# Once Saved Always Saved (added pt 2 post #90)



## j_seph (Jun 11, 2020)

Here is a series that started yesterday at a local church in N. GA


----------



## Madman (Jun 11, 2020)

This is going to be interesting.


----------



## j_seph (Jun 11, 2020)

Madman said:


> This is going to be interesting.


Yes it will, I have respect for Will Fuller. He is a good man and a good preacher.


----------



## Madman (Jun 11, 2020)

Bet this one dies a quick "death", But I would love here the arguments both ways.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 11, 2020)

Madman said:


> Bet this one dies a quick "death", But I would love here the arguments both ways.



You can save time and do a search.  There is probably an entire server dedicated just to storing what has been said on this subject here.    It comes up about every year or two.  The arguments and justifications are the same.


----------



## Madman (Jun 11, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You can save time and do a search.  There is probably an entire server dedicated just to storing what has been said on this subject here.    It comes up about every year or two.  The arguments and justifications are the same.


I know, but maybe, just maybe, something new will be brought up, new friends made and old wounds healed.

Besides, I hate searching old forums.


----------



## Israel (Jun 12, 2020)

Before attempt was made to reduce the name of Jesus Christ as the poster child for tickets to Heaven He was preached as _the rebuke_ to the world. (Those playing to His containing and as container of merchandise will soon know)

On the day of Pentecost Peter's preaching did not lack the very pointed call to repentance (one should ask themselves whether one believes he and the others were filled with the Holy Spirit) and the no less clear declaration of the part those to whom he preached played in all of these matters.

Some have said, to either diminish or contradict by Paul's revelation of grace, that Peter _spoke blaming the Jews. _That repentance's call is not meet to the gospel of grace, and is a vain attempt to assign blame for the work and therefore if responsible _in blame _(_of_ the work_)_...holding a curious responsibility _for the work. _

Kind of like an arsonist who, setting a fire to the response of the fire company that discovers a house full of children being trafficked, and thence rescued might say "I did well to set that fire on the porch, for look, a house full of abused children was saved" And therefore thinks himself to some beneficence as part of their salvation.

But read again. Peter's words are plain:

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Christ's restoration of Peter in forgiveness (as no less, our own) was not in vain. Peter knew now that in God's determinate will all was purposed, yet Peter still had to, in that light, finding then no place of false claim of innocence, (for he knew all too well his intents to save his own skin)...were clearly displayed against (in contrast to) a will of One to give all His own self.

Here is where repentance is meet. The clear revelation that "I am all of like this"..."God is all of like that" and there is no more confusing that I am, or "my word", according to my will, or doing is of any effect except wickedness...and that Jesus Christ alone is the word of God to man, and every man.

"I will smite the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered" meets "Even if they all desert you I shall not", for the man _in wanting to think well of himself_ (and this is an incontrovertible operation) must oppose the word of God. In truth this is all of what opposes...what operates according to the need to think well of one's self.

Jesus said "How can you believe who receive glory from one another...?" It is impossible (apart from an intervention).

No Peter is not blaming the Jews, nor trying to elicit from them some ungodly sorrow...but the clear presentation of recognition. Yes...God purposes salvation...you (we all) had purposes totally opposed...we (all) have tried...to "kill life".


God is looking for truth in the inward parts...not some sort of mewling and scraping self abasing...for when we admit "I am this" "God is that" only then is the Lord Jesus revealed as the reconciliation for the two polar opposites. He alone is where the irreconcilable...is reconciled. But until a man is broken by this revelation of truth...that unbridgeable gap...what need has he of a savior, a bridge, a daysman who might lay hand to both...to bring together?

Where all righteousness _meets all unrighteousness_ in a Person, (Jesus Christ is no mere "concept") the _only person so chosen, elected, ordained, determined..._that both holds (without slackening or relinquishing) to both God and man _in Himself._

In some form of silly exposition (if one cares to receive it) He is what holds to both the dynamo of all positive output, and the ground...never letting go of either...never blaming God for His estate, nor letting go of man no matter how despitefully He is treated. Being reviled, he reviled not ...

Something's "gotta give" in that estate. All righteousness meeting all unrighteousness (man)...and the fuse was blown. Perfect overload. All demands of righteousness for judgment...meeting all that is in requirement of judgment. BOOM! All wrath spent...all old man...burned to a crisp. In a person. Death.

No wonder the disciples hid, were full of fear, wept, barricaded themselves in despair...how could they know...even despite their being told? Really...how could they? They saw Him die...gone...pffft, light of life...out, gone...in a tomb...cold (to them)...all that showering and bathing in light of God's presence among them...now snuffed out.

You want to talk about despair? It's one thing to lose (or believe one has lost) a dollar, it's quite another to awake to find everything...all accounts emptied, deeds once in your name transferred, all you held to your bosom as joy or security, or pleasure...gone. But those are just worldly things of taste...what the disciples had tasted was far beyond of hope, and security, joy, and a place...now moldering in a tomb.

Oh, the world didn't "miss Him" for a moment, was glad to be rid of Him, was delighted it could display His death...His seeming powerlessness over it, finally show Him as impostor (for God did not rescue Him)...man still held the ace in the hole...death to impose (at an accomplice's encouraging, the enemy of all truth) to triumph against what would be to its own rebuke.

For Jesus came preaching "Repent and believe the gospel..." What need to pay heed to what...by death imposed...showed it was no more than any other man? And a fool no less, maneuvered by what appeared his own "press"...to go too far...that he might be seen and presented close enough to a thing that it might appear rightly (with just the slightest of juggling) hung upon Him...blasphemy. Lord, but man is so very clever!  How would any know...what was truly "going on?" Man was being man...and the god _that man had presumed, _was, to presumptuous man...showing He had nothing (obviously) at stake in this...or He would have acted.

When man is clever, there is One who shows Himself...more clever.

(Do you remember the devils asking "have you come to torment us _before the time_?" Do you not know they went "whew, that was close...but look...He's dead! there's more...time")

Ahhh, the wisdom of God! All found concluding to one thing. Man, devils, every principality and power that _has had investment _in the world to _its own pleasure..._and has exercised power over man to be their accomplice...


Defeated. Their investment was great, their investment was huge, their investment seemed unbreakably deep...but He went where their investment could not, would not, is all unable to follow (for theirs is only to pleasure)...He willingly went into death.

To show, in the resurrection, another...whose _full investment_ was there made plain...and so much more exceedingly and over-abundantly able to eclipse...that it has. And makes such full triumphant show of all their poverty.

And we should know this better than they. And we shall.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 12, 2020)

So. So is a man who is bound to the morals of the world in parts and yet a believer, is he a believer in parts also? The man that trusts God (good) and yet is not adverse to torturing his enemy( not so good). The man that has no neighbor beyond the border of this village and only friend and foe there and yet a believer?

And so it is this very believer that is saved? This is man, even a believer. So a call to repentance or even a change of heart, in-vested fully and in-vested in part, dying to self through Christ and and dying to self through the world, never the less saved--- for he/she believes?

I am after Pentecost today and as before Pentecost today...my works are without merit, and some to demerit,  and so it must that once saved always saved otherwise there is none. But wait a little voice, like the voice of a child dares to claim:"Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love."

So perhaps once saved always saved is nearer my God to thee and such belief, this understanding, not the work saves me and so once saved always saved.  So my heart  yet cleaved, is made to crave for all of my Redeemer and so to this saved, I am ever saved even when to Him I don't go?

And so salvation is a way of life and not a state of being. Having gone to that way, I cannot deny it, yet I be nothing except I am in the way-- for the grace of God. And so, for this I'm ever saved from death and spare others of it. Ever turned to life and the source of all that is good is the source of all my morals. And this is my salvation... to love from the source of love as it is--- Paradise.

So to be saved and always saved is to love God and your neighbor as yourself. And this is not a work, for the way of love is not work--it is to live where there is no shame. Angels might pray in tongues there, but man need not.


----------



## Madman (Jun 12, 2020)

You fellows go considerably deeper than I do or can.

I am convinced that "once saved always saved" comes from Calvin's doctrines of the total depravity of man. (No where in church history do we see this, even in discussion, before Calvin.)

Calvin held that everyone is saved or dam**d before birth and there is nothing that he can do about it.  Anyone who held to that belief in double predestination was then obligated to reform their own doctrine in a manner that could fit.

The Church has always taught, as we believe is proven in Holy Scripture, that man is saved by the grace of God which is freely received.  Salvation and sanctification must be consented to (God forces no man).


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2020)

Madman said:


> You fellows go considerably deeper than I do or can.
> 
> I am convinced that "once saved always saved" comes from Calvin's doctrines of the total depravity of man. (No where in church history do we see this, even in discussion, before Calvin.)
> 
> ...


The Bible teaches that _God_ is omniscient. Considering that,  wouldn't God already know who is saved and/or saved and then lost? Why would God go to the trouble to save someone he foreknew would eventually lose their salvation?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2020)

Have you ever read Psalm 139? 

Psalm 139:16 
Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

I'm not sure how one can be anything other than what they are. Even if you were to change, and I believe you can, God has already seen that change. The day that change happened, God had already knew you were to change. 

So in the aspect of Psalms 139, God is always with us and already knows us and his enemies.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 12, 2020)

Madman said:


> You fellows go considerably deeper than I do or can.
> 
> I am convinced that "once saved always saved" comes from Calvin's doctrines of the total depravity of man. (No where in church history do we see this, even in discussion, before Calvin.)
> 
> ...


I have two computers down and only a small tablet still running but here is what I have.

From about 1100 years before Calvin.  I think there are earlier works but I can't remember who they are; Augustin or Schaffer may mention them.  There are also some between August in and Calvin.

https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105/npnf105.xxi.iii.ii.html

Be careful to identify the editor's comments as distinct from the translation of Augustin's work.  I think there should be 68 chapters total.


----------



## Madman (Jun 12, 2020)

Artfuldodger said:


> The Bible teaches that _God_ is omniscient. Considering that,  wouldn't God already know who is saved and/or saved and then lost? Why would God go to the trouble to save someone he foreknew would eventually lose their salvation?



Art,

Glad to see ya.

Biblically God's desire is that everyone should be saved. So that being the case why does he not just save everyone?


----------



## Madman (Jun 12, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> I have two computers down and only a small tablet still running but here is what I have.
> 
> From about 1100 years before Calvin.  I think there are earlier works but I can't remember who they are; Augustin or Schaffer may mention them.  There are also some between August in and Calvin.
> 
> ...


Are we talking about predestination or once saved always saved? the exact definition of predestination has been discussed and argued for a long time, I look at the consensus of the church and that has always been that the Church does not hold to double predestination.  

There is a big difference in the two.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 12, 2020)

Madman said:


> Are we talking about predestination or once saved always saved? the exact definition of predestination has been discussed and argued for a long time, I look at the consensus of the church and that has always been that the Church does not hold to double predestination.
> 
> There is a big difference in the two.


it seems to me that you would have to read it, with the Spirit, to know what you will call it.  The other obvious option is to let someone else put their spin on it for you.


----------



## Madman (Jun 12, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> it seems to me that you would have to read it, with the Spirit, to know what you will call it.  The other obvious option is to let someone else put their spin on it for you.


So is your response that double predestination and once saved always saved are the same thing?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 12, 2020)

Madman said:


> So is your response that double predestination and once saved always saved are the same thing?


So is it your position that OSAS is exclusively an Arminian doctrine?  If so, and if defined in terms that show that to be the case, I probably wouldn't disagree.  However, in showing that case,your statement concerning Calvin would be proven incorrect, being that it was that statement that initially conflated the theological systems.


----------



## Madman (Jun 12, 2020)

I believe we are talking past each other.  I am asking if OSAS is the same as Double predestination.

I say they are connected, by Calvin's doctrine, but that they are technically different.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 12, 2020)

Madman said:


> I believe we are talking past each other.  I am asking if OSAS is the same as Double predestination.
> 
> I say they are connected, by Calvin's doctrine, but that they are technically different.


