A Prayer Of Salvation

92,221 Views | 1082 Replies | Last: 13 hrs ago by Doc Holliday
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Reminder: Salvation and faith are not a one-time event; they are a lifelong journey.

Faithfulness to God is like fidelity in a marriage, it requires daily commitment. Salvation isn't a simple "true or false" question.

Our behavior matters, and we never lose our free will. Ultimately, salvation means saying "yes" to grace, which requires our active cooperation and personal effort. This isn't to say that works save us. Rather, works are a reflection of a transformed heart and Christ working within us. But even that requires a willingness on our part to actively cooperate with God's grace.

Yeah that sounds a lot harder than the current hyper assurance model of salvation. I get it. But this is Christ we're talking about. This is a marriage. You are told that it's the narrow path, that is EXTREMELY difficult to follow Christ, to pick p your cross, that you will be hated and despised.

Here is the key text (from John 15:2 and 15:6):
Quote:

"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit... If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."

You cannot be cut away from a vine you were never attached to. You cannot wither if you were never drawing sap from the root. Jesus is speaking directly to the disciples, to people who are genuinely, currently "in Him." This shatters the idea that salvation is just a passive, automated safety net. A branch doesn't stay alive simply because it had a good attachment point on day one; it stays alive by abiding, by continuously drawing life, cooperating with the vine, and producing fruit: all dependent on your willpower, cooperation and saying "yes" to grace. You're not totally depraved to the point where you can't do this.

Salvation IS like a marriage. But you got the analogy all wrong.

Marriage IS a one-time event. From that point you are married until death do you part. Your marriage is not contingent upon the merit or performance of your spouse. Marriage is NOT where the wife/husband can never really be sure their whole life if they're doing well enough to be your spouse, and so they worry and they fear. That may be the way our society today does marriage, but it's not God's way - "what God has joined, let no man separate". There is no real union if there is no assurance in marriage, and without assurance there is no peace.

Salvation is also like adoption (Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:4-5). When we believe, we are adopted as sons/daughters into God's family. If you sign the papers to adopt a child - the adoption is a one-time event. That child is now your son/daughter for life, no matter their merit or performance. Their sonship/daughtership is NOT contingent upon whether they "cooperated" enough with you. Imagine how your adopted child would feel if they never can be safe and secure that they'll always have you as a parent, because they might not "cooperate" well enough. Which one of us would want that child to KNOW that you love them as your own, and that they are you son/daughter forever, and to be 100% secure and never doubt? Who here, rather, would tell their adopted child that if they they're not measuring up to your standards, that they're not your child anymore? Anyone? Raise your hand.

Well, if you wouldn't do that, certainly God wouldn't. He wants to give his children complete assurance: "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life."

When you believe, you are saved and SEALED by the Holy Spirit as a GUARANTEE for salvation:

"In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory." - Ephesians 1:11-14

Jesus said God's will is that he should lose NONE that are given to Jesus (John 6:39)

In the Roman Catholic and Orthodox systems, you are the wife who lives in constant fear that your husband will end your marriage and leave you without a husband. You are the adopted child who is always in fear that your adoptive parents will reject you and you will be an orphan again. Because it was you who failed to keep them happy. But God says you are joined to Jesus by your faith, and you belong to him forever. And he says "let man not separate" what he has joined. But this is exactly what RC and Orthodoxy try to do - by inserting their institutions and man-made rules in between you and Jesus, placing obstacles in between you just like how the Pharisees did, and declaring they have the authority to separate you from Jesus if you don't follow them. Open your eyes and see how false this is. Keep your eyes on Jesus and what HE did on the cross and on HIS righteousness that he freely imputes to you, which you receive by faith alone, rather than on your own ability to be righteous. You have free will - the free will to obey God and do good works, simply because you love God and want to please him, and you love others as yourself. Not because you're afraid you'll be punished with loss of salvation. The former is what real sons do. The latter is what slaves do.

"For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" - Romans 8:15

Marriage being a one-time event with zero ongoing contingency… I guess you can cheat on your wife and it doesn't actually count as anything since the bond can't be touched either way? Malachi literally calls covenant unfaithfulness a betrayal of the marriage bond, and the entire book of Hosea only exists because a covenant spouse CAN cheat on the covenant. Kind of an important detail to skip. "Let no man separate" is about outside parties breaking up a marriage, not about whether a spouse can bail from the inside through their own unfaithfulness. Run the marriage analogy through the whole Bible instead of just Matthew 19 and it already looks exactly like what I said: real fidelity required, real betrayal possible, real restoration offered. Didn't import that. The prophets did.

Same issue with adoption. Romans 8 calls us adopted sons, sure, but it's also the same chapter that says we're heirs IF we suffer with him, present tense, ongoing. Paul didn't forget he wrote John 15 by the time he got to Romans 8. You don't get to keep the metaphor that flatters your system and drop the one that doesn't. Both are his. Both stay.

Ephesians 1 and the seal, I'll take that one head on. A down payment guarantees the guy paying WILL follow through, that's God being faithful to His own promise. But "God's faithful to His side" and "your participation doesn't matter and is automatic" are not the same sentence. The verse gets you the first one. It never said the second.

John 6:39, none lost that are given to the Son, totally fine, doesn't dent my view at all. Tells you God's intent toward those given. Doesn't tell you who counts as given, or whether sticking with Him is how that giving plays out. You're sneaking in an assumption.

Your version, where nothing can ever count as betrayal because the bond is bulletproof no matter what you do, that's the version that makes love meaningless, not mine. Being afraid to hurt someone you love isn't slave fear. That's just love that actually means something.

Your Old Testament examples only serve to further the analogy between the one-time event of marriage and salvation. Certainly the actions of a spouse can profane the marriage covenant - but by law and in God's eyes, they are still married. They remain married unless the husband divorces his wife. But in Malachi, that is exactly what God is angry about. He was angry that the Israelite men were divorcing their wives in order to be with foreign women. God was telling them NOT to divorce, but to remain with their wives. Likewise, in Hosea, God not only told Hosea NOT to divorce his unfaithful wife, but to actually buy her back from those who took her, and keep her as his wife, despite her treacherous infidelity. These two are perfect examples of God viewing marriage as a covenant union which is not to be broken despite the failings of the spouses.

In Romans 8, Paul is NOT saying that we are required to suffer with Jesus in order to be adopted sons. That's a misreading. In verse 14, he clearly and explicitly states that we are sons if we are led by the Spirit of God (v. 14). He is not saying our sonship is contingent upon our suffering with Jesus. He is saying, rather, that AS sons already, what's contingent upon our suffering with Jesus is our heirship to the same glorification of Jesus, NOT our sonship. Translating that into our real-world example, as an adopted son, you are always a member of the family and a son to your adoptive father no matter what - however, you may be required to demonstrate merit in your life for your father to leave you a big part of his estate in his will. This is salvation vs. rewards.

In your Ephesians 1:13 rebuttal, you still have a situation where the "down payment" is a GUARANTEE. Meaning that no, this guarantee is NOT affected by anything you do on your part. No one is saying that what you do on your part "doesn't matter" or is "meaningless", though. "Meaningless/doesn't matter" and "required for salvation" are NOT the same thing. You're attempting a straw man. Yes, you can affect the rewards you're given (see above) as a result of what you do on your part, so it's not meaningless and it definitely does matter - but as far as what God has promised as a GUARANTEE, you can't affect that. You're trying your best (clumsily) to argue away God's guarantee, but you just can't.

John 6:39 DOES deny your view, if your view is that someone can be a true believer, but lose their salvation.
Scripture elsewhere tells us that ALL who are called to become true believers are not ever lost, but all are destined to completion towards glorification:

"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." - Romans 8:29-30

Your last paragraph just completely misses the whole point about sons vs slaves and is also a complete straw man. My argument has NEVER been that "nothing can ever count as betrayal". Never did I say that the bond is "bulletproof" to where one's actions won't hurt the relationship, either. As adopted sons of God through Jesus, yes, we CAN hurt our relationship with our Father by our actions (and inactions). But our sonship is not lost, if we are true sons. If we are slaves, however, then we would have something to fear in terms of losing our position. As true sons, we do good in order to please God because we love him, not out of fear we might lose something. That doesn't make love "meaningless" at all, that makes love exactly the kind of love that God truly wants - our freely given love. Not a love that is given out of fear.

Tell me right now - would you adopt a son, and tell him that if doesn't measure up (he must "cooperate" well enough), you will rescind your adoption and he will be an orphan again?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Reminder: Salvation and faith are not a one-time event; they are a lifelong journey.

Faithfulness to God is like fidelity in a marriage, it requires daily commitment. Salvation isn't a simple "true or false" question.

Our behavior matters, and we never lose our free will. Ultimately, salvation means saying "yes" to grace, which requires our active cooperation and personal effort. This isn't to say that works save us. Rather, works are a reflection of a transformed heart and Christ working within us. But even that requires a willingness on our part to actively cooperate with God's grace.

Yeah that sounds a lot harder than the current hyper assurance model of salvation. I get it. But this is Christ we're talking about. This is a marriage. You are told that it's the narrow path, that is EXTREMELY difficult to follow Christ, to pick p your cross, that you will be hated and despised.

Here is the key text (from John 15:2 and 15:6):
Quote:

"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit... If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."

You cannot be cut away from a vine you were never attached to. You cannot wither if you were never drawing sap from the root. Jesus is speaking directly to the disciples, to people who are genuinely, currently "in Him." This shatters the idea that salvation is just a passive, automated safety net. A branch doesn't stay alive simply because it had a good attachment point on day one; it stays alive by abiding, by continuously drawing life, cooperating with the vine, and producing fruit: all dependent on your willpower, cooperation and saying "yes" to grace. You're not totally depraved to the point where you can't do this.

Salvation IS like a marriage. But you got the analogy all wrong.

Marriage IS a one-time event. From that point you are married until death do you part. Your marriage is not contingent upon the merit or performance of your spouse. Marriage is NOT where the wife/husband can never really be sure their whole life if they're doing well enough to be your spouse, and so they worry and they fear. That may be the way our society today does marriage, but it's not God's way - "what God has joined, let no man separate". There is no real union if there is no assurance in marriage, and without assurance there is no peace.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if marriage is analogous to OSAS then one would have to say that fidelity isn't actually required. It's just that infidelity means you were never married to begin with.

Once married, fidelity is not required for the marriage to exist. It still exists in spite of it. It's obviously very damaging to the relationship, but it does not nullify it, neither legally nor in God's eyes.

No, infidelity does NOT mean you were never married to begin with. By definition it means that you were. It can't be "infidelity" if you were never married to begin with. So the one who "thought" they were a Christian but they leave and never come back, was never "married" in the first place, so they aren't guilty of "infidelity".
J.J.Crockett
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The woman is a blessing. Lean not towards your own understanding.
xfrodobagginsx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Agreed
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Reminder: Salvation and faith are not a one-time event; they are a lifelong journey.

Faithfulness to God is like fidelity in a marriage, it requires daily commitment. Salvation isn't a simple "true or false" question.

