathematics follows fixed laws. Not so with Scriptural analysis and theologizing. But overreliance on AI will make the Machine your real pastor.
It's the same with the use of AI to write papers for college students. If you don't do the work yourself, not only are you presenting the Machine's judgments as your own, but you are also losing the capacity to reason. Soon enough, you defer to the Machine for all your judgments.] -Rod Dreher
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Reconciliation and salvation are effectively the same thing, because everyone who is reconciled is saved. There isn't anyone who is reconciled but NOT saved, and there isn't anyone who is saved but NOT reconciled. The distinction isn't really relevant.
The distinction was relevant enough for Saint Paul to make it and for it to be recorded in scripture. Along with a whole host of other verses that contradict your transactional theology such as names being blotted out of the Book of LIfe, which has been discussed in the How to Get to Heaven Thread.
Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Reconciliation and salvation are effectively the same thing, because everyone who is reconciled is saved. There isn't anyone who is reconciled but NOT saved, and there isn't anyone who is saved but NOT reconciled. The distinction isn't really relevant.
The distinction was relevant enough for Saint Paul to make it and for it to be recorded in scripture. Along with a whole host of other verses that contradict your transactional theology such as names being blotted out of the Book of LIfe, which has been discussed in the How to Get to Heaven Thread.
Names blotted out of the Book of Life? You serious Clark?
Sorry but there are literally no verses - even in the catholic bible - that state anything of the sort.
90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
FYI Jesus proclaimed the sinful woman who anointed his feet saved, not the woman at the well. But agree nonetheless.Mothra said:Pronouncing something frivolous because you can't reconcile Christ's words with Catholicism is an interesting position. More troublesome for your position, of course, is the woman at the well, who we know continued to live life following Christ's pronouncement that her faith had saved her.Sam Lowry said:The thief on the cross argument is frivolous. He followed Jesus in the time that he had, which is what God asks of everyone. Whether it was five minutes or five decades is beside the point.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But not based on works. Evidence may or may not be present depending on the situation, like with the thief on the cross.Sam LowryYou're reading in an awful lot. There's no reason to assume he deviously altered the meaning of the word in the middle of a verse, much less that that's the "key" to understanding it. said:Evidenced in works, I might add.Quote:You'd really have to be unfaithful to Scripture to think that where it says "believe that" it means a belief only in facts and without faith.Quote:I'm not sure I understand your point. It says believe that...or you will die in your sins. Believe that...and the Father is your friend. Believe that...and you will find life in his name. Obviously those are synonymous with salvation. If you're arguing otherwise, then with all due respect I'd say that's just a whole other level of stubbornness.Quote:That IS the "stubbornly literal way" to read it, isn't it? Never does it literally say "believe THAT.... and you are saved".Quote:It does if one reads it in the stubbornly literal way that you tend to do. You take one verse as proof that works don't matter, but you're happy to read in the concept of faith if it supports your beliefs. This is completely arbitrary. The works verses are just as much a part of the context.Quote:No, they don't necessarily. You're making it so they do. "Believe that...or you will die in your sins" is not the same thing. And "Believe that....and by believing have life in his name" (actual verse) is not the same thing as "believe that.... and by believing that have life in his name" (what you're saying it means).Quote:Sure they do.Quote:We know that Jesus said repeatedly that faith in him is what saves. Those two verses you referenced say that as well, if you would just let them. They are not proof-texts of the contrary. They don't even say "believe that... and you will be saved".Quote:They do entail a belief with faith. There's just nothing in those verses that says so. My point is that anyone can play the proof-texting game. That's why we need context, tradition, and history to tell us what Christ's followers actually believed.Quote:
There's no deviousness, otherwise he would have just said "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ and by believing that have life in his name."
There's no reason to assume the "believe thats" you're referencing don't entail a belief with faith.
And never have I said that "works don't matter". I've said what the bible repeatedly teaches, that works don't save, faith does. It isn't just one verse.
But we can disagree all day. It's almost as if we need an authoritative tradition to help us discern what Christians have historically believed.
We don't need an authoritative tradition when we have the authoritative written word. If the Holy Spirit does not make Scripture perspicuous for the "priesthood of all believers", then it certainly won't be so for man-appointed priests in a Christianity that compromised with pagan Rome.
Seriously, how trustworthy can a tradition that led to Marian idolatry and heresy be, anyway?
The idea that the thief's walk, or the woman at the well's walk, was better or different from other Christians is an interesting one. Unscriptural, but interesting.
Respectfully, I think some might say you are grasping at straws to try and justify Catholic dogma that has been proven inconsistent with scripture.