And I say that you need to explain "technically different", and in doing so, distinguish between Calvin's relevant doctrine and Augustin's doctrine, without which significant distinction the contention of your initial statement has been shown to be false.


----------



## Madman (Jun 12, 2020)

Calvin's doctrine of predestination - some are chosen by God for salvation and some are chosen by God for eternal da**ation.

OSAS - Once someone has accepted Christ for salvation there is nothing nor anyone who can change that, they are on the way to heaven.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 12, 2020)

Madman said:


> Calvin's doctrine of predestination - some are chosen by God for salvation and some are chosen by God for eternal da**ation.
> 
> OSAS - Once someone has accepted Christ for salvation there is nothing nor anyone who can change that, they are on the way to heaven.


I'm doudtful, but uncertain, that we have a record of Calvin saying that, but to the question at hand; what significant distinction is there in Augustin?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2020)

Madman said:


> Art,
> 
> Glad to see ya.
> 
> Biblically God's desire is that everyone should be saved. So that being the case why does he not just save everyone?


Maybe he does. But if he doesn't he is still omniscient and predestines. He had to in order to make his plan happen the way he wanted to to. He used Pharoah for this very purpose and the Jews as well. Read Romans 11.

This double predestination I've never heard of, had to Google it. I'm not sure that there is but one predestination. The one God uses to make his plan happen the way he wants it to. God is in "total" control.

I can see OSAS as not being a part of double predestination nor Calvinism. I know plenty of Protestants that believe that if you are a child of God, you are always a child of God. This not being a part of double predestination in their beliefs.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2020)

Many Protestants believe that they themselves are lead to God and have a choice to become a child of God. Once they do become a child of God, God's spirit, lives with their spirit. Thus God wouldn't kick His spirit out of one of His children. 
Maybe at the time of salvation, free will ends and predestination takes over in the form of God's spirit living inside us. Perhaps just another one of those mysteries.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2020)

Madman said:


> Art,
> 
> Glad to see ya.
> 
> Biblically God's desire is that everyone should be saved. So that being the case why does he not just save everyone?



Reading this which I think is a Catholic doctrine;
Instead predestination is based on the fact that with God there is no time, no change, and He knows everything, including what we will choose before we were ever created. This is a great mystery, but, nevertheless, His predestination includes our human freedom.

My thoughts;
  He knows everything, including what we will choose before we were ever created.

Since God knows our choices even before we make them, and David mentions this in Psalms 139, how can we possibly make any other choice?
It's almost like God already knows from Creation who will become His children. How could any person undo what God has already seen? How can God unsave someone who he already seen as being saved? He would have also seen His unsaving that person.


----------



## Spineyman (Jun 12, 2020)

Do you honestly think you had a choice? If so, why? It is God who chooses us, He quickens us and redeems us from start to finish. The Bible said we are DEAD in our trespasses and sins, and we can not respond in any way shape form or fashion if we are dead. Salvation from beginning to end is of the Lord.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 12, 2020)

For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

So I have no training in law interpretation, but it seems to say that if you knew the ways of the world only and was taken out of it to the ways of God and you chose to get entangled in the world again in a negative way than your worse off than when you only knew the ways of the world where you were basically lost. So you are worse off  than being lost, if you were found and saved by grace and then chose to get entangled in the world again. Basically you've returned to the "lost highway" yet knowing the " found highway".


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2020)

Spineyman said:


> Do you honestly think you had a choice? If so, why? It is God who chooses us, He quickens us and redeems us from start to finish. The Bible said we are DEAD in our trespasses and sins, and we can not respond in any way shape form or fashion if we are dead. Salvation from beginning to end is of the Lord.


Could God choose us an later un-choose us?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2020)

gordon 2 said:


> For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.


Then it may be better for some to have never knew the Lord.


----------



## Spineyman (Jun 12, 2020)

Not possible, He did not choose us for our merit, or worth. He chose us because of His love for us. We don't earn it or work for it.  It is simply a free gift. Jesus' priestly prayer in John 17, says that He lost not one that the Father gave Him.. He shed His blood for all those whom He chose from the foundation of the world. I assure you He is able to keep all, not a few, not most but all who He has redeemed. He will not lose one!


----------



## Madman (Jun 12, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> I'm doudtful, but uncertain, that we have a record of Calvin saying that, but to the question at hand; what significant distinction is there in Augustin?


Was Augustin in concert with the doctrine of the church?  I think not.


----------



## Madman (Jun 12, 2020)

Artfuldodger said:


> Then it may be better for some to have never knew the Lord.


Paul didn't think so.


----------



## Spineyman (Jun 12, 2020)

Artfuldodger said:


> Then it may be better for some to have never knew the Lord.


That's just it, they never knew the Lord.
* Matthew 7:21-23 *
*I Never Knew You*
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.  22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’  23 And then I will declare to them, *‘I never knew you;* depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 12, 2020)

Artfuldodger said:


> Then it may be better for some to have never knew the Lord.



I doubt this.  Paradise lost the second time around is a long haul to regain with a grieving heart of flesh---just the guilt alone will  be very very difficult to get rid of, not impossible but doubly difficult-- and I say from experience I might add. It's like needing a whole lifetime to know what you got that is such a gift  and  in one moment you give away your birthright and you got maybe 10-25 yrs left to your lifespan to get over it...and be totally present to anyone.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 12, 2020)

Madman said:


> Was Augustin in concert with the doctrine of the church?  I think not.


I think you will like this on both ends:
Augustine is recognized as a saint in the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion. He is also a preeminent Catholic Doctor of the Church and the patron of the Augustinians. His memorial is celebrated on 28 August, the day of his death. Augustine is the patron saint of brewers, printers, theologians, and a number of cities and dioceses.[23] Many Protestants, especially Calvinists and Lutherans, consider him one of the theological fathers of the Protestant Reformation due to his teachings on salvation and divine grace.[24][25][26] Protestant Reformers generally, and Martin Luther in particular, held Augustine in preeminence among early Church Fathers. Luther was, from 1505 to 1521, a member of the Order of the Augustinian Eremites.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

Please remember that our topic is:


Madman said:


> You fellows go considerably deeper than I do or can.
> 
> I am convinced that "once saved always saved" comes from Calvin's doctrines of the total depravity of man. (No where in church history do we see this, even in discussion, before Calvin.)
> 
> ...



We can also move forward in time to a point about 300 yrs. before Calvin where we find this guy and his magnum opus:

The _*Summa Theologiae*_ (transl. 'Summary of Theology'; publ. 1485, written from 1265–1274; also known as the _*Summa Theologica*_ or the _*Summa*_), as the best-known work of Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274), is a compendium of all of the main theological teachings of the Catholic Church, intended to be an instructional guide for theology students, including seminarians and the literate laity. Presenting the reasoning for almost all points of Christian theology in the West, topics of the _Summa_ follow the following cycle: God; Creation, Man; Man's purpose; Christ; the Sacraments; and back to God.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Theologica

You will want to look at the First Book, Question 23, and not fail to follow his reference to other questions for background and clearity.

I sure hope my computer parts get here soon ... and that my diagnosis is correct.  At least I 'll have some of my resourses available on one machine.


----------



## Israel (Jun 13, 2020)

Artfuldodger said:


> Then it may be better for some to have never knew the Lord.


This is a hard place to negotiate...suffering...and torment.

There's suffering...against which none of us who believe are "warned against"...for there are ample to be found...and even with encouragements to embrace. To not despise. To endure with...joy. And there's also, in the Lord's sufferings the ministry of the Holy Spirit's comforts to be found, they are real, they are true, they are promised, and they are eternal.

I am not wise enough to know whether I can make any sense here.

There's stuff the Lord tells us, warns us to, and warns us against...quite plainly "do this"..."don't do that". Or don't think a certain way. "Don't be like the hypocrites" Matt 6:5.

But then...there are those places he just speaks a parable...(which are no less for our learning)...but in which there is no clear "do this" or "don't do this"...He tells a story and tells what happens.

Think of the parable of the guy forgiven a huge debt by the King who refuses to forgive his debtor.

Jesus doesn't say "don't do that" or don't be "that guy"...he just tells what happens. In one way it would seem obvious though, right? Jesus  it seems doesn't have to say..."don't do that" cause the whole of the parable should be a clear warning of "how to be" and "how not to be".

Or take the parable of what we call the good Samaritan. Jesus ends it by asking "who was the neighbor"...like it should be obvious. But here's the hook so to speak...if we believe "it's obvious"...then we should be like that. So, in one sense Jesus just speaks to what we say we already know...but if we do...why don't we do it?

And that's the point...when we don't do what we make claim of knowing...the consequences are quite different than "suffering as a christian"...

For suffering as a hypocrite is something else...it's really tormenting. So the guy who didn't forgive the guy that owed him 5$ after being forgiven a debt of a million...well, he gets turned over to the tormentors. And he will not "come out" (that's important) till he has paid the uttermost farthing. Jesus doesn't say he's condemned forever (that's important)...but that something is going to be extracted by the tormentors till he has paid his due.

That guy...knows what it feels like to wish he'd never been born...the suffering without comfort, the suffering without anything but "I know I deserve this and can't find a plea"...is all of different.

Now...please hear this. And please, if you are able...hear it well.

If it is for God's purpose in his will that this guy make it to the uttermost farthing...and is released...he will be able to tell others with conviction...choose the Lord's suffering in mercy...cause you don't want the other kind...of being a hypocrite.

He will have the conviction of experience...knowing torment is a real thing...a suffering with no comfort, a suffering in which one wishes they were never born...so complete in _painfully right abasing_...that anything is better than it.

This is basically my testimony. I have offended "little ones" I have been a hypocrite...boasting of what I know of the Lord...yet denying by practice. I have tasted (even if it be the tiniest bit!) of God's judgment upon hypocrites and the malicious...and could not bear it...such misery is far beyond anything I have ever known...and fear?(!!!!)

Fear that wraps a cold hand around the heart to terror of tasting eternal isolation...so that longing for even the company of "an enemy" there is comfort...not even dare hope for a friendly face...just...anything...anyone...once in prior...even despised. Just return me to, or by whatever means or fashion...out of solitary. Out from being all locked up to myself...alone. (Oh the foolish man that thinks he will just share a beer with the Devil...) For there is no "fellowship" in that experience...at all.

I know this can sound like boast "I know how terrible the Lord's dealings can be". God help me if it is...for such "boasting"  will only deliver me to more. No, I will boast instead of mercy to such a one...malicious, cunning, clever, hypocrite, betrayer, who for no reason other than mercy...is able to say...God is merciful to the most wicked of us all.

No, I didn't pay "enough". No, I didn't find out I had the million hidden somewhere that I was able to come up with to discharge my debt. Someone...just appeared when I had no right of expectation (and knew it) to spring me.

Oh, the millstone around my neck was taking me down...and I knew it was right and just for it to be doing so...I had "earned" every bit of it. I knew I had no right to even pray. I didn't even have air to do it. Thought to even make it appear a thing to do. Just terror. Earned...terror.

But...someone showed up. In a place that was all not fit for Him...but He showed up.


----------



## Israel (Jun 13, 2020)

gordon 2 said:


> I doubt this.  Paradise lost the second time around is a long haul to regain with a grieving heart of flesh---just the guilt alone will  be very very difficult to get rid of, not impossible but doubly difficult-- and I say from experience I might add. It's like needing a whole lifetime to know what you got that is such a gift  and  in one moment you give away your birthright and you got maybe 10-25 yrs left to your lifespan to get over it...and be totally present to anyone.


yes. powerful testimony.


----------



## Israel (Jun 13, 2020)

gordon 2 said:


> So to be saved and always saved is to love God and your neighbor as yourself. And this is not a work, for the way of love is not work--it is to live where there is no shame. Angels might pray in tongues there, but man need not.



Amen.

If anything would, if anything can, if anything would be so deceived to believe it might make of gift what is not gift, to turn as it were, liberty into a form of bondage, light into some shading, truth into "not all true", the Lord's very life as burden to be sorrowfully borne...the prescription for such remains always Jesus Christ.