Our behavior matters, and we never lose our free will. Ultimately, salvation means saying "yes" to grace, which requires our active cooperation and personal effort. This isn't to say that works save us. Rather, works are a reflection of a transformed heart and Christ working within us. But even that requires a willingness on our part to actively cooperate with God's grace.

Yeah that sounds a lot harder than the current hyper assurance model of salvation. I get it. But this is Christ we're talking about. This is a marriage. You are told that it's the narrow path, that is EXTREMELY difficult to follow Christ, to pick p your cross, that you will be hated and despised.

Here is the key text (from John 15:2 and 15:6):
Quote:

"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit... If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."

You cannot be cut away from a vine you were never attached to. You cannot wither if you were never drawing sap from the root. Jesus is speaking directly to the disciples, to people who are genuinely, currently "in Him." This shatters the idea that salvation is just a passive, automated safety net. A branch doesn't stay alive simply because it had a good attachment point on day one; it stays alive by abiding, by continuously drawing life, cooperating with the vine, and producing fruit: all dependent on your willpower, cooperation and saying "yes" to grace. You're not totally depraved to the point where you can't do this.

Salvation IS like a marriage. But you got the analogy all wrong.

Marriage IS a one-time event. From that point you are married until death do you part. Your marriage is not contingent upon the merit or performance of your spouse. Marriage is NOT where the wife/husband can never really be sure their whole life if they're doing well enough to be your spouse, and so they worry and they fear. That may be the way our society today does marriage, but it's not God's way - "what God has joined, let no man separate". There is no real union if there is no assurance in marriage, and without assurance there is no peace.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if marriage is analogous to OSAS then one would have to say that fidelity isn't actually required. It's just that infidelity means you were never married to begin with.

Once married, fidelity is not required for the marriage to exist. It still exists in spite of it. It's obviously very damaging to the relationship, but it does not nullify it, neither legally nor in God's eyes.

No, infidelity does NOT mean you were never married to begin with. By definition it means that you were. It can't be "infidelity" if you were never married to begin with. So the one who "thought" they were a Christian but they leave and never come back, was never "married" in the first place, so they aren't guilty of "infidelity".
If a husband cheats on his wife, does he legally cease to be her husband on paper? No. But is the relationship broken, dead, and in jeopardy of divorce? Absolutely. Your view turns salvation into a legal contract, but God frames it as a covenant relationship. Relationships require mutual faithfulness.

You seem to be a monergist. Do you think sanctification is 100% passive with zero human involvement or cooperation with God? How do you even deal with sin?

I don't think you understand what we mean by works. There's two types of works:

1. Meritorious works: actions that earn or purchase a status, performed to establish a legal claim on God independent of grace. This is what Paul is actually attacking in Romans/Galatians: works of Torah-observance as a badge of covenant membership, or any "I did X, therefore God owes me Y" transaction.

2. Synergistic works: prayer, repentance, fasting, almsgiving, watchfulness, seeking God: which aren't payments but the form that a living relationship with God takes. These are how grace-enabled love and trust express themselves, not like a currency you hand over to purchase standing. This type of work still requires free will effort and without it, your faith is dead.

2 Peter 1:10 ("be all the more diligent to make your call and election sure") and Philippians 2:12-13 ("work out your own salvation… for it is God who works in you"): both these verses are holding human effort and divine enabling together.

Colossians 1:22-23: "...to present you holy and blameless... if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel."

Hebrews 3:14: "For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end."

Romans 11:22: "Consider then the kindness and severity of God... kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off."

John 15:4: "Abide in me, and I in you." This is synergism. Jesus doesn't say "I will force you to abide." It is an active command to the believer to remain attached to the source of grace.

He tells the Church in Ephesus to repent or He will remove their lampstand (Rev 2:5). He tells the Church in Laodicea that because they are lukewarm (lack of effort/fruit), He is about to spit them out of His mouth (Rev 3:16).
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Guys, don't confuse getting into a relationship with staying in a relationship. I agree we cannot earn our way in (no meritorious works). But the New Testament leaves no room for a faith that demands zero cooperation. If a faith doesn't alter your behavior and require your free-will diligence to 'abide,' Jesus says that branch gets cut off and burned. True grace empowers effort, it doesn't excuse passivity.

When you remove human agency and cooperation from the equation, you end up with a passive spirituality where people just wait around for God to "magically" zap away their flaws.
If they lose their temper, a Hyper-Grace mindset might say, "Well, my anger is already forgiven in the future, and God sees me as perfectly righteous anyway, so it doesn't affect my standing".

God provides the "new self" (grace), but we have to actively "put it on" and "put off" the old habits. Paul explicitly tells us to manage our anger before sundown so we don't give the devil a foothold. If God did this all automatically or if our behavior didn't matter, Paul's warnings about "giving opportunity to the devil" would be completely empty.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Reminder: Salvation and faith are not a one-time event; they are a lifelong journey.

Faithfulness to God is like fidelity in a marriage, it requires daily commitment. Salvation isn't a simple "true or false" question.

Our behavior matters, and we never lose our free will. Ultimately, salvation means saying "yes" to grace, which requires our active cooperation and personal effort. This isn't to say that works save us. Rather, works are a reflection of a transformed heart and Christ working within us. But even that requires a willingness on our part to actively cooperate with God's grace.

Yeah that sounds a lot harder than the current hyper assurance model of salvation. I get it. But this is Christ we're talking about. This is a marriage. You are told that it's the narrow path, that is EXTREMELY difficult to follow Christ, to pick p your cross, that you will be hated and despised.

Here is the key text (from John 15:2 and 15:6):
Quote:

"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit... If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."

You cannot be cut away from a vine you were never attached to. You cannot wither if you were never drawing sap from the root. Jesus is speaking directly to the disciples, to people who are genuinely, currently "in Him." This shatters the idea that salvation is just a passive, automated safety net. A branch doesn't stay alive simply because it had a good attachment point on day one; it stays alive by abiding, by continuously drawing life, cooperating with the vine, and producing fruit: all dependent on your willpower, cooperation and saying "yes" to grace. You're not totally depraved to the point where you can't do this.

Salvation IS like a marriage. But you got the analogy all wrong.

Marriage IS a one-time event. From that point you are married until death do you part. Your marriage is not contingent upon the merit or performance of your spouse. Marriage is NOT where the wife/husband can never really be sure their whole life if they're doing well enough to be your spouse, and so they worry and they fear. That may be the way our society today does marriage, but it's not God's way - "what God has joined, let no man separate". There is no real union if there is no assurance in marriage, and without assurance there is no peace.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if marriage is analogous to OSAS then one would have to say that fidelity isn't actually required. It's just that infidelity means you were never married to begin with.

Once married, fidelity is not required for the marriage to exist. It still exists in spite of it. It's obviously very damaging to the relationship, but it does not nullify it, neither legally nor in God's eyes.

No, infidelity does NOT mean you were never married to begin with. By definition it means that you were. It can't be "infidelity" if you were never married to begin with. So the one who "thought" they were a Christian but they leave and never come back, was never "married" in the first place, so they aren't guilty of "infidelity".

If a husband cheats on his wife, does he legally cease to be her husband on paper? No. But is the relationship broken, dead, and in jeopardy of divorce? Absolutely. Your view turns salvation into a legal contract, but God frames it as a covenant relationship. Relationships require mutual faithfulness.

You seem to be a monergist. Do you think sanctification is 100% passive with zero human involvement or cooperation with God? How do you even deal with sin?

I don't think you understand what we mean by works. There's two types of works:

1. Meritorious works: actions that earn or purchase a status, performed to establish a legal claim on God independent of grace. This is what Paul is actually attacking in Romans/Galatians: works of Torah-observance as a badge of covenant membership, or any "I did X, therefore God owes me Y" transaction.

2. Synergistic works: prayer, repentance, fasting, almsgiving, watchfulness, seeking God: which aren't payments but the form that a living relationship with God takes. These are how grace-enabled love and trust express themselves, not like a currency you hand over to purchase standing. This type of work still requires free will effort and without it, your faith is dead.

2 Peter 1:10 ("be all the more diligent to make your call and election sure") and Philippians 2:12-13 ("work out your own salvation… for it is God who works in you"): both these verses are holding human effort and divine enabling together.

Colossians 1:22-23: "...to present you holy and blameless... if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel."

Hebrews 3:14: "For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end."

Romans 11:22: "Consider then the kindness and severity of God... kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off."

John 15:4: "Abide in me, and I in you." This is synergism. Jesus doesn't say "I will force you to abide." It is an active command to the believer to remain attached to the source of grace.

He tells the Church in Ephesus to repent or He will remove their lampstand (Rev 2:5). He tells the Church in Laodicea that because they are lukewarm (lack of effort/fruit), He is about to spit them out of His mouth (Rev 3:16).

So then tell me - at what point has someone who truly believes in Jesus and trusts him in his heart for their salvation (which Scripture says justifies us)"cooperated" enough in order to be saved? What's the cutoff point?

According to your view, you can't ever know. You go to your grave never knowing. And that directly contradicts God's clear word that we CAN know. And that's why your view always fails. And why it can never can give true peace. Your view diverts the believer away from complete trust in the finished work of Jesus and places the focus on one's own achievement. It is a rejection of the true gospel in favor of a man-manipulated gospel that puts stumbling blocks in front of people and puts the fear of slaves in believers' hearts toward their master, not the love of adopted sons towards their Father.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Reminder: Salvation and faith are not a one-time event; they are a lifelong journey.

Faithfulness to God is like fidelity in a marriage, it requires daily commitment. Salvation isn't a simple "true or false" question.

Our behavior matters, and we never lose our free will. Ultimately, salvation means saying "yes" to grace, which requires our active cooperation and personal effort. This isn't to say that works save us. Rather, works are a reflection of a transformed heart and Christ working within us. But even that requires a willingness on our part to actively cooperate with God's grace.

Yeah that sounds a lot harder than the current hyper assurance model of salvation. I get it. But this is Christ we're talking about. This is a marriage. You are told that it's the narrow path, that is EXTREMELY difficult to follow Christ, to pick p your cross, that you will be hated and despised.

Here is the key text (from John 15:2 and 15:6):
Quote:

"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit... If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."

You cannot be cut away from a vine you were never attached to. You cannot wither if you were never drawing sap from the root. Jesus is speaking directly to the disciples, to people who are genuinely, currently "in Him." This shatters the idea that salvation is just a passive, automated safety net. A branch doesn't stay alive simply because it had a good attachment point on day one; it stays alive by abiding, by continuously drawing life, cooperating with the vine, and producing fruit: all dependent on your willpower, cooperation and saying "yes" to grace. You're not totally depraved to the point where you can't do this.

Salvation IS like a marriage. But you got the analogy all wrong.

Marriage IS a one-time event. From that point you are married until death do you part. Your marriage is not contingent upon the merit or performance of your spouse. Marriage is NOT where the wife/husband can never really be sure their whole life if they're doing well enough to be your spouse, and so they worry and they fear. That may be the way our society today does marriage, but it's not God's way - "what God has joined, let no man separate". There is no real union if there is no assurance in marriage, and without assurance there is no peace.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if marriage is analogous to OSAS then one would have to say that fidelity isn't actually required. It's just that infidelity means you were never married to begin with.