90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Perhaps they deceived themselves, certainly. But Christ is clear it wasn't a true conversion.
I'm just curious, what is the point of your comments? Do you believe that this hypothetical somehow supports a works-based faith or evidences we have the ability to lose our salvation?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:FYI Jesus proclaimed the sinful woman who anointed his feet saved, not the woman at the well. But agree nonetheless.Mothra said:Pronouncing something frivolous because you can't reconcile Christ's words with Catholicism is an interesting position. More troublesome for your position, of course, is the woman at the well, who we know continued to live life following Christ's pronouncement that her faith had saved her.Sam Lowry said:The thief on the cross argument is frivolous. He followed Jesus in the time that he had, which is what God asks of everyone. Whether it was five minutes or five decades is beside the point.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But not based on works. Evidence may or may not be present depending on the situation, like with the thief on the cross.Sam LowryYou're reading in an awful lot. There's no reason to assume he deviously altered the meaning of the word in the middle of a verse, much less that that's the "key" to understanding it. said:Evidenced in works, I might add.Quote:You'd really have to be unfaithful to Scripture to think that where it says "believe that" it means a belief only in facts and without faith.Quote:I'm not sure I understand your point. It says believe that...or you will die in your sins. Believe that...and the Father is your friend. Believe that...and you will find life in his name. Obviously those are synonymous with salvation. If you're arguing otherwise, then with all due respect I'd say that's just a whole other level of stubbornness.Quote:That IS the "stubbornly literal way" to read it, isn't it? Never does it literally say "believe THAT.... and you are saved".Quote:It does if one reads it in the stubbornly literal way that you tend to do. You take one verse as proof that works don't matter, but you're happy to read in the concept of faith if it supports your beliefs. This is completely arbitrary. The works verses are just as much a part of the context.Quote:No, they don't necessarily. You're making it so they do. "Believe that...or you will die in your sins" is not the same thing. And "Believe that....and by believing have life in his name" (actual verse) is not the same thing as "believe that.... and by believing that have life in his name" (what you're saying it means).Quote:Sure they do.Quote:We know that Jesus said repeatedly that faith in him is what saves. Those two verses you referenced say that as well, if you would just let them. They are not proof-texts of the contrary. They don't even say "believe that... and you will be saved".Quote:They do entail a belief with faith. There's just nothing in those verses that says so. My point is that anyone can play the proof-texting game. That's why we need context, tradition, and history to tell us what Christ's followers actually believed.Quote:
There's no deviousness, otherwise he would have just said "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ and by believing that have life in his name."
There's no reason to assume the "believe thats" you're referencing don't entail a belief with faith.
And never have I said that "works don't matter". I've said what the bible repeatedly teaches, that works don't save, faith does. It isn't just one verse.
But we can disagree all day. It's almost as if we need an authoritative tradition to help us discern what Christians have historically believed.
We don't need an authoritative tradition when we have the authoritative written word. If the Holy Spirit does not make Scripture perspicuous for the "priesthood of all believers", then it certainly won't be so for man-appointed priests in a Christianity that compromised with pagan Rome.
Seriously, how trustworthy can a tradition that led to Marian idolatry and heresy be, anyway?
The idea that the thief's walk, or the woman at the well's walk, was better or different from other Christians is an interesting one. Unscriptural, but interesting.
Respectfully, I think some might say you are grasping at straws to try and justify Catholic dogma that has been proven inconsistent with scripture.
Sorry you're right.
Again, for us that is the gift of hindsight. And as pointed out since there are plenty of former God-loving pastors and priests out there, it's not a hypothetical.Mothra said:90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Perhaps they deceived themselves, certainly. But Christ is clear it wasn't a true conversion.
I'm just curious, what is the point of your comments? Do you believe that this hypothetical somehow supports a workspace face or lost salvation?
If these former once God-loving people can choose to turn their backs on their once strong faith, can't any of us?
90sBear said:Again, for us that is the gift of hindsight. And as pointed out since there are plenty of former God-loving pastors and priests out there, it's not a hypothetical.Mothra said:90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Perhaps they deceived themselves, certainly. But Christ is clear it wasn't a true conversion.
I'm just curious, what is the point of your comments? Do you believe that this hypothetical somehow supports a workspace face or lost salvation?
If these former once God-loving people can choose to turn their backs on their once strong faith, can't any of us?
Indeed it is the gift of hindsight, which is why we may not know who is saved until the day of judgment. Christ himself suggested we may be surprised by whose name is not written in the book of life.
But again, my question: What is your point?