We do not deny suffering...but never as the end in itself. Nor even the experience of feeling pressed, burdened even...yet the single hallmark of all, the bedrock foundation of our faith always remains the resurrection of Jesus Christ out from the dead. No wonder it is so assaulted!

Even in our own minds when sufferings seem unbearable and nothing else seems "present" but their reality to us...when we feel ourselves coming apart at the seams and all seems a swirl as in the fiercest storm...our testimony (God help me here to not be a sower of doubt) that...even as it appears to us we are questioning in ourselves "did that really happen? Did a righteous man rise from the dead to my salvation, is this the true thing?"

I am persuaded (and God help me!) that such fundamental question...which to ourselves may appear as doubt, and may seem the most unbearable estate...to God, and of God...is heard as plea. What we may perceive as shameful doubt, (but God knows we can't help ourselves!) He is eager to answer! He desires to show His son's vindication to all by the resurrection! He longs for the singleness of heart that KNOWS...this alone is the question of all questions that truly matter! "What do you think of your SON?" (Even if not phrased that way...or even know as we call out into what appears the emptiness...for that is the substance of what the resurrection is...God's answer to all our question of what appears...empty...hopeless...void...)

Things so whittle us down at times to where we know...as God knows (and waits)...when all else of comfort, trust, hope, joy, peace appears absent...but we are then moved to "our fundament" touching that place of singleness where nothing at all else matters except this one thing..."did Christ rise?"...God is not ashamed of our asking! And I know this seems like I am promoting doubt, or doubts, and to what sees it like that I know I have no explanation.

But I will testify this is where God may move us...he wants us to ask the only single question that is of any consequence...so that HE can ANSWER! This place...this experience of desolation to where it seems all is lost...even our faith to us...is for our ESTABLISHING.

God help me, I don't want to maneuver anyone to desolation, I don't want to "try" any ones confession...but I will testify...our confession is tried, and tried to such extent that it seems to go beyond any and everything of the "else" in which we may have been living.

And again...God help me...it is not to "make less" of the scriptures...it is not to make less of the precious lives of God's saints who have gone before and given testimony...nor even present "mentors" and Holy men who share from their hearts the love of God with us. But it is the place where God alone...assures...the place beyond "well I believe it because it is in the Bible" or "I believe it because someone I love and respect recommends this to me"...but because God Himself has secured this testimony to me...Jesus Christ is alive!

In truth...I am convinced it is only after such, or through such...we really do begin to appreciate the Bible, the testimonies of those before, love the "present ones". see in some form...how this is beyond all else. God WANTS to convince us! That our faith rest in, and on Him alone. "This is the work of God...that you believe upon Him whom He has sent!" This is God's work...to convince us of the glory of Jesus Christ!

I know in spirit how to some this will seem "he makes less of the scriptures testimony as insufficient"...NO, NO, NO,  a billion times NO!

Believing the scriptures will bring us to this place!

Look at what Paul wrote. He faced the question squarely. Do you think he did this because it just "came to him" to ask it while he wrote? Like God said "Hey, this will be a good thing to include in your letter!"

No! Paul in following testifies he came to a place of being pressed beyond measure...to even despair of life. "But God who raises the dead" appeared there. Paul knew this was the only matter that matters...and so when he writes about the resurrection he's not afraid to put it as plainly and (almost heretically if one does not have the ear) "If Christ is not risen then your faith is in vain"...THIS! THIS! THIS! is it. This must be settled in the heart! This is the only matter to be answered. "Is Christ risen?"

All else...miracles, wonderful teachings, expressions of compassion and love...all else pales...for our faith rests on this one thing! Is it a wonder then...that we get whittled down to that one thing...where we ask once, perhaps the only place of true nakedness apart from our ability to hold a disposition in the matter ("I believe in Christ because he was so good" or "I believe in Christ because He makes perfect sense" or "I believe in Christ because he says that he will do a wonderful thing for me...save me!")
No. It all hinges on a thing apart from our disposition to it...it either is true...or it is not.

We even may get past the "place" of wanting it to be true...where the "Need to know"...consumes even wishful thinking completely!

God help me, I accuse no one of wishful thinking. But I have seen such a disposition in myself...a bent toward a thing (of whatever constitution) simply because I want it to be so. God may have had to deal with me in ways others may never need. But when I see how much I have based pursuits and life upon that were just formed of "my preference" and their unutterably grievous consequences...I, of all men...need the assurance that no one else can give me...Jesus is alive...not because I have made Him so, not because I hope it's so...but that something is true...totally apart from my own perspective of preference.

What do I ultimately mean? I have found God's desire to show Jesus Christ so exceeds my desire to know, even in all my "need to know" as experienced (which has never been despised) BUT...is never sufficient to "make Him appear". God has come to me in all despairing of even caring to know...a place where I have been so convinced nothing I know is of any value there...this is where God has visited me. A place where I do not even care to say "all I see is emptiness".

Do you think I have not been surprised? Surprised God would appear there? Surprised that what "I thought I knew" about holding "to the faith"...never wavering in confession, holding to championing always and at every moment...that there, where I seem to have no care at all as to next breath...empty...barren, desolate...I would be made to see the One willing to sit in the dust with me!


Y-y-y-you're here! I mean like...even here! I mean like really here!


We are in this tent always about communing with the unseen. We make the common error of thinking...what we see is the real...and what and who we don't is something less than that. But in such, or after such experience...we come to realize...especially when communing amongst those we do see...our appeal is now to who they really are...the unseen One. When we approach each other (or as men even approach our wives whom we believe we "really know")...we come to learn a thing. There's a person there we really don't see...and the things we have seen that have led us to believe we "know them" so thoroughly (because we can "see them") are so easily turned to a truth if need be, and as need be. 

Sometimes even painfully. But...it works.


----------



## Madman (Jun 13, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> I think you will like this on both ends:
> Augustine is recognized as a saint in the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion. He is also a preeminent Catholic Doctor of the Church and the patron of the Augustinians. His memorial is celebrated on 28 August, the day of his death. Augustine is the patron saint of brewers, printers, theologians, and a number of cities and dioceses.[23] Many Protestants, especially Calvinists and Lutherans, consider him one of the theological fathers of the Protestant Reformation due to his teachings on salvation and divine grace.[24][25][26] Protestant Reformers generally, and Martin Luther in particular, held Augustine in preeminence among early Church Fathers. Luther was, from 1505 to 1521, a member of the Order of the Augustinian Eremites.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
> 
> ...


This is all about predestination not OSAS.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 13, 2020)

"Life is a gift. Each one of us is unique, known by name, and loved by the One who fashioned us. Unfortunately, there is a very loud, consistent, and powerful message coming to us from our world that leads us to believe that we must prove our belovedness by how we look, by what we have, and by what we can accomplish. We become preoccupied with “making it” in this life, and we are very slow to grasp the liberating truth of our origins and our finality. We need to hear the message announced and the message emboldened over and over again. Only then do we find the courage to claim it and live from it." 

Henri Nouwen


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 13, 2020)

Madman said:


> This is all about predestination not OSAS.


It responds to your question about Augustin with a cherry (Thomas) on top.

To what do you refer by "this"?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 13, 2020)

Madman said:


> This is all about predestination not OSAS.


You brought up the origin of OSAS in post #9; "convinced that "once saved always saved" comes from Calvin's doctrines of the total depravity of man."

Plus you went on to mention predestination and double predestination in relation to OSAS. 

Perhaps it's so much a part of predestination that it can't be separated. At least since you made the connection, give others the time to explain the connection.


----------



## Madman (Jun 13, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> It responds to your question about Augustin with a cherry (Thomas) on top.
> 
> To what do you refer by "this"?


Your references to Augustin and Aquinas.


----------



## Madman (Jun 13, 2020)

Artfuldodger said:


> You brought up the origin of OSAS in post #9; "convinced that "once saved always saved" comes from Calvin's doctrines of the total depravity of man."
> 
> Plus you went on to mention predestination and double predestination in relation to OSAS.
> 
> Perhaps it's so much a part of predestination that it can't be separated. At least since you made the connection, give others the time to explain the connection.


No I said OSAS was a response to Calvin's version of predestination.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 13, 2020)

Madman said:


> Your references to Augustin and Aquinas.


Obviously, we are not reading from the same perspective, likely resulting from consideration of different, and/or differently valued, source material.



Madman said:


> No I said OSAS was a response to Calvin's version of predestination.


Art, please forgive my intrusion.

That would not be possible, considering the very similar concept of "Preservation" which had been widely believed for over a millenium.  The distinction between Preservation and OSAS being, not the result (eternal life), but the human influence on initiation of faith or belief; which clearly shows that OSAS is not a response to Calvin or Thomas, or Augustin, or any of the multitude who held to similar doctrine prior to the Reformation, but to the doctrine promoted and espoused by Jacobus Arminius and those who further developed that doctrine after his death.


----------



## Madman (Jun 13, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> Obviously, we are not reading from the same perspective, likely resulting from consideration of different, and/or differently valued, source material.
> 
> 
> Art, please forgive my intrusion.
> ...


Is your position that Augustin and Aquinus held to the doctrine of OSAS.

If you will read original text from Calvin it is evident he did teach some were elect for heaven and some for he11, and later Calvinists such as Hodge, Geisler, Etc. Taught it also.

You have taken a path far off the OP.  My point was OSAS was a further interpretation of Calvin's election doctrine and the Church (the world wide church, even if some individuals did discuss predestination) never has taught OSAS.  If you still hold to that view please quote from any of the first 7 ecumenical councils that states your position.


----------



## Madman (Jun 13, 2020)

Artfuldodger said:


> You brought up the origin of OSAS in post #9; "convinced that "once saved always saved" comes from Calvin's doctrines of the total depravity of man."
> 
> Plus you went on to mention predestination and double predestination in relation to OSAS.
> 
> Perhaps it's so much a part of predestination that it can't be separated. At least since you made the connection, give others the time to explain the connection.


I say OSAS eases the mind of those who can not bear the though that God would create some for salvation and some for dam*ation.
OSAS at least allows people some sense of free will.


----------



## Madman (Jun 13, 2020)

Spineyman said:


> Do you honestly think you had a choice? If so, why? It is God who chooses us, He quickens us and redeems us from start to finish. The Bible said we are DEAD in our trespasses and sins, and we can not respond in any way shape form or fashion if we are dead. Salvation from beginning to end is of the Lord.


If I am saved it is all God, if I am not it is all me.


----------



## furtaker (Jun 13, 2020)

It's not everlasting life if you can lose it. It's temporary life that you try to hold onto by good works.


----------



## Madman (Jun 13, 2020)

StriperAddict said:


> "Life is a gift. Each one of us is unique, known by name, and loved by the One who fashioned us. Unfortunately, there is a very loud, consistent, and powerful message coming to us from our world that leads us to believe that we must prove our belovedness by how we look, by what we have, and by what we can accomplish. We become preoccupied with “making it” in this life, and we are very slow to grasp the liberating truth of our origins and our finality. We need to hear the message announced and the message emboldened over and over again. Only then do we find the courage to claim it and live from it."
> 
> Henri Nouwen


Very sweet.


----------



## Madman (Jun 13, 2020)

furtaker said:


> It's not everlasting life if you can lose it. It's temporary life that you try to hold onto by good works.


Interesting thought, good tag line, however I do look for Biblical precident.


----------



## furtaker (Jun 13, 2020)

Madman said:


> Interesting thought, good tag line, however I do look for Biblical precident.


I do too. It's impossible to believe in salvation by grace without simultaneously believing in eternal security.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 13, 2020)

Madman said:


> Is your position that Augustin and Aquinus held to the doctrine of OSAS.


Please read my previous post which explains this.



> If you will read original text from Calvin it is evident he did teach some were elect for heaven and some for he11, and later Calvinists such as Hodge, Geisler, Etc. Taught it also.