Once married, fidelity is not required for the marriage to exist. It still exists in spite of it. It's obviously very damaging to the relationship, but it does not nullify it, neither legally nor in God's eyes.

No, infidelity does NOT mean you were never married to begin with. By definition it means that you were. It can't be "infidelity" if you were never married to begin with. So the one who "thought" they were a Christian but they leave and never come back, was never "married" in the first place, so they aren't guilty of "infidelity".

If a husband cheats on his wife, does he legally cease to be her husband on paper? No. But is the relationship broken, dead, and in jeopardy of divorce? Absolutely. Your view turns salvation into a legal contract, but God frames it as a covenant relationship. Relationships require mutual faithfulness.

You seem to be a monergist. Do you think sanctification is 100% passive with zero human involvement or cooperation with God? How do you even deal with sin?

I don't think you understand what we mean by works. There's two types of works:

1. Meritorious works: actions that earn or purchase a status, performed to establish a legal claim on God independent of grace. This is what Paul is actually attacking in Romans/Galatians: works of Torah-observance as a badge of covenant membership, or any "I did X, therefore God owes me Y" transaction.

2. Synergistic works: prayer, repentance, fasting, almsgiving, watchfulness, seeking God: which aren't payments but the form that a living relationship with God takes. These are how grace-enabled love and trust express themselves, not like a currency you hand over to purchase standing. This type of work still requires free will effort and without it, your faith is dead.

2 Peter 1:10 ("be all the more diligent to make your call and election sure") and Philippians 2:12-13 ("work out your own salvation… for it is God who works in you"): both these verses are holding human effort and divine enabling together.

Colossians 1:22-23: "...to present you holy and blameless... if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel."

Hebrews 3:14: "For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end."

Romans 11:22: "Consider then the kindness and severity of God... kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off."

John 15:4: "Abide in me, and I in you." This is synergism. Jesus doesn't say "I will force you to abide." It is an active command to the believer to remain attached to the source of grace.

He tells the Church in Ephesus to repent or He will remove their lampstand (Rev 2:5). He tells the Church in Laodicea that because they are lukewarm (lack of effort/fruit), He is about to spit them out of His mouth (Rev 3:16).

So then tell me - at what point has someone who truly believes in Jesus and trusts him in his heart for their salvation (which Scripture says justifies us)"cooperated" enough in order to be saved? What's the cutoff point?

According to your view, you can't ever know. You go to your grave never knowing. And that directly contradicts God's clear word that we CAN know. And that's why your view always fails. And why it can never can give true peace. Your view diverts the believer away from complete trust in the finished work of Jesus and places the focus on one's own achievement. It is a rejection of the true gospel in favor of a man-manipulated gospel that puts stumbling blocks in front of people and puts the fear of slaves in believers' hearts toward their master, not the love of adopted sons towards their Father.
Notice what you keep asking me: 'how do I know I'm in,' 'what's the cutoff,' 'how can I have peace about my status.' Every question is about confirming a destination, not living a life.

I'm not primarily asking 'am I going to heaven', I'm asking 'am I becoming more like Christ, today, right now.' Theosis is the goal: assurance is what flows out of that pursuit when it's genuine, not something you extract directly by getting your doctrine of justification airtight. You've built an entire soteriology around solving for peace of mind.

2 Peter 1:5-11 is the perfect text here: it commands effort ("make every effort to add to your faith virtue…") as the means by which assurance is secured ("be all the more diligent to make your call and election sure"), and warns that neglecting this growth leaves someone "blind" and having "forgotten" their cleansing from past sins (v9). Peter doesn't say "your status is settled, stop worrying about growth." He says growth is how you avoid being blind to your own standing. Your forensic-only model has it backwards: it wants the verdict without the becoming, when Scripture ties the two together as one.

What do you actually think salvation is for? If it's just a ticket out of hell, your obsession with the cutoff makes total sense. But if it's becoming like Christ, partaking of the divine nature, as Peter says…then you're asking the wrong question entirely,
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Reminder: Salvation and faith are not a one-time event; they are a lifelong journey.

Faithfulness to God is like fidelity in a marriage, it requires daily commitment. Salvation isn't a simple "true or false" question.

Our behavior matters, and we never lose our free will. Ultimately, salvation means saying "yes" to grace, which requires our active cooperation and personal effort. This isn't to say that works save us. Rather, works are a reflection of a transformed heart and Christ working within us. But even that requires a willingness on our part to actively cooperate with God's grace.

Yeah that sounds a lot harder than the current hyper assurance model of salvation. I get it. But this is Christ we're talking about. This is a marriage. You are told that it's the narrow path, that is EXTREMELY difficult to follow Christ, to pick p your cross, that you will be hated and despised.

Here is the key text (from John 15:2 and 15:6):
Quote:

"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit... If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."

You cannot be cut away from a vine you were never attached to. You cannot wither if you were never drawing sap from the root. Jesus is speaking directly to the disciples, to people who are genuinely, currently "in Him." This shatters the idea that salvation is just a passive, automated safety net. A branch doesn't stay alive simply because it had a good attachment point on day one; it stays alive by abiding, by continuously drawing life, cooperating with the vine, and producing fruit: all dependent on your willpower, cooperation and saying "yes" to grace. You're not totally depraved to the point where you can't do this.

Salvation IS like a marriage. But you got the analogy all wrong.

Marriage IS a one-time event. From that point you are married until death do you part. Your marriage is not contingent upon the merit or performance of your spouse. Marriage is NOT where the wife/husband can never really be sure their whole life if they're doing well enough to be your spouse, and so they worry and they fear. That may be the way our society today does marriage, but it's not God's way - "what God has joined, let no man separate". There is no real union if there is no assurance in marriage, and without assurance there is no peace.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if marriage is analogous to OSAS then one would have to say that fidelity isn't actually required. It's just that infidelity means you were never married to begin with.

Once married, fidelity is not required for the marriage to exist. It still exists in spite of it. It's obviously very damaging to the relationship, but it does not nullify it, neither legally nor in God's eyes.

No, infidelity does NOT mean you were never married to begin with. By definition it means that you were. It can't be "infidelity" if you were never married to begin with. So the one who "thought" they were a Christian but they leave and never come back, was never "married" in the first place, so they aren't guilty of "infidelity".

If a husband cheats on his wife, does he legally cease to be her husband on paper? No. But is the relationship broken, dead, and in jeopardy of divorce? Absolutely. Your view turns salvation into a legal contract, but God frames it as a covenant relationship. Relationships require mutual faithfulness.

You seem to be a monergist. Do you think sanctification is 100% passive with zero human involvement or cooperation with God? How do you even deal with sin?

I don't think you understand what we mean by works. There's two types of works:

1. Meritorious works: actions that earn or purchase a status, performed to establish a legal claim on God independent of grace. This is what Paul is actually attacking in Romans/Galatians: works of Torah-observance as a badge of covenant membership, or any "I did X, therefore God owes me Y" transaction.

2. Synergistic works: prayer, repentance, fasting, almsgiving, watchfulness, seeking God: which aren't payments but the form that a living relationship with God takes. These are how grace-enabled love and trust express themselves, not like a currency you hand over to purchase standing. This type of work still requires free will effort and without it, your faith is dead.

2 Peter 1:10 ("be all the more diligent to make your call and election sure") and Philippians 2:12-13 ("work out your own salvation… for it is God who works in you"): both these verses are holding human effort and divine enabling together.

Colossians 1:22-23: "...to present you holy and blameless... if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel."

Hebrews 3:14: "For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end."

Romans 11:22: "Consider then the kindness and severity of God... kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off."

John 15:4: "Abide in me, and I in you." This is synergism. Jesus doesn't say "I will force you to abide." It is an active command to the believer to remain attached to the source of grace.

He tells the Church in Ephesus to repent or He will remove their lampstand (Rev 2:5). He tells the Church in Laodicea that because they are lukewarm (lack of effort/fruit), He is about to spit them out of His mouth (Rev 3:16).

So then tell me - at what point has someone who truly believes in Jesus and trusts him in his heart for their salvation (which Scripture says justifies us)"cooperated" enough in order to be saved? What's the cutoff point?

According to your view, you can't ever know. You go to your grave never knowing. And that directly contradicts God's clear word that we CAN know. And that's why your view always fails. And why it can never can give true peace. Your view diverts the believer away from complete trust in the finished work of Jesus and places the focus on one's own achievement. It is a rejection of the true gospel in favor of a man-manipulated gospel that puts stumbling blocks in front of people and puts the fear of slaves in believers' hearts toward their master, not the love of adopted sons towards their Father.

Notice what you keep asking me: 'how do I know I'm in,' 'what's the cutoff,' 'how can I have peace about my status.' Every question is about confirming a destination, not living a life.

I'm not primarily asking 'am I going to heaven', I'm asking 'am I becoming more like Christ, today, right now.' Theosis is the goal: assurance is what flows out of that pursuit when it's genuine, not something you extract directly by getting your doctrine of justification airtight. You've built an entire soteriology around solving for peace of mind.

2 Peter 1:5-11 is the perfect text here: it commands effort ("make every effort to add to your faith virtue…") as the means by which assurance is secured ("be all the more diligent to make your call and election sure"), and warns that neglecting this growth leaves someone "blind" and having "forgotten" their cleansing from past sins (v9). Peter doesn't say "your status is settled, stop worrying about growth." He says growth is how you avoid being blind to your own standing. Your forensic-only model has it backwards: it wants the verdict without the becoming, when Scripture ties the two together as one.

What do you actually think salvation is for? If it's just a ticket out of hell, your obsession with the cutoff makes total sense. But if it's becoming like Christ, partaking of the divine nature, as Peter says…then you're asking the wrong question entirely,


Your reference in 2 Peter does not make your case. Peter is even directly saying that we must make all that effort to CONFIRM our election, not to establish or maintain it. (verse 10). We can go into that later. For now, I want to point out that you still aren't answering the question. You're trying to escape it, but you aren't, because you can't. It's the fatal flaw in your Orthodox view (and the Roman Catholic view). The bottom line is that both your views are in direct contradiction with Scripture, while my (biblical) view is consistent with both the assurance that is taught in Scripture as well as what's said in 2 Peter.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Reminder: Salvation and faith are not a one-time event; they are a lifelong journey.

Faithfulness to God is like fidelity in a marriage, it requires daily commitment. Salvation isn't a simple "true or false" question.

Our behavior matters, and we never lose our free will. Ultimately, salvation means saying "yes" to grace, which requires our active cooperation and personal effort. This isn't to say that works save us. Rather, works are a reflection of a transformed heart and Christ working within us. But even that requires a willingness on our part to actively cooperate with God's grace.

Yeah that sounds a lot harder than the current hyper assurance model of salvation. I get it. But this is Christ we're talking about. This is a marriage. You are told that it's the narrow path, that is EXTREMELY difficult to follow Christ, to pick p your cross, that you will be hated and despised.

Here is the key text (from John 15:2 and 15:6):
Quote:

"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit... If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."