But it isn't relevant with regard to salvation. I think Paul would agree.Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Reconciliation and salvation are effectively the same thing, because everyone who is reconciled is saved. There isn't anyone who is reconciled but NOT saved, and there isn't anyone who is saved but NOT reconciled. The distinction isn't really relevant.
The distinction was relevant enough for Saint Paul to make it and for it to be recorded in scripture. Along with a whole host of other verses that contradict your transactional theology such as names being blotted out of the Book of LIfe, which has been discussed in the How to Get to Heaven Thread.
Your theology is just as "transactional" - you just make the transaction occur at the end of someone's life.
As mentioned, Scripture only has Jesus saying that he would never blot out certain people's names in the Book of Life. It doesn't have him actually blotting it out for others. That is your inference. But even if it were true that God blots out names, it could be that EVERYONE who is born starts out with their name in the Book, and then it gets blotted out when they didn't put their faith in Jesus. Jesus is telling those peope in Revelation that he will "never blot out" their names in order to give them complete assurance of their salvation.
It's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It'd be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place.90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
I'm honestly asking your opinion.Mothra said:90sBear said:Again, for us that is the gift of hindsight. And as pointed out since there are plenty of former God-loving pastors and priests out there, it's not a hypothetical.Mothra said:90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Perhaps they deceived themselves, certainly. But Christ is clear it wasn't a true conversion.
I'm just curious, what is the point of your comments? Do you believe that this hypothetical somehow supports a workspace face or lost salvation?
If these former once God-loving people can choose to turn their backs on their once strong faith, can't any of us?
Indeed it is the gift of hindsight, which is why we may not know who is saved until the day of judgment. Christ himself suggested we may be surprised by whose name is not written in the book of life.
But again, my question: What is your point?
So to make sure I have got it right, IYO not one of us knows for certain we are saved (I would agree with this) until the day of judgment.
So in your opinion do we have the freedom to change our mind about God's existence and whether or not Jesus died for our sins?
So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place.90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
It's not that they now can not see it, they're saying they don't believe in it's existence. It means they never saw it. If you've seen it, you've seen it, and there's no way you can NOT believe in it.90sBear said:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place.90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
90sBear said:I'm honestly asking your opinion.Mothra said:90sBear said:Again, for us that is the gift of hindsight. And as pointed out since there are plenty of former God-loving pastors and priests out there, it's not a hypothetical.Mothra said:90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Perhaps they deceived themselves, certainly. But Christ is clear it wasn't a true conversion.
I'm just curious, what is the point of your comments? Do you believe that this hypothetical somehow supports a workspace face or lost salvation?
If these former once God-loving people can choose to turn their backs on their once strong faith, can't any of us?
Indeed it is the gift of hindsight, which is why we may not know who is saved until the day of judgment. Christ himself suggested we may be surprised by whose name is not written in the book of life.
But again, my question: What is your point?
So to make sure I have got it right, IYO not one of us knows for certain we are saved (I would agree with this) until the day of judgment.
So in your opinion do we have the freedom to change our mind about God's existence and whether or not Jesus died for our sins?
Incorrect. I think busy states it well. Once you are saved - there is no going back. There might be some who think they're saved who are fooling themselves - like the seed sewn in shallow soil. Adversity hits and they fall away from the faith.
Gotcha.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's not that they now can not see it, they're saying they don't believe in it's existence. It means they never saw it. If you've seen it, you've seen it, and there's no way you can NOT believe in it.90sBear said:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place.90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
But again, many have said they believed, and now they don't.
I understand you are saying that obviously (with the gift of hindsight) they didn't actually see red. But had you asked them earlier they would have clearly reported all the symptoms of someone who had seen red.
90sBear said:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place.90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
I've always found the works-based faith of Catholics that your post alludes to tragic. The idea that you must continually work and strive in the hope of attaining salvation that you can never be certain about is depressing. As in the example I posted above, for a person who has experienced Christ's grace and lived a life for him only to be derailed by a last minute sinful thought before death which will condemn him to an eternity in hell is depressing (in addition to being anti-biblical) to say the least.
Many SAID they believed.90sBear said:Gotcha.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's not that they now can not see it, they're saying they don't believe in it's existence. It means they never saw it. If you've seen it, you've seen it, and there's no way you can NOT believe in it.90sBear said:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place.90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
But again, many have said they believed, and now they don't.
I understand you are saying that obviously (with the gift of hindsight) they didn't actually see red. But had you asked them earlier they would have clearly reported all the symptoms of someone who had seen red.
Just because they reported seeing red, doesn't mean they did. If they are now saying they don't believe in it, it's evident they never saw it. Because if they did, they couldn't deny it. Ask yourself - can you, having experienced color, ever deny that it exists? There's no hindsight involved here.