I read neither Latin not French, but I have read both the Beverage and Battles English translations of The Institutes, and translations of a few other documents, but I confess the it wasn't last month, as a matter of fact, it took me two years.  As I recall he holds that, in your terms, some are elect for heaven and some are not, and that is different.  If you will give me a citation from The Institutes I will be happy to look it up, my memory certainly isn't what it once was.  If the citation is from another document it could be a while.



> You have taken a path far off the OP.  My point was OSAS was a further interpretation of Calvin's election doctrine and the Church (the world wide church, even if some individuals did discuss predestination) never has taught OSAS.


Previously addressed by me without refutation.




> If you still hold to that view please quote from any of the first 7 ecumenical councils that states your position.


If you will provide your preferred translation of the original documents I will be happy to review them.

(Edit) note that I did not say interpretation of commentary.


----------



## Madman (Jun 14, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> Please read my previous post which explains this.
> 
> 
> I read neither Latin not French, but I have read both the Beverage and Battles English translations of The Institutes, and translations of a few other documents, but I confess the it wasn't last month, as a matter of fact, it took me two years.  As I recall he holds that, in your terms, some are elect for heaven and some are not, and that is different.  If you will give me a citation from The Institutes I will be happy to look it up, my memory certainly isn't what it once was.  If the citation is from another document it could be a while.
> ...


It is not possible to provide either affirmations nor refutations of arguments that have never been put forth.  OSAS has never been affirmed by the Church.


----------



## Madman (Jun 14, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> I'm doudtful, but uncertain, that we have a record of Calvin saying that, but to the question at hand; what significant distinction is there in Augustin?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_in_Calvinism 

"
*Calvin's writings[edit]*
John Calvin taught double predestination. He wrote the foundational work on this topic, _Institutes of the Christian Religion_ (1539), while living in Strasbourg after his expulsion from Geneva and consulting regularly with the Reformed theologian Martin Bucer.[3][13] Calvin's belief in the uncompromised "sovereignty of God" spawned his doctrines of providence and predestination. For the world, without providence it would be "unlivable". For individuals, without predestination "no one would be saved".[14]

Calvin's doctrine of providence is straightforward. "All events whatsoever are governed by the secret counsel of God." Therefore, “nothing happens but what [God] has knowingly and willingly decreed.” This excludes "fortune and chance."[15] Calvin applied his doctrine of providence concerning "all events" to individuals and their salvation in his doctrine of predestination.

Calvin opened his exposition of predestination with an "actual fact". The "actual fact" that Calvin observed was that even among those to whom "the covenant of life" is preached, it does not gain the same acceptance.[16] Although, "all are called to repentance and faith", in actual fact, "the spirit of repentance and faith is not given to all".[17]

Calvin turned to the teachings of Jesus for a theological interpretation of the diversity that some people accept the "covenant of life" and some do not. Pointing to the Parable of the Sower, Calvin observed, "it is no new thing for the seed to fall among thorns or in stony places".[18] In Jesus’ teaching in John 6:65 that "no one can come to me unless it has been granted him by my Father", Calvin found the key to his theological interpretation of the diversity.[19]

For Calvin's biblically-based theology, this diversity reveals the "unsearchable depth of the divine judgment", a judgment "subordinate to God's purpose of eternal election". God offers salvation to some, but not to all. To many this seems a perplexing subject, because they deem it "incongruous that... some should be predestinated to salvation, and others to destruction". However, Calvin asserted that the incongruity can be resolved by proper views concerning "election and predestination".[20]

Thus, Calvin based his theological description of people as "predestinated to life or to death" on biblical authority and "actual fact".[21] Calvin noted that Scripture requires that we "consider this great mystery" of predestination, but he also warned against unrestrained "human curiosity" regarding it.[22] For believers, knowing that "the cause of our salvation did not proceed from us, but from God alone" evokes gratitude.[23]"


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 14, 2020)

Madman said:


> It is not possible to provide either affirmations nor refutations of arguments that have never been put forth.  OSAS has never been affirmed by the Church.


Please notice that your statement to which I responded is a compound sentence.


----------



## Foxfire (Jun 14, 2020)

OSAS.  Not TRUE !!!

Foxfire/Y2KZ71


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 14, 2020)

Madman said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_in_Calvinism
> 
> "
> *Calvin's writings[edit]*
> ...


Unresponsive.

what you posted is an interpretation based on third party opinion.  I asked for a citation from Calvin.

(edit) It does however confirm what I said  "the spirit of repentance and faith is not given to all".

Over all "Judus hung himself. "  "Go he therefore and do likewise. "  is just as useful.


----------



## Spineyman (Jun 14, 2020)

* John 10:25-30 *

25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me.  26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, [a]as I said to you.  27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.  28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.  29 My Father, who has given _them_ to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch _them_ out of My Father’s hand.  30 I and _My_ Father are one.”


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 14, 2020)

Madman said:


> If I am saved it is all God, if I am not it is all me.


If your salvation is "all God," how can losing it not be? If you did nothing to gain your salvation, how can you do something to lose it?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 14, 2020)

And I give them eternal life ....


So this is what saved is!!!!!!  to have eternal life!

Now could it be that some think they know what eternal life is and is not? They have checked scripture on it and judge that so and so ain't got it, yet I, or we do?

How does one know they are in God's hand not to be snatched? How does one know they got eternal life, sure, guaranteed?  Saved and to eternal life, can I go dancing 40 yrs with the idol worshipers... and then return to my Father's table... no questions asked? Impossible you say? I was not to it. Well 2Peter2 seems to say different?

2Peter2 seems to indicate that some had eternal life but because of lusts got themselves out of the way to be worse off than when they had not salvation or eternal life. So although God still has these folk in his hand, not to be snatched, does it mean they continue with  the satisfactions of those  earnest in the way and at home with God? Or does it mean that  like prodigal sons.. Father will welcome  back home if that son chooses to return and re-engage in relationship?

If I have eternal life  and decide go the other way to it and use my body''s and mind's cravings  to venture in acts outside of eternal life motivated works,  because I know to use my youthful God given body and my mind smarts at deceptions, to trick the world,  before it all goes, with the idea that given enough time I will return to Him when my physical and metal graces are undone and my deceptions and jigs no longer work, and my bag of tricks are old and then resume with my place in His hand, cause I know I've a place there, besides I have only raided the world that was of no account to begin with... I have used their monies and their mouths so the world could use less of it ---is this possible that I will be welcomed there in my father's hand... where there is a place for me?

Or today I will chose the lights of the world, today I'm to their boardwalks, when in Rome... and tomorrow I will return to the lights of eternal life...when in the Kingdom. It is not a fifty-fifty chance at nothing after all-- because my place in God's hand makes it 100 percent chance at somethin heavenly?


----------



## Spineyman (Jun 14, 2020)

* 1 John 5:11-13 *
11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.  12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.  13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, *that you may know that you have eternal life*, and that you may _continue to_ believe in the name of the Son of God.


----------



## Israel (Jun 15, 2020)

It never travels far for me from relationship.

I'm fairly convinced I haven't always  truly thought this way...even when I believed I was diligently banging the drum for it.
"It's not a matter of religion but relationship" I might say in some form or other, having a sense of its truth, some vague discerning between the form of a thing that is of practice...and something deeper.

If we can, or if you would consider, are you able to think of "salvation" as an estate? Not unlike "marriage" or "married" is an estate? One would then think and speak in terms of saved people, and in some likewise fashion married people. But I am not using "married" in any way to describe the relationship in salvation (though it is eminently useful), just as an "estate". One could just as easily say "American" is an estate. Or Canadian. And I think we can understand if, looking beyond (or deeper) than that "label" of estate, there can be a great variance.

One can be an American soldier, or an American tycoon, an American homeless, or an American pedophile, an American doctor, or an American serial killer. It's easy to see that only in some very broad sense (that may become so broad as to be useless) what appears a useful distinction, means little or nothing at all to the matter of the "man".

So useless in fact that some "American" individually finds he has far more in common with some Nigerian or Muscovite (as a discerning eye might see) than anything just being "American" captures...at all.

So too with marriage, or being married. I am married. Are you? Oh, we have something in common. We are of the "married people". Oh, but I cheat on my wife. You don't. And that fellow who is just as "married" beats his wife on a daily basis. And being married...we are all, or each individually, married to different people. And, as with American...just "being married" speaks nothing to each individuals true character/nature or state of being. A man who is a cannibal is just as "man" as well, for this purpose, Mother Theresa. And Adolf Hitler is a white man like Jonas Salk is a white man, and so on and so on.

But we admit when we speak of a thing like "saved" we run into the same matter...except...(and here is where it gets subtle if it really is at all, but might be the most plain, actually) are we defining it...or do we understand it to be a thing recognizable in establishment by, not "a" superior authority, but the _sole superior authority? _

All the married people hold papers from their government attesting they are married. (even though individually there can be great dispute "I ain't married the way that guy is, I never lay a hand on my wife")

And all the Americans hold American passports, or certification by birth certificate of their birth location. (But "I ain't an American like that guy is, I serve my country on the front lines, that guy robs people at gunpoint in alley ways")

So, what are we talking about when we say "saved"? As in "once saved always saved"? Is the term useful at all?

Is it useful beyond "what belongs to God, always belongs to God"? Or is it only useful for us to describe what we consider our own relationship to its understanding? "I believe in OSAS" (that's the kind of "saved" person I am) or "I don't believe in OSAS" (that the kind of saved person I am).

Like...of course there's a true estate called "marriage" (as their is an estate of salvation) but "I'm married but not the guy who beats his wife", or "I'm married too, and she needs smacking around sometime...and hey, I'm just "as married" as you!".

How much of all this "God stuff" and "Jesus stuff" is just fodder for conversation? Display? Or perhaps worse (as in my case) just for the purpose of striving to appear a certain way to one's self? And quite probably, to others? (AS is most particularly true in my case)

Till one may discover...there's one who sees _quite clearly_...or is it _too clearly?_

How much is for the purpose of saying "See, I'm truly married, too.." to a certain ignorance, a certain diversion from..."being" married. And how much is truly the overflow of that relationship as opposed to just trying to prove one is "truly in it"?

What if there were a safe way of such truth that a man could be brought to say "safely" to the only one able to accomplish it...safely..."I see I am more of a hindrance than ever could imagine myself to be (and _most especially_ when I think I may be a "help") ...so...get me out of the way that only what is true remain?

What does that look like?


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Jun 15, 2020)

I don't mind "once saved always saved" as a doctrine in isolation.  

But I despise combining it with the notion that something akin to praying the "sinner's prayer" moves everyone who prays it immediately from "unsaved" to "saved."

The Bible reveals salvation is commonly a process over time.  The "sinner's prayer" doctrine ignores that and probably makes a lot of reservations in **** when combined with "once saved always saved."  It leads to the absurd conclusion that most people who walked the aisle and prayed the sinner's prayer at some time in their past but whose lives over years since then demonstrate the desires of the sinful nature are going to heaven when they die.  This often contradicts several Scriptures:

Galatians 5 19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 15, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> I don't mind "once saved always saved" as a doctrine in isolation.
> 
> But I despise combining it with the notion that something akin to praying the "sinner's prayer" moves everyone who prays it immediately from "unsaved" to "saved."
> 
> ...



I see you equated "going to heaven when they die" with inheritance of the kingdom. And you linked these two concepts with a certain "proper" level of behavior.
But since heaven cannot be bought with any amount of "proper" behavior, there's something not jiving here. I believe you may have some things mixed up here. I don't think "going to heaven" and inheriting the kingdom are totally one and the same. The former is future, the latter is now.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 15, 2020)

Artfuldodger said:


> If your salvation is "all God," how can losing it not be? If you did nothing to gain your salvation, how can you do something to lose it?


Nailed it!


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 15, 2020)

gordon 2 said:


> And I give them eternal life ....
> 
> 
> So this is what saved is!!!!!!  to have eternal life!
> ...