You cannot be cut away from a vine you were never attached to. You cannot wither if you were never drawing sap from the root. Jesus is speaking directly to the disciples, to people who are genuinely, currently "in Him." This shatters the idea that salvation is just a passive, automated safety net. A branch doesn't stay alive simply because it had a good attachment point on day one; it stays alive by abiding, by continuously drawing life, cooperating with the vine, and producing fruit: all dependent on your willpower, cooperation and saying "yes" to grace. You're not totally depraved to the point where you can't do this.

Salvation IS like a marriage. But you got the analogy all wrong.

Marriage IS a one-time event. From that point you are married until death do you part. Your marriage is not contingent upon the merit or performance of your spouse. Marriage is NOT where the wife/husband can never really be sure their whole life if they're doing well enough to be your spouse, and so they worry and they fear. That may be the way our society today does marriage, but it's not God's way - "what God has joined, let no man separate". There is no real union if there is no assurance in marriage, and without assurance there is no peace.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if marriage is analogous to OSAS then one would have to say that fidelity isn't actually required. It's just that infidelity means you were never married to begin with.

Once married, fidelity is not required for the marriage to exist. It still exists in spite of it. It's obviously very damaging to the relationship, but it does not nullify it, neither legally nor in God's eyes.

No, infidelity does NOT mean you were never married to begin with. By definition it means that you were. It can't be "infidelity" if you were never married to begin with. So the one who "thought" they were a Christian but they leave and never come back, was never "married" in the first place, so they aren't guilty of "infidelity".

If a husband cheats on his wife, does he legally cease to be her husband on paper? No. But is the relationship broken, dead, and in jeopardy of divorce? Absolutely. Your view turns salvation into a legal contract, but God frames it as a covenant relationship. Relationships require mutual faithfulness.

You seem to be a monergist. Do you think sanctification is 100% passive with zero human involvement or cooperation with God? How do you even deal with sin?

I don't think you understand what we mean by works. There's two types of works:

1. Meritorious works: actions that earn or purchase a status, performed to establish a legal claim on God independent of grace. This is what Paul is actually attacking in Romans/Galatians: works of Torah-observance as a badge of covenant membership, or any "I did X, therefore God owes me Y" transaction.

2. Synergistic works: prayer, repentance, fasting, almsgiving, watchfulness, seeking God: which aren't payments but the form that a living relationship with God takes. These are how grace-enabled love and trust express themselves, not like a currency you hand over to purchase standing. This type of work still requires free will effort and without it, your faith is dead.

2 Peter 1:10 ("be all the more diligent to make your call and election sure") and Philippians 2:12-13 ("work out your own salvation… for it is God who works in you"): both these verses are holding human effort and divine enabling together.

Colossians 1:22-23: "...to present you holy and blameless... if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel."

Hebrews 3:14: "For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end."

Romans 11:22: "Consider then the kindness and severity of God... kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off."

John 15:4: "Abide in me, and I in you." This is synergism. Jesus doesn't say "I will force you to abide." It is an active command to the believer to remain attached to the source of grace.

He tells the Church in Ephesus to repent or He will remove their lampstand (Rev 2:5). He tells the Church in Laodicea that because they are lukewarm (lack of effort/fruit), He is about to spit them out of His mouth (Rev 3:16).

So then tell me - at what point has someone who truly believes in Jesus and trusts him in his heart for their salvation (which Scripture says justifies us)"cooperated" enough in order to be saved? What's the cutoff point?

Death.

You're welcome.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Reminder: Salvation and faith are not a one-time event; they are a lifelong journey.

Faithfulness to God is like fidelity in a marriage, it requires daily commitment. Salvation isn't a simple "true or false" question.

Our behavior matters, and we never lose our free will. Ultimately, salvation means saying "yes" to grace, which requires our active cooperation and personal effort. This isn't to say that works save us. Rather, works are a reflection of a transformed heart and Christ working within us. But even that requires a willingness on our part to actively cooperate with God's grace.

Yeah that sounds a lot harder than the current hyper assurance model of salvation. I get it. But this is Christ we're talking about. This is a marriage. You are told that it's the narrow path, that is EXTREMELY difficult to follow Christ, to pick p your cross, that you will be hated and despised.

Here is the key text (from John 15:2 and 15:6):
Quote:

"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit... If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."

You cannot be cut away from a vine you were never attached to. You cannot wither if you were never drawing sap from the root. Jesus is speaking directly to the disciples, to people who are genuinely, currently "in Him." This shatters the idea that salvation is just a passive, automated safety net. A branch doesn't stay alive simply because it had a good attachment point on day one; it stays alive by abiding, by continuously drawing life, cooperating with the vine, and producing fruit: all dependent on your willpower, cooperation and saying "yes" to grace. You're not totally depraved to the point where you can't do this.

Salvation IS like a marriage. But you got the analogy all wrong.

Marriage IS a one-time event. From that point you are married until death do you part. Your marriage is not contingent upon the merit or performance of your spouse. Marriage is NOT where the wife/husband can never really be sure their whole life if they're doing well enough to be your spouse, and so they worry and they fear. That may be the way our society today does marriage, but it's not God's way - "what God has joined, let no man separate". There is no real union if there is no assurance in marriage, and without assurance there is no peace.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if marriage is analogous to OSAS then one would have to say that fidelity isn't actually required. It's just that infidelity means you were never married to begin with.

Once married, fidelity is not required for the marriage to exist. It still exists in spite of it. It's obviously very damaging to the relationship, but it does not nullify it, neither legally nor in God's eyes.

No, infidelity does NOT mean you were never married to begin with. By definition it means that you were. It can't be "infidelity" if you were never married to begin with. So the one who "thought" they were a Christian but they leave and never come back, was never "married" in the first place, so they aren't guilty of "infidelity".

If a husband cheats on his wife, does he legally cease to be her husband on paper? No. But is the relationship broken, dead, and in jeopardy of divorce? Absolutely. Your view turns salvation into a legal contract, but God frames it as a covenant relationship. Relationships require mutual faithfulness.

You seem to be a monergist. Do you think sanctification is 100% passive with zero human involvement or cooperation with God? How do you even deal with sin?

I don't think you understand what we mean by works. There's two types of works:

1. Meritorious works: actions that earn or purchase a status, performed to establish a legal claim on God independent of grace. This is what Paul is actually attacking in Romans/Galatians: works of Torah-observance as a badge of covenant membership, or any "I did X, therefore God owes me Y" transaction.

2. Synergistic works: prayer, repentance, fasting, almsgiving, watchfulness, seeking God: which aren't payments but the form that a living relationship with God takes. These are how grace-enabled love and trust express themselves, not like a currency you hand over to purchase standing. This type of work still requires free will effort and without it, your faith is dead.

2 Peter 1:10 ("be all the more diligent to make your call and election sure") and Philippians 2:12-13 ("work out your own salvation… for it is God who works in you"): both these verses are holding human effort and divine enabling together.

Colossians 1:22-23: "...to present you holy and blameless... if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel."

Hebrews 3:14: "For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end."

Romans 11:22: "Consider then the kindness and severity of God... kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off."

John 15:4: "Abide in me, and I in you." This is synergism. Jesus doesn't say "I will force you to abide." It is an active command to the believer to remain attached to the source of grace.

He tells the Church in Ephesus to repent or He will remove their lampstand (Rev 2:5). He tells the Church in Laodicea that because they are lukewarm (lack of effort/fruit), He is about to spit them out of His mouth (Rev 3:16).

So then tell me - at what point has someone who truly believes in Jesus and trusts him in his heart for their salvation (which Scripture says justifies us)"cooperated" enough in order to be saved? What's the cutoff point?

Death.

You're welcome.

Death is a good work?

And if that's the cutoff point for having "cooperated" enough for salvation, then none of us have anything to worry about. Believe, then live how you want, and then die - you're saved. You just made your view completely moot, and ironically, turned it into the very view that you're criticizing.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Reminder: Salvation and faith are not a one-time event; they are a lifelong journey.

Faithfulness to God is like fidelity in a marriage, it requires daily commitment. Salvation isn't a simple "true or false" question.

Our behavior matters, and we never lose our free will. Ultimately, salvation means saying "yes" to grace, which requires our active cooperation and personal effort. This isn't to say that works save us. Rather, works are a reflection of a transformed heart and Christ working within us. But even that requires a willingness on our part to actively cooperate with God's grace.

Yeah that sounds a lot harder than the current hyper assurance model of salvation. I get it. But this is Christ we're talking about. This is a marriage. You are told that it's the narrow path, that is EXTREMELY difficult to follow Christ, to pick p your cross, that you will be hated and despised.

Here is the key text (from John 15:2 and 15:6):
Quote:

"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit... If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."

You cannot be cut away from a vine you were never attached to. You cannot wither if you were never drawing sap from the root. Jesus is speaking directly to the disciples, to people who are genuinely, currently "in Him." This shatters the idea that salvation is just a passive, automated safety net. A branch doesn't stay alive simply because it had a good attachment point on day one; it stays alive by abiding, by continuously drawing life, cooperating with the vine, and producing fruit: all dependent on your willpower, cooperation and saying "yes" to grace. You're not totally depraved to the point where you can't do this.

Salvation IS like a marriage. But you got the analogy all wrong.

Marriage IS a one-time event. From that point you are married until death do you part. Your marriage is not contingent upon the merit or performance of your spouse. Marriage is NOT where the wife/husband can never really be sure their whole life if they're doing well enough to be your spouse, and so they worry and they fear. That may be the way our society today does marriage, but it's not God's way - "what God has joined, let no man separate". There is no real union if there is no assurance in marriage, and without assurance there is no peace.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if marriage is analogous to OSAS then one would have to say that fidelity isn't actually required. It's just that infidelity means you were never married to begin with.

Once married, fidelity is not required for the marriage to exist. It still exists in spite of it. It's obviously very damaging to the relationship, but it does not nullify it, neither legally nor in God's eyes.

No, infidelity does NOT mean you were never married to begin with. By definition it means that you were. It can't be "infidelity" if you were never married to begin with. So the one who "thought" they were a Christian but they leave and never come back, was never "married" in the first place, so they aren't guilty of "infidelity".

If a husband cheats on his wife, does he legally cease to be her husband on paper? No. But is the relationship broken, dead, and in jeopardy of divorce? Absolutely. Your view turns salvation into a legal contract, but God frames it as a covenant relationship. Relationships require mutual faithfulness.

You seem to be a monergist. Do you think sanctification is 100% passive with zero human involvement or cooperation with God? How do you even deal with sin?

I don't think you understand what we mean by works. There's two types of works:

1. Meritorious works: actions that earn or purchase a status, performed to establish a legal claim on God independent of grace. This is what Paul is actually attacking in Romans/Galatians: works of Torah-observance as a badge of covenant membership, or any "I did X, therefore God owes me Y" transaction.

2. Synergistic works: prayer, repentance, fasting, almsgiving, watchfulness, seeking God: which aren't payments but the form that a living relationship with God takes. These are how grace-enabled love and trust express themselves, not like a currency you hand over to purchase standing. This type of work still requires free will effort and without it, your faith is dead.

2 Peter 1:10 ("be all the more diligent to make your call and election sure") and Philippians 2:12-13 ("work out your own salvation… for it is God who works in you"): both these verses are holding human effort and divine enabling together.

Colossians 1:22-23: "...to present you holy and blameless... if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel."

Hebrews 3:14: "For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end."

Romans 11:22: "Consider then the kindness and severity of God... kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off."

John 15:4: "Abide in me, and I in you." This is synergism. Jesus doesn't say "I will force you to abide." It is an active command to the believer to remain attached to the source of grace.

He tells the Church in Ephesus to repent or He will remove their lampstand (Rev 2:5). He tells the Church in Laodicea that because they are lukewarm (lack of effort/fruit), He is about to spit them out of His mouth (Rev 3:16).

So then tell me - at what point has someone who truly believes in Jesus and trusts him in his heart for their salvation (which Scripture says justifies us)"cooperated" enough in order to be saved? What's the cutoff point?

Death.

You're welcome.

Death is a good work?

And if that's the cutoff point for having "cooperated" enough for salvation, then none of us have anything to worry about. Believe, then live how you want, and then die - you're saved. You just made your view completely moot, and ironically, turned it into the very view that you're criticizing.

No, and no.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Reminder: Salvation and faith are not a one-time event; they are a lifelong journey.

Faithfulness to God is like fidelity in a marriage, it requires daily commitment. Salvation isn't a simple "true or false" question.

Our behavior matters, and we never lose our free will. Ultimately, salvation means saying "yes" to grace, which requires our active cooperation and personal effort. This isn't to say that works save us. Rather, works are a reflection of a transformed heart and Christ working within us. But even that requires a willingness on our part to actively cooperate with God's grace.

Yeah that sounds a lot harder than the current hyper assurance model of salvation. I get it. But this is Christ we're talking about. This is a marriage. You are told that it's the narrow path, that is EXTREMELY difficult to follow Christ, to pick p your cross, that you will be hated and despised.

Here is the key text (from John 15:2 and 15:6):
Quote:

"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit... If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."

You cannot be cut away from a vine you were never attached to. You cannot wither if you were never drawing sap from the root. Jesus is speaking directly to the disciples, to people who are genuinely, currently "in Him." This shatters the idea that salvation is just a passive, automated safety net. A branch doesn't stay alive simply because it had a good attachment point on day one; it stays alive by abiding, by continuously drawing life, cooperating with the vine, and producing fruit: all dependent on your willpower, cooperation and saying "yes" to grace. You're not totally depraved to the point where you can't do this.

Salvation IS like a marriage. But you got the analogy all wrong.

Marriage IS a one-time event. From that point you are married until death do you part. Your marriage is not contingent upon the merit or performance of your spouse. Marriage is NOT where the wife/husband can never really be sure their whole life if they're doing well enough to be your spouse, and so they worry and they fear. That may be the way our society today does marriage, but it's not God's way - "what God has joined, let no man separate". There is no real union if there is no assurance in marriage, and without assurance there is no peace.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if marriage is analogous to OSAS then one would have to say that fidelity isn't actually required. It's just that infidelity means you were never married to begin with.

Once married, fidelity is not required for the marriage to exist. It still exists in spite of it. It's obviously very damaging to the relationship, but it does not nullify it, neither legally nor in God's eyes.

No, infidelity does NOT mean you were never married to begin with. By definition it means that you were. It can't be "infidelity" if you were never married to begin with. So the one who "thought" they were a Christian but they leave and never come back, was never "married" in the first place, so they aren't guilty of "infidelity".

If a husband cheats on his wife, does he legally cease to be her husband on paper? No. But is the relationship broken, dead, and in jeopardy of divorce? Absolutely. Your view turns salvation into a legal contract, but God frames it as a covenant relationship. Relationships require mutual faithfulness.

You seem to be a monergist. Do you think sanctification is 100% passive with zero human involvement or cooperation with God? How do you even deal with sin?

I don't think you understand what we mean by works. There's two types of works:

1. Meritorious works: actions that earn or purchase a status, performed to establish a legal claim on God independent of grace. This is what Paul is actually attacking in Romans/Galatians: works of Torah-observance as a badge of covenant membership, or any "I did X, therefore God owes me Y" transaction.

2. Synergistic works: prayer, repentance, fasting, almsgiving, watchfulness, seeking God: which aren't payments but the form that a living relationship with God takes. These are how grace-enabled love and trust express themselves, not like a currency you hand over to purchase standing. This type of work still requires free will effort and without it, your faith is dead.

2 Peter 1:10 ("be all the more diligent to make your call and election sure") and Philippians 2:12-13 ("work out your own salvation… for it is God who works in you"): both these verses are holding human effort and divine enabling together.

Colossians 1:22-23: "...to present you holy and blameless... if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel."

Hebrews 3:14: "For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end."

Romans 11:22: "Consider then the kindness and severity of God... kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off."

John 15:4: "Abide in me, and I in you." This is synergism. Jesus doesn't say "I will force you to abide." It is an active command to the believer to remain attached to the source of grace.

He tells the Church in Ephesus to repent or He will remove their lampstand (Rev 2:5). He tells the Church in Laodicea that because they are lukewarm (lack of effort/fruit), He is about to spit them out of His mouth (Rev 3:16).

So then tell me - at what point has someone who truly believes in Jesus and trusts him in his heart for their salvation (which Scripture says justifies us)"cooperated" enough in order to be saved? What's the cutoff point?

Death.

You're welcome.

Death is a good work?

And if that's the cutoff point for having "cooperated" enough for salvation, then none of us have anything to worry about. Believe, then live how you want, and then die - you're saved. You just made your view completely moot, and ironically, turned it into the very view that you're criticizing.

No, and no.

Then you're invalidating your answer.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:


Then you're invalidating your answer.
Without putting words into Sam's mouth, I just say that it is not complicated.

Salvation is not a major stress point for the Catholic that obeys what Christ asks us to do compared to the protestant.

We repent, believe, and are baptized. If we commit a sin which separates us from God, go to confession.

When discussing hypothetical protestants that were saved but later rejected God due to a loss or tragedy, you stated that they were never saved.

My question to you is how does ANY protestant know that they are REALLY saved, if they could fall away in the face of a tragedy?

xfrodobagginsx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
.
canoso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:


Then you're invalidating your answer.

Without putting words into Sam's mouth, I just say that it is not complicated.

Salvation is not a major stress point for the Catholic that obeys what Christ asks us to do compared to the protestant.

We repent, believe, and are baptized. If we commit a sin which separates us from God, go to confession.

When discussing hypothetical protestants that were saved but later rejected God due to a loss or tragedy, you stated that they were never saved.

My question to you is how does ANY protestant know that they are REALLY saved, if they could fall away in the face of a tragedy?



Please post a list of sins that, once a person is in Christ, that is, has passed from spiritual death to eternal life, can separate any child of God from Him. Give your Scriptural basis for each one. If you don't have one, be honest enough to say so.

And just for the record, Christ doesn't ask us to do anything. He commands us to. Unless, of course, He, as God, is mistaken, confused, or lying in Matt 28:20.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

TexasScientist said:


The idea that it is written in the style of those times reveals it is written by men. No it's not disingenuous because there are contradictions no matter how it is written. What is disingenuous is a an omnipotent, all powerful deity not plainly revealing themselves to the people they supposedly want to help. It's clearly a product of man. If it were of divine origin, it wouldn't require interpretation.

Once again, let's discuss a specific contradiction to see if it really is a contradiction or a misunderstanding.

Finally, the Hebrew people DID leave record of God directly revealing Himself to them.

It's laid out in the Torah.

God revealed Himself and it laid out in the Gospels.

God has performed countless miracles throughout all generations and still performs them today.

We have medical doctors with NO affiliation associated with the Catholic Church or even Christianity confirm those miracles today.


Do you believe in miracles? If even ONE existed, wouldn't that be evidence of God?


Alright, let's do the contradiction you asked for. Genesis 1:24-27 has animals created before man. Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 have man created first, then animals formed afterward specifically so Adam could name them. Same book, two different sequences. That's not a "style of the times" issue - it's two creation accounts from different sources stitched together, which is exactly what textual scholars (most of whom aren't atheists, by the way) have concluded for over a century. I'm not asking you to take my word for the order - read both passages back to back and tell me they describe the same sequence of events.

"God revealed Himself in the Torah/Gospels" is circular here.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Coke Bear said:

TexasScientist said:


The idea that it is written in the style of those times reveals it is written by men. No it's not disingenuous because there are contradictions no matter how it is written. What is disingenuous is a an omnipotent, all powerful deity not plainly revealing themselves to the people they supposedly want to help. It's clearly a product of man. If it were of divine origin, it wouldn't require interpretation.

Once again, let's discuss a specific contradiction to see if it really is a contradiction or a misunderstanding.

Finally, the Hebrew people DID leave record of God directly revealing Himself to them.

It's laid out in the Torah.

God revealed Himself and it laid out in the Gospels.

God has performed countless miracles throughout all generations and still performs them today.

We have medical doctors with NO affiliation associated with the Catholic Church or even Christianity confirm those miracles today.


Do you believe in miracles? If even ONE existed, wouldn't that be evidence of God?


Alright, let's do the contradiction you asked for. Genesis 1:24-27 has animals created before man. Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 have man created first, then animals formed afterward specifically so Adam could name them. Same book, two different sequences. That's not a "style of the times" issue - it's two creation accounts from different sources stitched together, which is exactly what textual scholars (most of whom aren't atheists, by the way) have concluded for over a century. I'm not asking you to take my word for the order - read both passages back to back and tell me they describe the same sequence of events.

"God revealed Himself in the Torah/Gospels" is circular here.


Wjat contradiction? He didnt form them now, he brought them that he HAD formed to Adam to name..

Cen 2:19(LSB)
And out of the ground Yahweh God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and He brought each to the man to see what he would call it; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

TexasScientist said:

Coke Bear said:

TexasScientist said:


The idea that it is written in the style of those times reveals it is written by men. No it's not disingenuous because there are contradictions no matter how it is written. What is disingenuous is a an omnipotent, all powerful deity not plainly revealing themselves to the people they supposedly want to help. It's clearly a product of man. If it were of divine origin, it wouldn't require interpretation.

Once again, let's discuss a specific contradiction to see if it really is a contradiction or a misunderstanding.

Finally, the Hebrew people DID leave record of God directly revealing Himself to them.

It's laid out in the Torah.

God revealed Himself and it laid out in the Gospels.

God has performed countless miracles throughout all generations and still performs them today.

We have medical doctors with NO affiliation associated with the Catholic Church or even Christianity confirm those miracles today.


Do you believe in miracles? If even ONE existed, wouldn't that be evidence of God?


Alright, let's do the contradiction you asked for. Genesis 1:24-27 has animals created before man. Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 have man created first, then animals formed afterward specifically so Adam could name them. Same book, two different sequences. That's not a "style of the times" issue - it's two creation accounts from different sources stitched together, which is exactly what textual scholars (most of whom aren't atheists, by the way) have concluded for over a century. I'm not asking you to take my word for the order - read both passages back to back and tell me they describe the same sequence of events.

"God revealed Himself in the Torah/Gospels" is circular here.


Wjat contradiction? He didnt form them now, he brought them that he HAD formed to Adam to name..