Assuming that you reference the latter portion of 2Peter 2, I see there seeds among the thistles, maybe.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 15, 2020)

welderguy said:


> I see you equated "going to heaven when they die" with inheritance of the kingdom. And you linked these two concepts with a certain "proper" level of behavior.
> But since heaven cannot be bought with any amount of "proper" behavior, there's something not jiving here. I believe you may have some things mixed up here. I don't think "going to heaven" and inheriting the kingdom are totally one and the same. The former is future, the latter is now.



Here I am stuck in the middle with you. Is seems to my mojo, which is for the light from both scripture AND reason that if grace has seen fit to gift me a new heart of flesh, it does not follow that for grace I am a robot, unable to distort scripture or reason to the justification that behavior does not buy heaven--- yet scripture says different and reason also.

So jokers the right of me, clowns to the left, my mojo is shrewd. If Adam and Eve who were to eternal life took a wrong turn for eating a sour apple, then there must be more to man's will that is within the relationship said eternal life and that will can get you out of intimate or trusting favor with God. So my shrewd mojo says this has happened before, it can happen again. And what this thing is is eternal life that some will call salvation that can be made to be grieved by behavior. So if salvation is a way especially, Mojo says that way can be forsaken and human life itself God deserted. Mojo says the state of being saved is therefore conditional of being to the way.

Now my mojo says that Adam and Eve were never totally out of favor with God. And that many days they were lonely and so it was man's will was weeded by loneliness. Some days man's loneliness was directed towards Him and other days  man's  loneliness was occupied  to other things as if to forget what pained.

And so it is in man's nature, in his will, that even to eternal life man can and will return to his own shame and till it to his detriment or seek consolation, it implies some human effort. Even his understanding in good faith that he cannot return to it ( OSAS) with pointed finger at Peter who turned, son of Adam and like Him like us can be an idol of some sort-- according to my shred mojo.  My shred mojo says, he's not of the world... should I believe him what he declares? My mojo is he like a serpent  or in likeness a spirit keen to the heart to Christ?

In fairness I must admit, I'm stuck in the middle with you needing days to declare my salvation is not fearful of time as if I will be forever to eternal life come h... or high water, like my confident words are as those of some god. Those days I'm not a Peter.  I say it and I see it, so it is. Then I clutch at the pain in my chest for loneliness that was  and loneliness that is... and such is my weakness even with my shrewd mojo  near to console me. Mojo where do I turn?  Today I am like  a Peter stuck in the middle with you.

(I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. )


Mojo seems to think that this bit here implies that man's sinful will is being weeded out..., that God has seen to it that man, the glory of God, will not perish and that no lust or no demon will take His creation away from His hand. Yet it does not imply that some nations or individuals will not perish for bucking their consciences which is a product or element of eternal life to being with.


----------



## Flash (Jun 15, 2020)

IMO Once saved always saved IF saved in the first place.   I use this type of story to try and explain my belief:
 Imagine we go to a football game, a Clemson game. Death Valley is rocking, girls are pretty, day is sunny and cool breeze. Tigers are playing a great game, Orange and purple are pretty colors, I get me a t-shirt to fit in, I want to be one, a Tiger.    
  The game is over, I'm back at the house, maybe next day, next week, next yr.  I look in the closet and see my Dawg shirt. I'm really a Dawg, red is my color. I never really converted to orange, it seemed like the thing to do at the time, but really I never had a change of heart. I was never converted.


----------



## Madman (Jun 15, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> Unresponsive.
> 
> Over all "Judus hung himself. "  "Go he therefore and do likewise. "  is just as useful.


And I agree likewise from your unresponsiveness.  I am not sure what is behind the "rabbit trail" of predestination you are chasing, my point is that the (primar


hummerpoo said:


> Unresponsive.
> 
> what you posted is an interpretation based on third party opinion.  I asked for a citation from Calvin.
> 
> ...


It is not unresponsive I provided information, I am sorry if protestants are so remiss in in their citations however this is not that important to me.  Here is a quote that has been attributed to John Calvin by numerous protestant "Scholars" and I will allow others on this thread to determine it's validity.

“God preordained, for his own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal ****ation.”
― John Calvin 

My original point still stands that the (primary Baptist) doctrine of OSAS is an attempt to flesh out Calvin's doctrine in a manner that was not so harsh.

It is evident that your Latin and French are lacking by your apparent incomplete understanding of St. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. I say "apparent incomplete understanding, because you never really are willing to put forth your own ideas only veiled notes and remarks.

A simple review of the Second Council of Orange would help your understanding and perhaps if you would go back and read some catholic commentaries on this subject, after all, even though Augustine and Aquinas are members of the church they are not "THE CHURCH" and therefore do not set church doctrine.

I do realize it is difficult in the protestant world, not to latch onto one mans interpretation that sounds good and run with it, however in the church catholic, there must be a consensus. 

J_seph, I apologize for the nonsensical high jacking of your thread and I will leave all future responses on to the OSAS topic.


----------



## Madman (Jun 15, 2020)

Artfuldodger said:


> If your salvation is "all God," how can losing it not be? If you did nothing to gain your salvation, how can you do something to lose it?


Because I can walk away.


----------



## Madman (Jun 15, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> I don't mind "once saved always saved" as a doctrine in isolation.
> 
> But I despise combining it with the notion that something akin to praying the "sinner's prayer" moves everyone who prays it immediately from "unsaved" to "saved."
> 
> ...


Yes, in reading Paul's writings we do see he says; I was saved, I am being saved, I will be saved.


----------



## j_seph (Jun 15, 2020)

Madman said:


> You fellows go considerably deeper than I do or can.
> 
> I am convinced that "once saved always saved" comes from Calvin's doctrines of the total depravity of man. (No where in church history do we see this, even in discussion, before Calvin.)
> 
> ...


or from Scripture


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 15, 2020)

Madman said:


> And I agree likewise from your unresponsiveness.  I am not sure what is behind the "rabbit trail" of predestination you are chasing, my point is that the (primar



Apparently you are so hung up on Anti-Calvinist polemics that you have no awareness that there are far more doctrines involved than predestination.  I can show them to you, but I can't make you understand.



> It is not unresponsive I provided information, I am sorry if protestants are so remiss in in their citations however this is not that important to me.



Your "information" is the problem.

I have cited no protestants and referenced only one, Arminius (more on him later maybe), plus responded to you on Calvin.




> Here is a quote that has been attributed to John Calvin by numerous protestant "Scholars" and I will allow others on this thread to determine it's validity.
> 
> “God preordained, for his own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal ****ation.”
> ― John Calvin



I won't even take the time to put it in Google — been there, done that, and supplied many orphanages with T-shirts — because they most often turn out, if you can even find an origin, to come from a commentator who has given his opinion of someone else's work, or occasionally a simple misquote.  You know, like what you gave me.



> My original point still stands that the (primary Baptist) doctrine of OSAS is an attempt to flesh out Calvin's doctrine in a manner that was not so harsh.



O.K., so the fact that I do not subscribe to the OSAS, as it is usually presented, does not make me think that your position is correct.

*As to Eternal Security, Calvin is in substantial agreement with Augustin.
*And Thomas is in substantial agreement with Augustin.
(see first comment above)
*Not really Arminius, but The Remonstrant (a group of Arminius's followers) negatively responded to Calvin's Institutes with 5 points (often called The Remonstrance), one of which was Perseverance, in which their stance was that salvation could be lost.
*While in substantial agreement with the other 4 points, some (Southern Baptist's for example) negatively responded to the Eternal Security/Perseverance point with what has come to be known as OSAS.  So the S. Baptist, among others, and the Calvinist ended up on the same side of the ES-yes and ES-no question.

(Because this has come to me as I was studying other things, I do not know the who and when of how [the RC, a Protestant theologian, and some protestant denominations ended up on one side and the S. Baptist]**, Calvinist and the pre-reformation Catholics ended up on the other side, but it would be a great study for someone to take up.)

Oh, why I don't subscribe to OSAS as usually presented.  As I have seen it, it includes a synergistic soteriology (part of the other 4 points of The Remonstrance), and my personal soteriology is monergistic.



> It is evident that your Latin and French are lacking by your apparent incomplete understanding of St. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. I say "apparent incomplete understanding, because you never really are willing to put forth your own ideas only veiled notes and remarks.



I do not consider the conclusions of an old feeble country carpenter to be as convincing as those of the acknowledged, and more important verifiable, eminent theologians of the last two millennia.

We can let the reader decide who's understanding derives from a more complete investigation.



> A simple review of the Second Council of Orange would help your understanding


I have placed it on my list.




> and perhaps if you would go back and read some catholic commentaries on this subject, after all, even though Augustine and Aquinas are members of the church they are not "THE CHURCH" and therefore do not set church doctrine.



Commentaries are 4th on my order of investigation, and catholic commentaries are not rejected.  How do you think I got here?



> I do realize it is difficult in the protestant world, not to latch onto one mans interpretation that sounds good and run with it, however in the church catholic, there must be a consensus.



Sadly, that consensus has historically proven, in many cases, to consider far more worldly factors than it should have.


**edited to correct fingers and brain disconnect.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 15, 2020)

j_seph said:


> Yes it will, I have respect for Will Fuller. He is a good man and a good preacher.


From episode 1 I can tell that I will be following the series to completion, even if it turns out to be all summer.


----------



## Madman (Jun 15, 2020)

j_seph said:


> or from Scripture


that is the discussion i am interested in.


----------



## Madman (Jun 15, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> Apparently you are so hung up on Anti-Calvinist polemics that you have no awareness that there are far more doctrines involved than predestination.  I can show them to you, but I can't make you understand.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A point I hope we can agree on is that either topic, OSAS or predestination, cannot be fully fleshed out in the GON forums.

I have no desire to change any minds in here, only to put forth an argument for consideration.  

I spent years reading, studying, praying, etc., etc., etc., over these and other topics, some are still open in my mind but others have apparently been solved, but I have little time to return to the deep research on some of these things, I am mostly working on memory.  I am not a Google nor internet fan for research but for the sake of these engagements I do not have the time to pull the books down and dust them off, for that I apologize.

I do know this, in topics like these my opinion is of no value.

My desire is to make no enemies here nor to wound only to present, what I believe has been revealed to me and to the world wide continuing church for 2000+ years.


----------



## Madman (Jun 15, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> Commentaries are 4th on my order of investigation, and catholic commentaries are not rejected.  How do you think I got here?


Perhaps I am simply misunderstand your position, maybe one day someone on here would be interested in teaching of the ancient church and ask a question or two.

I am sure there are some well versed Orthodox, Romans, Coptics, etc. who would love to explain we ALL believe salvation comes only by the grace of God.


----------



## j_seph (Jun 15, 2020)

Madman said:


> that is the discussion i am interested in.


here is a good one, Why would Jesus stand at the door and knock if it were up to him to make the decision? If he wanted in could he not get in on his own? It is left to us to open that door when he knocks. We have to make the decision to let him in. I had never thought about this until our pastor mentioned it a while back. Even the paintings representing this scripture, there is not a door knob on the outside.
Revelation 3:20 
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.


----------



## furtaker (Jun 15, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> I don't mind "once saved always saved" as a doctrine in isolation.
> 
> But I despise combining it with the notion that something akin to praying the "sinner's prayer" moves everyone who prays it immediately from "unsaved" to "saved."
> 
> ...


1 Corinthians 15:50 "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption."

When a person believes in Christ, he receives a new nature which is sinless and will remain sinless.  That nature is the one that lives forever, because it is sinless.  However, he still has the flesh birth and it will remain until death.  The flesh birth is the one that commits all the sins in the verses you listed and cannot inherit the kingdom of God.  A man must be born again.

Who hasn't committed those sins?  That list of sins proves that every person of the human race is lost.  If those sins instead prove who is saved and who is lost, then every one of us is doomed, including you, because every one of us has done most or all of the sins in the list.

He who believes in the Son has eternal life.  Period.  To say anything else is to deny the promise of Jesus Himself.  I don't believe in the "sinner's prayer" either, because the Bible doesn't teach it.  Rather, the Bible teaches simple faith in the Son for everlasting life.