Cen 2:19(LSB)
And out of the ground Yahweh God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and He brought each to the man to see what he would call it; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

Using the LSB translation to insert "had formed" is a well known harmonizing technique, that ignores both the original Hebrew grammar and the broader context of the narrative, which is sequential and not progressive. Inserting "had formed" changes a sequential narrative into a flashback solely to force it to agree with Genesis 1. The KJV, NASB and RSV render a sequential progression of Yahweh forming animals and bringing them to man.

Gramar aside, the overarching storyline of Genesis 2. creates a contradiction with Genesis 1. In Genesis 1. Yahweh creates a completed, perfect habitat (including all plants and animals) before creating man. In Genesis 2. man is created first in a barren landscape where "no shrub of the field was yet in the earth" (Gen 2:5). Yahweh then realizes, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him" (Gen 2:18). If the animals already existed, God wouldn't be forming them in response to Adam's loneliness to see if any would make a suitable partner. Genesis 2 is a trial-and-error sequence to find Adam a helper, until God finally creates Eve.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Reminder: Salvation and faith are not a one-time event; they are a lifelong journey.

Faithfulness to God is like fidelity in a marriage, it requires daily commitment. Salvation isn't a simple "true or false" question.

Our behavior matters, and we never lose our free will. Ultimately, salvation means saying "yes" to grace, which requires our active cooperation and personal effort. This isn't to say that works save us. Rather, works are a reflection of a transformed heart and Christ working within us. But even that requires a willingness on our part to actively cooperate with God's grace.

Yeah that sounds a lot harder than the current hyper assurance model of salvation. I get it. But this is Christ we're talking about. This is a marriage. You are told that it's the narrow path, that is EXTREMELY difficult to follow Christ, to pick p your cross, that you will be hated and despised.

Here is the key text (from John 15:2 and 15:6):
Quote:

"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit... If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."

You cannot be cut away from a vine you were never attached to. You cannot wither if you were never drawing sap from the root. Jesus is speaking directly to the disciples, to people who are genuinely, currently "in Him." This shatters the idea that salvation is just a passive, automated safety net. A branch doesn't stay alive simply because it had a good attachment point on day one; it stays alive by abiding, by continuously drawing life, cooperating with the vine, and producing fruit: all dependent on your willpower, cooperation and saying "yes" to grace. You're not totally depraved to the point where you can't do this.

Salvation IS like a marriage. But you got the analogy all wrong.

Marriage IS a one-time event. From that point you are married until death do you part. Your marriage is not contingent upon the merit or performance of your spouse. Marriage is NOT where the wife/husband can never really be sure their whole life if they're doing well enough to be your spouse, and so they worry and they fear. That may be the way our society today does marriage, but it's not God's way - "what God has joined, let no man separate". There is no real union if there is no assurance in marriage, and without assurance there is no peace.

Salvation is also like adoption (Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:4-5). When we believe, we are adopted as sons/daughters into God's family. If you sign the papers to adopt a child - the adoption is a one-time event. That child is now your son/daughter for life, no matter their merit or performance. Their sonship/daughtership is NOT contingent upon whether they "cooperated" enough with you. Imagine how your adopted child would feel if they never can be safe and secure that they'll always have you as a parent, because they might not "cooperate" well enough. Which one of us would want that child to KNOW that you love them as your own, and that they are you son/daughter forever, and to be 100% secure and never doubt? Who here, rather, would tell their adopted child that if they they're not measuring up to your standards, that they're not your child anymore? Anyone? Raise your hand.

Well, if you wouldn't do that, certainly God wouldn't. He wants to give his children complete assurance: "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life."

When you believe, you are saved and SEALED by the Holy Spirit as a GUARANTEE for salvation:

"In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory." - Ephesians 1:11-14

Jesus said God's will is that he should lose NONE that are given to Jesus (John 6:39)

In the Roman Catholic and Orthodox systems, you are the wife who lives in constant fear that your husband will end your marriage and leave you without a husband. You are the adopted child who is always in fear that your adoptive parents will reject you and you will be an orphan again. Because it was you who failed to keep them happy. But God says you are joined to Jesus by your faith, and you belong to him forever. And he says "let man not separate" what he has joined. But this is exactly what RC and Orthodoxy try to do - by inserting their institutions and man-made rules in between you and Jesus, placing obstacles in between you just like how the Pharisees did, and declaring they have the authority to separate you from Jesus if you don't follow them. Open your eyes and see how false this is. Keep your eyes on Jesus and what HE did on the cross and on HIS righteousness that he freely imputes to you, which you receive by faith alone, rather than on your own ability to be righteous. You have free will - the free will to obey God and do good works, simply because you love God and want to please him, and you love others as yourself. Not because you're afraid you'll be punished with loss of salvation. The former is what real sons do. The latter is what slaves do.

"For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" - Romans 8:15

Marriage being a one-time event with zero ongoing contingency… I guess you can cheat on your wife and it doesn't actually count as anything since the bond can't be touched either way? Malachi literally calls covenant unfaithfulness a betrayal of the marriage bond, and the entire book of Hosea only exists because a covenant spouse CAN cheat on the covenant. Kind of an important detail to skip. "Let no man separate" is about outside parties breaking up a marriage, not about whether a spouse can bail from the inside through their own unfaithfulness. Run the marriage analogy through the whole Bible instead of just Matthew 19 and it already looks exactly like what I said: real fidelity required, real betrayal possible, real restoration offered. Didn't import that. The prophets did.

Same issue with adoption. Romans 8 calls us adopted sons, sure, but it's also the same chapter that says we're heirs IF we suffer with him, present tense, ongoing. Paul didn't forget he wrote John 15 by the time he got to Romans 8. You don't get to keep the metaphor that flatters your system and drop the one that doesn't. Both are his. Both stay.

Ephesians 1 and the seal, I'll take that one head on. A down payment guarantees the guy paying WILL follow through, that's God being faithful to His own promise. But "God's faithful to His side" and "your participation doesn't matter and is automatic" are not the same sentence. The verse gets you the first one. It never said the second.

John 6:39, none lost that are given to the Son, totally fine, doesn't dent my view at all. Tells you God's intent toward those given. Doesn't tell you who counts as given, or whether sticking with Him is how that giving plays out. You're sneaking in an assumption.

Your version, where nothing can ever count as betrayal because the bond is bulletproof no matter what you do, that's the version that makes love meaningless, not mine. Being afraid to hurt someone you love isn't slave fear. That's just love that actually means something.

Your Old Testament examples only serve to further the analogy between the one-time event of marriage and salvation. Certainly the actions of a spouse can profane the marriage covenant - but by law and in God's eyes, they are still married. They remain married unless the husband divorces his wife. But in Malachi, that is exactly what God is angry about. He was angry that the Israelite men were divorcing their wives in order to be with foreign women. God was telling them NOT to divorce, but to remain with their wives. Likewise, in Hosea, God not only told Hosea NOT to divorce his unfaithful wife, but to actually buy her back from those who took her, and keep her as his wife, despite her treacherous infidelity. These two are perfect examples of God viewing marriage as a covenant union which is not to be broken despite the failings of the spouses.

In Romans 8, Paul is NOT saying that we are required to suffer with Jesus in order to be adopted sons. That's a misreading. In verse 14, he clearly and explicitly states that we are sons if we are led by the Spirit of God (v. 14). He is not saying our sonship is contingent upon our suffering with Jesus. He is saying, rather, that AS sons already, what's contingent upon our suffering with Jesus is our heirship to the same glorification of Jesus, NOT our sonship. Translating that into our real-world example, as an adopted son, you are always a member of the family and a son to your adoptive father no matter what - however, you may be required to demonstrate merit in your life for your father to leave you a big part of his estate in his will. This is salvation vs. rewards.

In your Ephesians 1:13 rebuttal, you still have a situation where the "down payment" is a GUARANTEE. Meaning that no, this guarantee is NOT affected by anything you do on your part. No one is saying that what you do on your part "doesn't matter" or is "meaningless", though. "Meaningless/doesn't matter" and "required for salvation" are NOT the same thing. You're attempting a straw man. Yes, you can affect the rewards you're given (see above) as a result of what you do on your part, so it's not meaningless and it definitely does matter - but as far as what God has promised as a GUARANTEE, you can't affect that. You're trying your best (clumsily) to argue away God's guarantee, but you just can't.

John 6:39 DOES deny your view, if your view is that someone can be a true believer, but lose their salvation.
Scripture elsewhere tells us that ALL who are called to become true believers are not ever lost, but all are destined to completion towards glorification:

"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." - Romans 8:29-30

Your last paragraph just completely misses the whole point about sons vs slaves and is also a complete straw man. My argument has NEVER been that "nothing can ever count as betrayal". Never did I say that the bond is "bulletproof" to where one's actions won't hurt the relationship, either. As adopted sons of God through Jesus, yes, we CAN hurt our relationship with our Father by our actions (and inactions). But our sonship is not lost, if we are true sons. If we are slaves, however, then we would have something to fear in terms of losing our position. As true sons, we do good in order to please God because we love him, not out of fear we might lose something. That doesn't make love "meaningless" at all, that makes love exactly the kind of love that God truly wants - our freely given love. Not a love that is given out of fear.

Tell me right now - would you adopt a son, and tell him that if doesn't measure up (he must "cooperate" well enough), you will rescind your adoption and he will be an orphan again?

Ah so you're a full blown monergist and hardcore calvinist.

If human beings are born "spiritually dead" and completely unable to choose good, they're effectively being punished for a condition they had no hand in causing and no power to fix. If God has the sovereign power to regenerate everyone and choose everyone, but actively decides to withhold that grace from some, then the damnation of the non-elect is a direct result of God's choice, not human agency.

The most converts I see in Orthodoxy are former Calvinists. Its views like yours that drives them away. Your logically saying God picks and chooses who He saves, which means He also picks and chooses who He damns.

John 8:34: "Everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin."
The biggest problem with your framework is that it completely detaches salvation from actual reality. By separating "legal sonship" from how a person actually lives, you're basically saying someone can be savingly united to Jesus while their daily life is entirely enslaved to the devil, drugs, or destructive passions. It turns salvation into a cosmic insurance policy that has zero connection to internal healing, moral transformation, or freedom. Think about how devastating that is in the real world. By telling an addict, "Don't worry, your legal status is bulletproof, this just affects your bonus rewards in heaven," your theology completely strips away the sober, high-stakes warfare mindset required to break chains. It gives them a get-out-of-jail-free card when what they actually need is a cooperative treatment plan and a synergy model with Christ. And when that addict doesn't get better, or when someone falls into major unrepentant sin, you have to pull a "No True Scotsman" fallacy out of your hat. You'll suddenly claim, "Well, because they aren't transformed, they never had real faith to begin with."

Yes, God is patient and longsuffering (Hosea), but scripture explicitly demonstrates that a covenant partner can so fundamentally profane the union through total, unrepentant betrayal that a formal, legal severance (divorce) occurs. God did not stop being faithful: Israel severed the union by whoring after other gods

No, I wouldn't rescind an adoption because a child 'didn't measure up' or failed to perform. That would be a performance-based relationship, which is a straw man. But change the scenario to fit reality: What if that adopted son grows up, looks me in the eye, legally renounces my last name, signs paperwork to emancipate himself, packs his bags, and goes to live with another family because he hates me? Do I lock him in the basement and force him to be my son against his will? Your argument assumes humans are passive objects who are adopted by force and kept by force. God's grace is not a prison. The question isn't whether God will kick us out for breaking a rule: the question is whether a human being, possessing free will, can genuinely turn their back and walk away from the Father's house. Scripture says they can (Hebrews 6:4-6, 2 Peter 2:20-22). God's love is so deep that He will not force you to stay in an adoption you actively choose to betray and abandon.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I know for a fact that anyone who has actually beaten a deep addiction, whether it's alcoholism, porn, gambling, or food, or fought deep passions knows that it is completely impossible without free will. You have to actively wake up every day, drag your will into alignment with grace, make agonizing choices to say "no," and cooperate with Christ. It is a grueling, collaborative partnership. You have to work your ass off to get out of your own way so that Christ can work within you. You are completely using your willpower to show God that you are powerless.

We cannot just tell young men that they "merely have to believe Christ is Lord" and then give them a bulletproof legal status. If your mechanism for overcoming sin looks exactly like "magic" or a sudden supernatural switch flipping, because you entirely reject human cooperation...you will help create degeneracy. If you don't learn how to actively seek Christ, persevere, involve Him in your daily struggles, and constantly reach out to Him, you're going to end up as an unrepentant degenerate. Giving people a get-out-of-jail-free card instead of a model for spiritual warfare is theologically wrong, extremely modern and evil.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
canoso said:

Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:


Then you're invalidating your answer.

Without putting words into Sam's mouth, I just say that it is not complicated.

Salvation is not a major stress point for the Catholic that obeys what Christ asks us to do compared to the protestant.

We repent, believe, and are baptized. If we commit a sin which separates us from God, go to confession.

When discussing hypothetical protestants that were saved but later rejected God due to a loss or tragedy, you stated that they were never saved.

My question to you is how does ANY protestant know that they are REALLY saved, if they could fall away in the face of a tragedy?



Please post a list of sins that, once a person is in Christ, that is, has passed from spiritual death to eternal life, can separate any child of God from Him. Give your Scriptural basis for each one. If you don't have one, be honest enough to say so.

And just for the record, Christ doesn't ask us to do anything. He commands us to. Unless, of course, He, as God, is mistaken, confused, or lying in Matt 28:20.

Any mortal sin.

A mortal sin has three conditions:
  • Grave Matter
  • Full Knowledge
  • Deliberate consent
In John 15:4-6 Jesus was specifically speaking to his disciples when he states:

"Abide in me. . . . If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned"

BTW, it seems like you are splitting hairs between asking/commanding.
xfrodobagginsx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Alright, let's do the contradiction you asked for. Genesis 1:24-27 has animals created before man. Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 have man created first, then animals formed afterward specifically so Adam could name them. Same book, two different sequences. That's not a "style of the times" issue - it's two creation accounts from different sources stitched together, which is exactly what textual scholars (most of whom aren't atheists, by the way) have concluded for over a century. I'm not asking you to take my word for the order - read both passages back to back and tell me they describe the same sequence of events.

Thank you for your response. I'll do my best to explain.
First, remember, Genesis is not a science book.

Second, when one studies the Hebrew word for "had formed" in Genesis 2:19, which is wayyitzer , we see that can be translated either as "formed" (simple past) or "had formed" (pluperfect/past perfect) meaning that the animals were already in existence when man was created in Genesis.

The animals appear in Genesis 2 not to establish when they were created, but to show an more important element and set the stage that woman was needed.

Genesis 1 is emphasizing a sequence of events, while Genesis 2 is focused on the origin of man and woman and the male-female relationship.

Genesis 1 is cosmic in scope; Genesis 2 is intimate in focus. One zooms out to show the majesty of the whole creation; the other zooms in on the crown of that creation: the human person.

TexasScientist said:

"God revealed Himself in the Torah/Gospels" is circular here.

That's not what I'm saying. His revelation to man is recorded in history (Torah/Gospels).

He speaks to Abraham and Moses in Genesis and Exodus, respectively. Of course, God reveals Himself in the person of Jesus, in all 4 Gospels.

Finally, do you believe that miracles exist?

PS. I am happy to discuss any other "contradictions" that you see in the bible.
xfrodobagginsx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The fact that God revealed Himself in the Torah is not circular because it is self evident. The hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, history with Ancient Isreal how He revealed Himself to them directly, Christ fulfilling hundreds of prophecies, performing miracles, His death and resurrection, the changed lives, Church History, the hatred that the world has of God & the Bible, it is God's Word, no doubt.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Alright, let's do the contradiction you asked for. Genesis 1:24-27 has animals created before man. Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 have man created first, then animals formed afterward specifically so Adam could name them. Same book, two different sequences. That's not a "style of the times" issue - it's two creation accounts from different sources stitched together, which is exactly what textual scholars (most of whom aren't atheists, by the way) have concluded for over a century. I'm not asking you to take my word for the order - read both passages back to back and tell me they describe the same sequence of events.

Thank you for your response. I'll do my best to explain.
First, remember, Genesis is not a science book.

Second, when one studies the Hebrew word for "had formed" in Genesis 2:19, which is wayyitzer , we see that can be translated either as "formed" (simple past) or "had formed" (pluperfect/past perfect) meaning that the animals were already in existence when man was created in Genesis.

The animals appear in Genesis 2 not to establish when they were created, but to show an more important element and set the stage that woman was needed.

Genesis 1 is emphasizing a sequence of events, while Genesis 2 is focused on the origin of man and woman and the male-female relationship.

Genesis 1 is cosmic in scope; Genesis 2 is intimate in focus. One zooms out to show the majesty of the whole creation; the other zooms in on the crown of that creation: the human person.

TexasScientist said:

"God revealed Himself in the Torah/Gospels" is circular here.

That's not what I'm saying. His revelation to man is recorded in history (Torah/Gospels).

He speaks to Abraham and Moses in Genesis and Exodus, respectively. Of course, God reveals Himself in the person of Jesus, in all 4 Gospels.

Finally, do you believe that miracles exist?

PS. I am happy to discuss any other "contradictions" that you see in the bible.

On the pluperfect translation of wayyitzer - It took me some time to look into this. I asked a retired Biblical scholar and professor, who studied Hebrew, about this translation, so I'm out of my element, and I'm relying on his communication. He indicated wayyitzer is a wayyiqtol (vav-consecutive) form, and in Biblical Hebrew narrative, that verb chain is the standard mechanism for marking sequential action - "and then this happened, and then this happened." I'm told that wayyiqtol doesn't always denote strict sequence (there are recognized exceptions, especially with certain verb types or when a narrative flashback is clearly signaled), but those exceptions are the minority reading, not the default. The natural sense of Genesis 2:19 in context - God forms the animals, brings them to Adam to see what he'd name them, no name is suitable, then Eve is made - reads as a straightforward sequence, not a flashback. The pluperfect translation is grammatically possible, but it's the reading you reach for if you already need the contradiction to go away, not the one that falls out of the text on its own.

More importantly, that argument doesn't really address what I raised. I wasn't just pointing out that the two chapters describe events in a different order. I'm saying they read as two separate creation accounts, with different styles, different vocabulary, different names for God (Elohim in chapter 1, YHWH Elohim in chapter 2), and different emphases - which is exactly the pattern that source-critical scholars have used for over a century to argue Genesis is a composite text stitched from separate traditions. Saying "Genesis 1 is cosmic, Genesis 2 is intimate" explains why the person compiling Genesis might have kept both accounts side by side. It doesn't explain why the two accounts disagree on the order of events in the first place. Those are two different questions, and only harmonization on the first one is addressed.

On "God revealed Himself and it's recorded in the Torah/Gospels" - this still doesn't get past the circularity. The Torah and Gospels are the documents whose reliability is at question. Pointing to what those documents say about themselves isn't independent evidence, rather it's the source testifying to its own accuracy. That's no different from a book of fiction narrating that its events really happened.

On miracles No I don't believe in miracles. I'm not aware of any objective empirical evidence that would stand up to scientific scrutiny for any alleged miracle. I'm open to changing my mind.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
joseywales
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Bible is a book of stories amd for the most part is pure mythology, it is not an historical document it is a book created to convince others to believe in a fiath just like any other books of religion which by the way are all manmade not God made. Self delusion period. Those of you who belive this BS ha e beed convinced that it is true amd are unable to see the fallacies that exist. There is zero evidence of any where where God has revealed himself to man in the last however many millions of years the human species has existed. He'll, virgin births, saviors that were god in mans form, sacrifice etc etc are all religious motifs adopted from cultures that predates all modern regions by thousands of years. It is so simple to see however the fear of death amd the comet people find in their version of myths they choose to believe will be around for a bit longer. Someday cultures thousands of years from now will look back on us and our superstious beliefs the way we look back on all the beliefs we have rejected, like the sum God or cultures that sacrifice animals to volcanoes prevent God from spewing lava upon them. Santa clause, leprechaun, devils, tooth fairy witches, yaweh, Jesus all the same pure mythology.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
joseywales said:

The Bible is a book of stories amd for the most part is pure mythology, it is not an historical document it is a book created to convince others to believe in a fiath just like any other books of religion which by the way are all manmade not God made. Self delusion period. Those of you who belive this BS ha e beed convinced that it is true amd are unable to see the fallacies that exist. There is zero evidence of any where where God has revealed himself to man in the last however many millions of years the human species has existed. He'll, virgin births, saviors that were god in mans form, sacrifice etc etc are all religious motifs adopted from cultures that predates all modern regions by thousands of years. It is so simple to see however the fear of death amd the comet people find in their version of myths they choose to believe will be around for a bit longer. Someday cultures thousands of years from now will look back on us and our superstious beliefs the way we look back on all the beliefs we have rejected, like the sum God or cultures that sacrifice animals to volcanoes prevent God from spewing lava upon them. Santa clause, leprechaun, devils, tooth fairy witches, yaweh, Jesus all the same pure mythology.
oops, you made a grievous error in your post.

No true disciple of Christ fears death.
xfrodobagginsx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Is the word of God limited to just written text?

No.

Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 that the Thessalonians received what they heard preached as "the word of God", not what they read, that's not a throwaway line. He tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:13 and 2:1-2 to guard the "pattern of sound words" he heard orally over three years in Ephesus, and to hand that same deposit down through ordained successors. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is explicit: hold to the tradition, "whether by word or by epistle." Peter says the same in 1 Peter 1:23-25, the enduring "word of the Lord" is the gospel preached to you.

John 21:25 makes the point directly: not everything Christ did and taught could fit in books. So if you insist God's word = only the written text, you've quietly shrunk the actual apostolic deposit down to whatever survived as ink, and cut off everything Paul explicitly told Timothy to also guard and pass on.

Make sure you haven't taken the written text and functionally hypostasized it: made it stand in the place the Logos himself should occupy. That's not reverence for scripture. That's Bible-olatry.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Is the word of God limited to just written text?

No.

Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 that the Thessalonians received what they heard preached as "the word of God", not what they read, that's not a throwaway line. He tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:13 and 2:1-2 to guard the "pattern of sound words" he heard orally over three years in Ephesus, and to hand that same deposit down through ordained successors. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is explicit: hold to the tradition, "whether by word or by epistle." Peter says the same in 1 Peter 1:23-25, the enduring "word of the Lord" is the gospel preached to you.