----------



## Israel (Jun 16, 2020)

The matter of OSAS, is it not a matter of assurance?
But we are secured by a person, captured even "captivity taken captive". (...taken captivity captive...)
By a doing? Yes.
By a working? Yes.
A, or thing(s) done? Yes.
Are there doctrines, teachings, expositions in the scripture as to the significance and fundamental necessity of these things to us and for us? Yes.

Yet, in a far different sense than we have casually understood of "doings" by conscious will in this world...even by the most committed and diligent of men...in the spiritual matters of which we speak none of these doings are viewed, or can be, except as substance of the One doing.

Jesus Christ _saves_ because_ He is Savior._
Jesus Christ _speaks wisdom _because_ He is the wisdom_ of God.
Jesus Christ _acts righteously _because _He is the very righteousness of God._

Does He judge righteously? He _is the righteous judge._

There is none of _His doing_ that can be understood or viewed rightly except as a revelation of Himself.

Why would this matter at all, especially here? Because as in all else, and surely no less than in assurance, we are assured and secured of (and by) a person.

Jesus tells us His words _are _*spirit *_and they are _*life.*

How different is this from words that "are _about _spirit and life_"?_

I am all persuaded, first, of this necessity (in the matters below), and also of the necessity of grace found in the One full of it (grace) to speak thus:

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

And this:

He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

If you think I am, or am capable of making a play to equate "keeping" and "doing", please reconsider. God knows very well both our weakness of frame and also our proclivity to assure ourselves, even in false or fraudulent display.

Consider the Pharisees...who, as believing (rightly) in God's calling and choosing, nevertheless made of it something grotesque. 

Do we wonder why benevolence warns us? It is such a small step taken from knowing a "thing" as right and to then undertake of assuring oneself that such knowing..._makes one right._

Jesus saw, and knew, and revealed these fellows are not at all happy campers, though seeming to take such pleasure in the God of their confession (the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob) with much display of just how much they practiced to an exceeding...when faced with the One who _truly delighted in God_...their poverty and misery was on plain display...and they hated Him for it. 

When all the "things done" to assure themselves and others that they indeed belonged to God stumbled them in the single matter of God's ownership of His Son as all of _given of God to salvation, _their resort was to other.

To be moved, perhaps to find one's self _unable to resist_ being moved, (in this matter of reference to being subdued...and _changed by the Authority_) is miraculous to one's sight. Nothing less can be "settled" for, nothing else can "do", but the promise of the Lord's manifestation.

Even (if I can be so bold without stumbling another) the notion of what we once considered salvation...of what is as a "thing" means or meant, pales here. Oh, it is not that God neither cares or does not know how important it has been made to us this "thing" of being _saved, _but His response, His doing remains to that end, the giving of His son. The showing of His Son. The revealing of His Son. His glorious boasting...of His Son.

And so skirting what to some will seem heresy, to others tomfoolery there's a curious place where salvation (of itself as "thing") takes on no matter...but only the seeing of the Son of God.

Yet, please, think and consider for a moment; could there be, would there be, might there be...and if there is...a frame of mind where such is true? Does a man, knowing himself a man...wonder _if he is a man? _

Would "the saved" have any worry about it, or care about it in any sense to seek to have to either prove it to themselves or any other? What a terrible burden is there, _in that._ Let us not be as the Pharisees in our proclamation of the God we confess has given His Son...to salvation...and then make of salvation a burdensome gift for engendering  worry. Is this what God has given...of such singular import to man, salvation...that "in it" is found all...to _worry about_?

Or is it as it has been for some, as confessed by Paul reduced of its _thingness to something else? _The "those who have loved His appearing?"

God knows that in these tents we need assurance. God also knows that in these tents _subject to temptations_ we may be prompted to "come up with stuff" for comforts of such assurance. Our "need to know" is very great, and so easily taken advantage of.

What is greater (could there possibly be?) than the Lord's manifesting of Himself...to a disciple? Is there some "thing" wanted more than _seeing the Lord?_ Might _all else _there, not merely pale, but truly be shown in _that light _as the "thing" it is?

"Oh", one might say, "but all will eventually _see the Lord, even as He is!"_
Indeed.

But the man who has learned _in time _that "even so, come Lord" _is true_, and is made aware of the significance of "even so" in that matter (regardless of what a man might consider his estate)...is superseded and eclipsed by a desire not his own to see even "his own" end...that Jesus Christ alone _be seen, _will find himself first at "odds" with himself, and surely everything else that might hope to "put off" the Lord's appearing.

I have had no right to see the Lord's appearing...and yet, the Lord's appearing is all and only that which _is right._

And God knows how very much man needs and has needed this, lest he come up with_ his own stuff._


I often think of that scene in Shawshank where Red is at his parole hearings. Of all the many times he had tried to convince others he was rehabilitated...and how finally something changed.

He finally didn't care at all about "it"...being paroled. He was even so bold now when asked whether he was rehabilitated, that he had come to know something about that "word" that he was not shy in expressing, being now care free of seeking to "prove it". What liberty...to not care about ones estate to seek to "try" and change it. To even make peace with all that appears to others...as an estate which, in all hope...one would, or should, seek to change. (Paul said "I am what I am by the grace of God")

But he was. Rehabilitated. Not by seeking to explain that he was...or even caring at all for what he might gain if he could do so convincingly. Rehabilitation was at work in him.


And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name _was_ Simeon; and the same man _was_ just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,

Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:

For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;

A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.


----------



## j_seph (Jun 16, 2020)

furtaker said:


> 1 Corinthians 15:50 "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption."
> 
> When a person believes in Christ, he receives a new nature which is sinless and will remain sinless.  That nature is the one that lives forever, because it is sinless.  However, he still has the flesh birth and it will remain until death.  The flesh birth is the one that commits all the sins in the verses you listed and cannot inherit the kingdom of God.  A man must be born again.
> 
> ...


are you saying a 2 year old is lost and before he can accept Christ if he dies he does not make it to Heaven?


----------



## Madman (Jun 16, 2020)

This discussion is not only theological it is also philosophical.   I see the church having these discussions since it's inception.  

I do not read Peter declaring at the Jerusalem that it is only about a relationship, his argument is about the very nature of God, and I believe that is what these discussions are about.

Some who have been taught and believe the doctrine of OSAS very well may see it as license to live a life as they choose, since they have their ticket, just as some who think they are of the elect need not evangelize as God has already printed all the tickets and nothing can change that.

My argument is that God has predestined everyone to be conformed to the likeness of his son, but not all will be.  OSAS or eternal security, is a very comforting doctrine and attempts to rightly place all sovereignty in God's hands, but it negates mans freewill, the very thing that got Adam banned from the garden.

I am looking forward to what people have to say, or as Steven Crowder says, "Change my mind".


----------



## Madman (Jun 16, 2020)

j_seph said:


> are you saying a 2 year old is lost and before he can accept Christ if he dies he does not make it to Heaven?


Perhaps the old belief in Limbo.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 16, 2020)

I would love for believers to know the heart freshly fashioned in them comes from a permanent work of providence and mercy, nothing of His very life withheld.
Held secure isn't dangerous, its godliness and liberating.
The sad thing is we know not Who lives there and has recreated it.
How foolish our freedom and security is believed to be cast to the sea of license in error. When we realise our true worth and fit we will value that life by reflecting it.  New hearts and spirits are the completeness of the cross, not its undoing.


----------



## Israel (Jun 17, 2020)

I came to my senses this morning with this thought running through my mind, especially in regards to relationship, and that with the Lord.

I sometimes wonder if it is a flattery, or a vanity of my own to speak as to the "wiser", as though I can corral agreement by such appeal. Bear with me or not, rebuke me as needed, and no doubt you will show yourself the wiser if you see any shenanigans and expose them, plainly.

But this was the the word of the Lord I believe I see (and hear), and hope to serve in simplicity this morning.

"I am the only one with authority and power to blow up this relationship, but I will not; and you are the one without authority and power to do so, though you will try to."


Now, I understand the peril here. The need of resistance. The necessity of thorough examination, and no doubt, with a bias toward unbelief. No, not necessarily unbelief in the general sense of a faithlessness toward the Lord...but the belief that you do not believe this could be the word of the Lord, at all.

"We are the instructed" one might easily say. "We are told _what to do _to preserve this relationship...why would the Lord speak instruction to what He would say (if indeed He has said, as this man claims) He _already knows_ has a bent toward ruining relationship?" (this would be most easily said by the one who believes himself "_always open_ to instruction")

Is this vanity? Is this corralling? That I believe some of you understand and know, _by experience, _entrance of grace is _only entrance?_

The man hears "love you neighbor as yourself" or "rejoice in all things" or "pray without ceasing" or "give expecting nothing in return"...and approves;

"Yes", he says, "I agree and see these are good things and so,_ I will do them_". "I will keep myself, as I am told, in the love of God."

OK. "After all, didn't Jesus say 'If you know these things, happy are you if you do them'?" The man says "I want to be happy, yes, I will do them!"

We discover a corollary, or an obverse though.

I have...have you?

It is too painfully plain. I have discovered, have you?

If you know these things...but do not do them, you are miserable.

And so miserable in discovery of your abject failure of "yours" to do, as it is made plain...over and over again (I have discovered, have you?) that these _instructions_ themselves seem so onerous, burdensome, as coming from one who has no desire but to see you crushed under them in your futility, that (who is going to "own" up?) you have a bent toward now understanding too well that fellow who says "You are a hard man, reaping where you did not sow!"
I know a man who in such came to imagine himself "all of being taken advantage of".


I _know_ Jonah. And not from a book. But I understand this only sounds like a boast...to those who only know Jonah...from a book. Those who have met him know there is no boasting of knowing him. (Now, the Lord who continues to speak to "a" Jonah...well...there's no one else to know)


What? No no no, I am the good ground, I am the faithful steward, I am the one who makes good use of his talents..."_I am not the one who easily says_ "I see your blessing upon others who have not labored as I have through the heat of the day...is this...fair?!!"
(yes, many it seems simply opt to believe that they are indeed all these, a "good" christian), but if no one else cares to, (and maybe I am indeed the only one) I own up.

The earning of place, oh, how we all say "it cannot be done...it is all futile"...but, who wants the accountant to show up? He does you know, whether we want Him to, or not. He knows the ledgers we keep of balances.
We may not like our sadness made so obvious if we try to hide it...as he burns them up...the "what we are owed...", we may even become...angry.

Or as Jonah said "I am so angry I could die".

But, that's OK, He's not going to blow up the relationship. It's His showing up that shows this, and there we might even discover "You really do forgive sin"!

(And not because it's written in a book)


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 17, 2020)

I can only say what I have experienced personally.  I was saved at age 14, that of which I have no doubt.  I received the Holy Spirit at that time which had the effect of confirming Christ as MY Lord and  MY God.  Since that time I spent the better part of 40 years like a fish in the surf, intent on crashing myself upon the rocks of sin over and over again.  During that time I never doubted who Christ was.  Like I said, the HS confirmed him to me.  I have been reeled in once again and my Lord has softened my head enough on the rocks that I was able to understand and find something I never could: That God is a person who loves me with an unyielding love.  In fact he loves us all with the same unyielding love: saved or unsaved.   That is my belief.   I can't and won't debate this in theological rhetoric.  I simply have no desire for such sterility. IMHO GOD'S HEART is lost in the debate over terms and history, if it even is considered to begin with.  It's like Israel referred to above:  it's the personal relationship of it that is the heart of it:God's Heart and my heart/your heart.