John 21:25 makes the point directly: not everything Christ did and taught could fit in books. So if you insist God's word = only the written text, you've quietly shrunk the actual apostolic deposit down to whatever survived as ink, and cut off everything Paul explicitly told Timothy to also guard and pass on.

Make sure you haven't taken the written text and functionally hypostasized it: made it stand in the place the Logos himself should occupy. That's not reverence for scripture. That's Bible-olatry.

The word of God for us today IS limited to just the written text, because all we have today that we know came from Jesus and the original apostles is written in Scripture and exists nowhere else. This is literally proven every time this issue comes up, when the Institutionalists/Traditionalists here are asked to produce a teaching that we know came from the apostles that is NOT in Scripture. They come up empty each and every time.

Not only is your comment a clear admission that your church teaches things NOT in Scripture, your implied proposition is completely preposterous - that because the original apostles preached orally to the people in their time, and since not everything Jesus said and did was written down, we Christians today must accept without question any oral tradition claimed by a church to be just as infallible and authoritative as Scripture - even though it has NO basis in Scripture and whose origins have no traceable link to the original apostles themselves.

This is how cults operate and how the Devil corrupts churches and ensnares the unregenerate. True Christians with the Holy Spirit KNOW this is false and are lead away from this thinking. Jesus said that his sheep hear his voice and follow him. They know instinctively that the corrupted gospel and idolatrous beliefs and practices coming from these churches are NOT the voice of Jesus, and so not only do they not follow, they are viscerally repelled by them. I strongly believe that if a person does not react this way to their teachings, then it either means you do NOT have the Spirit, and thus you aren't a Christian; or, you really are a Christian, but something is very, very wrong.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Is the word of God limited to just written text?

No.

Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 that the Thessalonians received what they heard preached as "the word of God", not what they read, that's not a throwaway line. He tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:13 and 2:1-2 to guard the "pattern of sound words" he heard orally over three years in Ephesus, and to hand that same deposit down through ordained successors. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is explicit: hold to the tradition, "whether by word or by epistle." Peter says the same in 1 Peter 1:23-25, the enduring "word of the Lord" is the gospel preached to you.

John 21:25 makes the point directly: not everything Christ did and taught could fit in books. So if you insist God's word = only the written text, you've quietly shrunk the actual apostolic deposit down to whatever survived as ink, and cut off everything Paul explicitly told Timothy to also guard and pass on.

Make sure you haven't taken the written text and functionally hypostasized it: made it stand in the place the Logos himself should occupy. That's not reverence for scripture. That's Bible-olatry.

The word of God for us today IS limited to just the written text, because all we have today that we know came from Jesus and the original apostles is written in Scripture and exists nowhere else. This is literally proven every time this issue comes up, when the Institutionalists/Traditionalists here are asked to produce a teaching that we know came from the apostles that is NOT in Scripture. They come up empty each and every time.

Not only is your comment a clear admission that your church teaches things NOT in Scripture, your implied proposition is completely preposterous - that because the original apostles preached orally to the people in their time, and since not everything Jesus said and did was written down, we Christians today must accept without question any oral tradition claimed by a church to be just as infallible and authoritative as Scripture - even though it has NO basis in Scripture and whose origins have no traceable link to the original apostles themselves.

This is how cults operate and how the Devil corrupts churches and ensnares the unregenerate. True Christians with the Holy Spirit KNOW this is false and are lead away from this thinking. Jesus said that his sheep hear his voice and follow him. They know instinctively that the corrupted gospel and idolatrous beliefs and practices coming from these churches are NOT the voice of Jesus, and so not only do they not follow, they are viscerally repelled by them. I strongly believe that if a person does not react this way to their teachings, then it either means you do NOT have the Spirit, and thus you aren't a Christian; or, you really are a Christian, but something is very, very wrong.

Come up empty lol... the ultimate example of an essential apostolic truth that's not found anywhere in the text of Scripture is the canon of Scripture itself. The Canon is an epistemically prior issue: you have to establish what books are legit FIRST before you can actually point to those books as an authority and it took well into the 6th century and THE CHURCH to determine which NT books were legit. Athanasius, Augustine, and Jerome had to argue fiercely over the status of books like Hebrews, James, Revelation, and the Deuterocanon. Even Martin Luther famously doubted the inspiration of James (calling it an "epistle of straw"), Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation.


When Paul told Timothy to "guard the deposit" of what he heard orally (2 Timothy 1:13), was Timothy operating like a cult leader? When Paul told the Thessalonians to hold fast to traditions "whether by word or by epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:15), was he teaching a "corrupted gospel"? According to your logic, the moment Timothy died, the oral part of that command became a tool of the devil.

My post didn't say we should blindly accept any random modern claim of oral tradition. My post pointed out that, by the text of Scripture itself, the phrase "Word of God" is never restricted strictly to ink on a page. By insisting that it is, you are forced to argue that the Word of God magically changed its fundamental nature the moment the last Apostle died.

Your own church operates on a strictly prescribed manner of worship every single Sunday. The order of your service, the way you structure your prayers, how often you take communion, and even the style of your music aren't explicitly dictated in the New Testament. They are traditions. The difference between us isn't that I have traditions and you don't. The difference is that I am honest about where my traditions came from, the early, apostolic Church...while you're operating under a 20th century tradition that you've mistaken for pure Scripture.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Matthew 23:2-3 - Jesus tells people to obey the scribes and Pharisees because they "sit in the Moses seat, and office/tradition never described anywhere in any text prior. So tell me, how is their an authoritative office in the lineage of Moses since it wasn't written down?

Galatians 1:14, Colossians 2:8/2:22 - Paul references "traditions of the fathers" without blanket condemnation.

1 Corinthians 11:2 - Paul explicitly praises the Corinthians for keeping "the traditions I delivered to you".

1 Peter 1:23-25 explicitly quotes Isaiah 40:8 "the word of the Lord endures forever" and then Peter adds "And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you". ORAL. So if you say we can't identify that, then you have to claim the word of the Lord doesn't endure forever. Period. Also John 21:25...it wasn't all written down, by Christ's own testimony.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

Is the word of God limited to just written text?

No.

Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 that the Thessalonians received what they heard preached as "the word of God", not what they read, that's not a throwaway line. He tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:13 and 2:1-2 to guard the "pattern of sound words" he heard orally over three years in Ephesus, and to hand that same deposit down through ordained successors. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is explicit: hold to the tradition, "whether by word or by epistle." Peter says the same in 1 Peter 1:23-25, the enduring "word of the Lord" is the gospel preached to you.

John 21:25 makes the point directly: not everything Christ did and taught could fit in books. So if you insist God's word = only the written text, you've quietly shrunk the actual apostolic deposit down to whatever survived as ink, and cut off everything Paul explicitly told Timothy to also guard and pass on.

Make sure you haven't taken the written text and functionally hypostasized it: made it stand in the place the Logos himself should occupy. That's not reverence for scripture. That's Bible-olatry.

The word of God for us today IS limited to just the written text, because all we have today that we know came from Jesus and the original apostles is written in Scripture and exists nowhere else. This is literally proven every time this issue comes up, when the Institutionalists/Traditionalists here are asked to produce a teaching that we know came from the apostles that is NOT in Scripture. They come up empty each and every time.

Not only is your comment a clear admission that your church teaches things NOT in Scripture, your implied proposition is completely preposterous - that because the original apostles preached orally to the people in their time, and since not everything Jesus said and did was written down, we Christians today must accept without question any oral tradition claimed by a church to be just as infallible and authoritative as Scripture - even though it has NO basis in Scripture and whose origins have no traceable link to the original apostles themselves.

This is how cults operate and how the Devil corrupts churches and ensnares the unregenerate. True Christians with the Holy Spirit KNOW this is false and are lead away from this thinking. Jesus said that his sheep hear his voice and follow him. They know instinctively that the corrupted gospel and idolatrous beliefs and practices coming from these churches are NOT the voice of Jesus, and so not only do they not follow, they are viscerally repelled by them. I strongly believe that if a person does not react this way to their teachings, then it either means you do NOT have the Spirit, and thus you aren't a Christian; or, you really are a Christian, but something is very, very wrong.

Come up empty lol... the ultimate example of an essential apostolic truth that's not found anywhere in the text of Scripture is the canon of Scripture itself. The Canon is an epistemically prior issue: you have to establish what books are legit FIRST before you can actually point to those books as an authority and it took well into the 6th century and THE CHURCH to determine which NT books were legit. Athanasius, Augustine, and Jerome had to argue fiercely over the status of books like Hebrews, James, Revelation, and the Deuterocanon. Even Martin Luther famously doubted the inspiration of James (calling it an "epistle of straw"), Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation.


When Paul told Timothy to "guard the deposit" of what he heard orally (2 Timothy 1:13), was Timothy operating like a cult leader? When Paul told the Thessalonians to hold fast to traditions "whether by word or by epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:15), was he teaching a "corrupted gospel"? According to your logic, the moment Timothy died, the oral part of that command became a tool of the devil.

My post didn't say we should blindly accept any random modern claim of oral tradition. My post pointed out that, by the text of Scripture itself, the phrase "Word of God" is never restricted strictly to ink on a page. By insisting that it is, you are forced to argue that the Word of God magically changed its fundamental nature the moment the last Apostle died.

Your own church operates on a strictly prescribed manner of worship every single Sunday. The order of your service, the way you structure your prayers, how often you take communion, and even the style of your music aren't explicitly dictated in the New Testament. They are traditions. The difference between us isn't that I have traditions and you don't. The difference is that I am honest about where my traditions came from, the early, apostolic Church...while you're operating under a 20th century tradition that you've mistaken for pure Scripture.

You keep repeating the argument that the canon is an example of an apostolic teaching that is not in Scripture, when the list of canon books is NOT apostolic teaching. Why do you keep making this logical error, even after you've been corrected several times? Are you not capable of understanding this? Yes, you still have come up empty.

And it's really strange how you continuously fail to understand that during the time of the apostles, oral teachings from the apostles themselves had apostolic authority, obviously. But now that they're all gone, all we have today that we know came from them is written in Scripture, and nowhere else. This is NOT HARD.

Timothy is NOT a "cult leader" because unlike with cults, we know his teachings came directly from an original apostle, who personally validated him on record. We know Timothy received written letters directly from Paul. This is NOT HARD.

HOW do you comprehend my argument as saying that Paul was teaching a "corrupted gospel" because he told his audience to hold fast to what he personally taught orally? This is an inexplicably brain-dead assessment that makes absolutely no sense at all.

No, the "word of God" is not only limited to what's written - but the issue is, all we KNOW TODAY that is the word of God is written only in Scripture. Anyone who comes claiming they have a word from God that is NOT in Scripture, the burden of proof is on them to validate their claim of divine revelation, and their word is always subject to testing and questioning. And it is tested by measuring it up against what we KNOW is the word of God - Scripture. Anyone who alters the gospel from what we know is taught in Scripture, which is what RC and Orthodox have done, is to be considered false.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.