When God's love ceases my salvation ends.  When God's mercy and grace end, my salvation ends.  When God's word is no longer true, my salvation is no longer.  When Christ's death holds no more meaning, my salvation is lost.  When God dies, so does my salvation.  Salvation is of The Lord and The Lord only and it's good for me that it is. I can’t keep up with a set of car keys.  Thank God I’m not entrusted with keeping my salvation.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 17, 2020)

StriperAddict said:


> I would love for believers to know the heart freshly fashioned in them comes from a permanent work of providence and mercy, nothing of His very life withheld.
> Held secure isn't dangerous, its godliness and liberating.
> The sad thing is we know not Who lives there and has recreated it.
> How foolish our freedom and security is believed to be cast to the sea of license in error. When we realise our true worth and fit we will value that life by reflecting it.  New hearts and spirits are the completeness of the cross, not its undoing.




New hearts and spirit often make deals, even when they know they are new. Why is it that men and women, of the greatest hearts and spirit and of the greatest moral character worry that we do, that they can loose church and Republic? Why do these get vexed over authority? For they do. That even their hearts are imperfect? Even new hearts, freshly fashioned make deals. And so the saved and the always saved can send themselves and others to decay--- new hearts, old hearts and they can grieve the HS... which is the conduit of relationship or eternal life.

But it is true that new hearts are of true worth.But can we keep them?

Is a man or a women married when they are and know they are purposely unfaithful? Can deals be cut that adultery might not be a sin because we were party to a new heart? Nevertheless we can be forgiven again and again and again...( if) we repent.

Like SFD I don't need high flying theology, terms and takes on history... to make light on it. And so I say what I have experienced personally in and out of eternal life. If eternal life is salvation, I can faint my presence, take it for granted, or simply not be present. I can.  I find it strange to understand that I could be inoculated for what Adam and Eve were not...


----------



## welderguy (Jun 17, 2020)

j_seph said:


> are you saying a 2 year old is lost and before he can accept Christ if he dies he does not make it to Heaven?



The two year old is no more hindered than you are. 

"for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 17, 2020)

gordon 2 said:


> New hearts and spirit often make deals, even when they know they are new. Why is it that men and women, of the greatest hearts and spirit and of the greatest moral character worry that we do, that they can loose church and Republic? Why do these get vexed over authority? For they do. That even their hearts are imperfect? Even new hearts, freshly fashioned make deals. And so the saved and the always saved can send themselves and others to decay--- new hearts, old hearts and they can grieve the HS... which is the conduit of relationship or eternal life.
> 
> But it is true that new hearts are of true worth.But can we keep them?
> 
> ...



This verse is a tough one for many to believe, but it is true for you, for me, for any in Christ:
Rom 6:17, 18
17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you _*became obedient from the heart*_ to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
18 and having been freed from sin, _you became slaves of righteousness_.

I get the part that we consider it's our hearts that "go astray" and find all manner of vexing handles to consider ... BUT clearly, from this verse (and others, on request) our hearts are immovable, have a new passion for righteousness - by the One now living there, and there's a resulting GREAT comfort in that 
However, not that we (apart from this crucifixion and heart surgery) are adequate to be our own sufficiency IN that, but our sufficiency is OF and FROM God. This then is the secret of comfort, that we depend completly on His work within, to guide us into the continued KNOWING of this truth ... even should our old beliefs come and kick and scream against this "new us".

Also, it is wise to note that we have not been freed from stinkin thinkin, aka, the old lies of falling from grace when our thoughts and beliefs go astray - from the pressure of the world, flesh and devil.

It's a renewed thought process brother. One I wouldn't have the body of Christ miss for all the religious works throughout all time.  You can believe you are the product of what you DO (a religious error prompted by many so called scholars), or you can believe you can live out of that new creation heart Jesus freely gave, and enjoy the real you built upon His work and righteousness. 

Rom 12:1,2
1 Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to _present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice_ (this is identity, not "try to be" goals!), acceptable to God, _which is_ your spiritual service of worship.
2 And do not be conformed to this world, but _be transformed by the renewing of your mind_, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

---  _emphasis mine_

- Peace


----------



## j_seph (Jun 18, 2020)

Part 2


----------



## brian lancaster (Jun 19, 2020)

if you could do something to loose your salvation then you would have to do something to earn it and that's not what jesus taught


----------



## Israel (Jun 19, 2020)

"But it doesn't look like anything's changed" he cried, lamenting that fact that to his eyes nothing really had.

"Oh, but it has" came the reply, "it's all changed, and so completely that things can never again be the same."

"How can you say that?" he asked almost in frustration. "Really, how can you say that? There are still wars and evil and all sorts of corruption and malice...sickness, lies, iniquity and betrayals and terrible suffering. See, nothing's changed, no, nothing at all!" He said all the more staunchly, almost with accusation that so provoked him, he went on boldly "If anything, I would even say things are worse!"

"Yes? And...?" was the response, coming so plainly as questions that seemed neither help nor comfort that the man felt pressed to his limit.

He was beyond care now whether his words would be chosen wisely or just give full vent to all he was feeling, seeing, knowing, and experiencing. Beyond caring of fear or reprisal now, he didn't care at all how he appeared before this one. He had no care except to be heard as plainly and rightly as he could make himself heard so that regardless of what was to come, or might...even upon him, his sole impetus was to now make clear all that was in his heart. And so he said:

"Look!" he thundered.  And again without shame or fear "Look here! This is the worst part. You wanna know what the worst part is? I'll tell you, and I'll tell you right now. The worst part is I see all these things still at work in me. Yes...shock you? Do I shock you? I see how easily I can lie, how easily I can betray, I see how simple it is for me to wanna save my own skin and do most anything for that that I can't much care or see at all the suffering it causes afterwards. Even with loved ones. Do you get me now? Finally? All these things you have shown me that are terrible in both doing and consequence...yes...every single one of them, and not any one of them, no! not any at all, is beyond my thinking or doing. I'm no better now than I ever was or thought, and yes, honestly I think I'm _even worse. Yes, I do, now I am sure of it, I am even worse!" _he said almost feverishly, hoping some of this complaint would finally get through to moving to a response of better help, or at least acknowledgement.

But..."So?"...was the only reply. And again as such plainly phrased question that the man was not sure whether total infuriation or just laughing in absurd frustration at this impasse was what he was being provoked to. To him it seemed now, he might just as well be talking to a wall. There was no moving of it. Yet he couldn't resist this final complaint, and so he made it. He would rather speak whether he thought he was being rightly heard, or not.

"And do you want to know what the kicker is? Do you really want to know where this all leaves me, whether you care or not? Well, this is it, this is the low down dirty truth of it all, and if you care at all, I mean at all, then I'll tell you...but even if you don't, I'm saying it anyway. There's not one thing, no not one thing you've left me, or given me to do _that I can do_, that will _make me_ anything _like you_!"








"See?" came the response. "I told you everything has changed".


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 19, 2020)

Madman said:


> This discussion is not only theological it is also philosophical.   I see the church having these discussions since it's inception.
> 
> I do not read Peter declaring at the Jerusalem that it is only about a relationship, his argument is about the very nature of God, and I believe that is what these discussions are about.
> 
> ...



You are correct.  Somewhere along the spectrum I have to believe God's sovereignty ends at man's free will, Yet I have absolutely no idea where that is. I suspect that is all man has though; the right to reject God.   I reserve the right to be completely wrong, and I find myself even wavering on that some days. That said, if I cede that man does have that amount of free will, then it only serves (in my mind) to place much weight on the personal relationship. I have been this man:

I fled Him, down the nights and down the days;
  I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways
  Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears
I hid from Him, and under running laughter.
                  Up vistaed hopes I sped;
                  And shot, precipitated,
Adown Titanic glooms of chasmed fears,
From those strong Feet that followed, followed after.
                  But with unhurrying chase,
                  And unperturbèd pace,
                Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
                  They beat--and a Voice beat
                  More instant than the Feet--
                "All things betray thee, who betrayest Me."

                  I pleaded, outlaw-wise,
By many a hearted casement, curtained red,
  Trellised with intertwining charities
(For, though I knew His love Who followed,
                  Yet was I sore adread
Lest having Him, I must have naught beside);
But if one little casement parted wide,
  The gust of His approach would clash it to.
  Fear wist not to evade, as Love wist to pursue.
Across the margent of the world I fled,
  And troubled the gold gateways of the stars,
Smiting for shelter on their clanged bars;
                  Fretted to dulcet jars
And silvern chatter the pale ports o' the moon.
I said to dawn, Be sudden; to eve, Be soon;
  With thy young skyey blossoms heap me over
                  From this tremendous Lover!
Float thy vague veil about me, lest He see!
  I tempted all His servitors, but to find
My own betrayal in their constancy,
In faith to Him their fickleness to me,
  Their traitorous trueness, and their loyal deceit.
To all swift things for swiftness did I sue;
  Clung to the whistling mane of every wind.
                  But whether they swept, smoothly fleet,
                The long savannahs of the blue;
                    Or whether, Thunder-driven,
                  They clanged his chariot 'thwart a heaven
Plashy with flying lightnings round the spurn o' their feet--
                  Still with unhurrying chase,
                  And unperturbèd pace,
                Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
                  Came on the following Feet,
                  And a Voice above their beat--
                "Naught shelters thee, who wilt not shelter Me."

I sought no more that after which I strayed
                In face of man or maid;
But still within the little children's eyes
                Seems something, something that replies;
_They_ at least are for me, surely for me!
I turned me to them very wistfully;
But, just as their young eyes grew sudden fair
                With dawning answers there,
Their angel plucked them from me by the hair.
"Come then, ye other children, Nature's--share
With me," said I, "your delicate fellowship;
                Let me greet you lip to lip,
                Let me twine with you caresses,
                  Wantoning
              With our Lady-Mother's vagrant tresses'
                  Banqueting
                With her in her wind-walled palace,
                Underneath her azured daïs,
                Quaffing, as your taintless way is,
                    From a chalice
Lucent-weeping out of the dayspring."
                    So it was done;
_I_ in their delicate fellowship was one--
Drew the bolt of Nature's secrecies.
_I_ knew all the swift importings
                  On the wilful face of skies;
                  I knew how the clouds arise
                  Spumèd of the wild sea-snortings;
                    All that's born or dies
                  Rose and drooped with--made them shapers
Of mine own moods, or wailful or divine--
                  With them joyed and was bereaven.
                  I was heavy with the even,
                  When she lit her glimmering tapers
                  Round the day's dead sanctities.
                  I laughed in the morning's eyes.
I triumphed and I saddened with all weather,
                  Heaven and I wept together,
And its sweet tears were salt with mortal mine;
Against the red throb of its sunset-heart
                    I laid my own to beat,
                    And share commingling heat;
But not by that, by that, was eased my human smart.
In vain my tears were wet on Heaven's gray cheek.
For ah! we know not what each other says,
                These things and I; in sound _I_ speak--
_Their_ sound is but their stir, they speak by silences.
Nature, poor stepdame, cannot slake my drouth;
                  Let her, if she would owe me,
Drop yon blue bosom-veil of sky, and show me
                  The breasts of her tenderness;
Never did any milk of hers once bless
                    My thirsting mouth.
                    Nigh and nigh draws the chase,
                    With unperturbèd pace,
                  Deliberate speed, majestic instancy;
                    And past those noisèd Feet
                    A voice comes yet more fleet--
"Lo naught contents thee, who content'st not Me."

Naked I wait Thy love's uplifted stroke!
My harness piece by piece Thou hast hewn from me,
                    And smitten me to my knee;
                I am defenseless utterly.
                I slept, methinks, and woke,
And, slowly gazing, find me stripped in sleep.
In the rash lustihead of my young powers,
                I shook the pillaring hours
And pulled my life upon me; grimed with smears,
I stand amid the dust o' the mounded years--
My mangled youth lies dead beneath the heap.
My days have crackled and gone up in smoke,
Have puffed and burst as sun-starts on a stream.
                Yea, faileth now even dream
The dreamer, and the lute the lutanist;
Even the linked fantasies, in whose blossomy twist
I swung the earth a trinket at my wrist,
Are yielding; cords of all too weak account
For earth with heavy griefs so overplussed.
                Ah! is Thy love indeed
A weed, albeit amaranthine weed,
Suffering no flowers except its own to mount?
                Ah! must--
                Designer infinite!--
Ah! must Thou char the wood ere Thou canst limn with it?
My freshness spent its wavering shower i' the dust;
And now my heart is a broken fount,
Wherein tear-drippings stagnate, spilt down ever
                From the dank thoughts that shiver
Upon the sighful branches of my mind.
                Such is; what is to be?
The pulp so bitter, how shall taste the rind?
I dimly guess what Time in mist confounds;
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
From the hid battlements of Eternity;
Those shaken mists a space unsettle, then
Round the half-glimpsed turrets slowly wash again.
                But not ere him who summoneth
                I first have seen, enwound
With blooming robes, purpureal, cypress-crowned;
His name I know, and what his trumpet saith.
Whether man's heart or life it be which yields
                Thee harvest, must Thy harvest fields
                Be dunged with rotten death?

                  Now of that long pursuit
                  Comes on at hand the bruit;
                That Voice is round me like a bursting sea:
                  "And is thy earth so marred,
                  Shattered in shard on shard?
                Lo, all things fly thee, for thou fliest Me!
                Strange, piteous, futile thing,
Wherefore should any set thee love apart?
Seeing none but I makes much of naught," He said,
"And human love needs human meriting,
                How hast thou merited--
Of all man's clotted clay rhe dingiest clot?
                Alack, thou knowest not
How little worthy of any love thou art!
Whom wilt thou find to love ignoble thee
                Save Me, save only Me?
All which I took from thee I did but take,
                Not for thy harms.
But just that thou might'st seek it in my arms.
                All which thy child's mistake
Fancies as lost, I have stored for the at home;
                Rise, clasp My hand, and come!"

  Halts by me that footfall;
  Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstreched caressingly?
  "Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
  I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me."

and I have been this man:

*Psalm 38*
O Lord, rebuke me not in Your wrath,
And chasten me not in Your burning anger.
For Your arrows have sunk deep into me,
And Your hand has pressed down on me.
There is no soundness in my flesh because of Your indignation;
There is no health in my bones because of my sin.
For my iniquities are gone over my head;
As a heavy burden they weigh too much for me.
My wounds grow foul _and_ fester
Because of my folly.
I am bent over and greatly bowed down;
I go mourning all day long.
For my loins are filled with burning,
And there is no soundness in my flesh.
I am benumbed and badly crushed;
I groan because of the agitation of my heart.
Lord, all my desire is before You;
And my sighing is not hidden from You.
My heart throbs, my strength fails me;
And the light of my eyes, even that has gone from me.
11 My loved ones and my friends stand aloof from my plague;
And my kinsmen stand afar off.
12 Those who seek my life lay snares _for me_;
And those who seek to injure me have threatened destruction,
And they devise treachery all day long.
13 But I, like a deaf man, do not hear;
And _I am_ like a mute man who does not open his mouth.
14 Yes, I am like a man who does not hear,
And in whose mouth are no arguments.
15 For I hope in You, O Lord;
You will answer, O Lord my God.
16 For I said, “May they not rejoice over me,
_Who_, when my foot slips, would magnify themselves against me.”
17 For I am ready to fall,
And my sorrow is continually before me.
18 For I confess my iniquity;
I am full of anxiety because of my sin.
19 But my enemies are vigorous _and_ strong,
And many are those who hate me wrongfully.
20 And those who repay evil for good,
They oppose me, because I follow what is good.
21 Do not forsake me, O Lord;
O my God, do not be far from me!
22 Make haste to help me,
O Lord, my salvation!

and all I can add to this is if God allowed me to live until I pounded myself into total submission to him, then what of my will, my sovereignty.  Sorry, but off on a tangent from the OSAS.  I apologize, as I said I would not bother with such philosophical/theological meanderings and yet I have again to absolutely no gain for God or anyone else.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 22, 2020)

I spent a lot of time in prayer and meditation over the last few days and it was good to say the least.  One thing that just 'came', 'out of the blue' so-to-speak,(but from God truth be told and understood), brought me a little more insight on where God's sovereignty ends.  I think (still tentatively), and only based on MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, and reflecting on it, that MY will is the only thing capable of deterring the will of God, and that is only in so much as my spirit is concerned....nothing else.  This FWIW.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 22, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I spent a lot of time in prayer and meditation over the last few days and it was good to say the least.  One thing that just 'came', 'out of the blue' so-to-speak,(but from God truth be told and understood), brought me a little more insight on where God's sovereignty ends.  I think (still tentatively), and only based on MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, and reflecting on it, that MY will is the only thing capable of deterring the will of God, and that is only in so much as my spirit is concerned....nothing else.  This FWIW.




That was Jonah's argument with man and God perhaps. He said, "I go to nincompoops of Nineveh and they ain't gona turn. All this is, is an exercise to see if Jonah's will can be booted  and rebooted." Meanwhile all Nincompoops turned and Jonah still failed to see the big picture and that deterring the will of God was not after all all about himself. All is not all, that is all, all the time regards one's spirit maybe. Sometimes one's mojo is the right tool to God's purpose for the spirit of others... perhaps.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 24, 2020)

gordon 2 said:


> That was Jonah's argument with man and God perhaps. He said, "I go to nincompoops of Nineveh and they ain't gona turn. All this is, is an exercise to see if Jonah's will can be booted  and rebooted." Meanwhile all Nincompoops turned and Jonah still failed to see the big picture and that deterring the will of God was not after all all about himself. All is not all, that is all, all the time regards one's spirit maybe. Sometimes one's mojo is the right tool to God's purpose for the spirit of others... perhaps.



Yes.

I honestly just saw this after posting on Rom 8:28 elsewhere.


----------



## barryl (Jul 4, 2020)

Madman said:


> You fellows go considerably deeper than I do or can.
> 
> I am convinced that "once saved always saved" comes from Calvin's doctrines of the total depravity of man. (No where in church history do we see this, even in discussion, before Calvin.)
> 
> ...


 Maybe you ought to go to what "Paul" had to say about Salvation. osas is a "Bible" doctrine, if you put it in the right place.


----------



## Madman (Jul 7, 2020)

barryl said:


> Maybe you ought to go to what "Paul" had to say about Salvation. osas is a "Bible" doctrine, if you put it in the right place.


Only what Paul has to say on one specific verse?

 Perhaps you should look at the entire doctrine of salvation and what Holy Scripture teaches.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 7, 2020)

The interpretation of many statements in Scripture is dependent upon whether the statement is understood to be declarative or imperative; and which is chosen is most often dependent upon whether scripture is understood to be about men or understood to be about God.  So, the first question that must be asked and answered is "Is creation anthropocentric or theocentric?"


----------



## j_seph (Jul 7, 2020)

Does everyone agree: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

What about: And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God

So if we all have (past tense) sinned and come short short (present tense). There is no one good but the father.

When we are saved, we already know that we will fall short and we cannot be perfect. We are to be Christ Like and strive to do so yet he was perfect. Why would salvation even be offered to us knowing from the beginning that we would come short and that we could not be perfect? Why would our Father give us something that we could lose in the blink of an eye?


----------



## StriperAddict (Jul 9, 2020)

j_seph said:


> Does everyone agree: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.
> 
> What about: And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God
> 
> ...



Exactly. 

It's schizophrenic Christianity to be saved one minute and unsaved the next. A better question is - just how well did the cross and resurrection work?  And if these came by a one time complete, perfect offering then why would we have the audacity to believe there is a "work" we can do to un-do a perfect work?

The big problem I see many having is the issue with the heart, or the seat of our deepest desires.  So when we buy the lies of the flesh and not walk in the desire of the Spirit within we become miserable. And how cool that the opposite is true, that sharing ourselves and our gifts as we see fitting in the world around us is quite incredibly fulfilling, is it not?  It seems we "prove" this new heart God freely gave by sinning and being disappointed or walking in faith, eyes on Christ and being fulfilled.  

You are right on, we stumble in many ways.  But on my worst days I am cherished, enjoyed and loved from within, God remaining faithful because He can never deny HIMSELF.  That's our security within His Covenant, Father to Son, who will never leave nor forsake His offspring.  

New birth = New life.  
Quoting an old Monty Python movie ... "and there was MUCH rejoicing" (sorry, couldn't resist!)


----------



## j_seph (Jul 9, 2020)

StriperAddict said:


> Exactly.
> 
> It's schizophrenic Christianity to be saved one minute and unsaved the next. A better question is - just how well did the cross and resurrection work?  And if these came by a one time complete, perfect offering then why would we have the audacity to believe there is a "work" we can do to un-do a perfect work?
> 
> ...


Also Christ came and died for all of our sins. When he comes back he ain't coming back to die again for our sins. Lord knows I would wear him out if he had to come back every time and die just for mine.


----------



## Madman (Jul 10, 2020)

StriperAddict said:


> You are right on, we stumble in many ways.  But on my worst days I am cherished, enjoyed and loved from within, God remaining faithful because He can never deny HIMSELF.  That's our security within His Covenant, Father to Son, who will never leave nor forsake His offspring.


Is the non Christian not also cherished by God?   I am not sure what being cherished has to do with salvation.


----------



## Madman (Jul 10, 2020)

j_seph said:


> Also Christ came and died for all of our sins. When he comes back he ain't coming back to die again for our sins. Lord knows I would wear him out if he had to come back every time and die just for mine.


I am missing this idea of "resacrifice" upon Christs return.

I hear none talking about that, I hear Christian's admitting that we stumble and sometimes even fall, but confession and repentance clean us back up. 

As when Peter told Christ not to just wash his feet but his head and hands also, Jesus told him he didnt need a bath he was already clean, but he did need a little touch up.

I dont understand the idea that once someone comes to Christ, they can go on about life and live however, because their sins, even those not committed are forgiven.

I continue to look for the Scripture that supports this thought.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 10, 2020)

I think, I reason perhaps at the heart of it there are two groups of Christians regards salvation:

One group would that sin, even though we are to Christ, would separate the baptized from God or at least weaken considerably the relationship said eternal life, that God himself would turn away as Adam and Eve where turned away and that restoration is provided by repentance and the ministry within the Church . In this case sin injures not only the individual but also frustrates the will of God and therefore God himself.

The other group would that sin harms the relationship of the individual to the self and not so much eternal life-- and that God's will is not injured or frustrated; that regardless of sin  man continues even saved as a coined sinner-- and so eternal life continues in earnest, individual salvation is not impaired, and that God through Jesus Christ is not injured by sin. That restoration of the  integrity of the self which is the real harm of sin is due to repentance in that the sinner is his own minister or priest--needing not the Church for restoration.

It is two views of life, two views of the effect of sin on eternal life, and two views of the nature of God and the design intended by Jesus Christ. One view is that heaven is not bothered by the sins of Christians and the other is that it is. One group sees saints as sinners and cannot be separate one to the other and to the other group, saints are especially not sinners being by definitions spiritually redirected to acts or being which designs are not to the world.

The greatest tragedy of one group is that some people will never be of the elect and the greatest tragedy of the other is that the elect will return to a state as if they were not and be worst off then the non elect. They will be worst off because even what is wrong will be right and what is right will be wrong-- including notions on the self and salvation. And to the other group wrong and right is simply man's lot even believers-- which no amounts of right or wrong can undo salvation and frustrate the will of God 

Perhaps.


----------



## j_seph (Jul 10, 2020)

Madman said:


> I am missing this idea of "resacrifice" upon Christs return.
> 
> I hear none talking about that, I hear Christian's admitting that we stumble and sometimes even fall, but confession and repentance clean us back up.
> 
> ...



Ask why did Christ come to begin with? What was the purpose for Christ to come? What was the purpose of him dying for our sins on the cross? God gave his *only* begotten son that *whosoever* believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. He gave one the one the I am. He came, he died, he resurrect from the dead. That is why Jesus came for us and died for us. His job was done for us, if that is what it took to bring salvation for us and if we could lose it then what would be the next means for us to find it. He died for all one time.

"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly . . . But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Romans 5:6, 8, KJV


"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;"
1 Corinthians 15:3, KJV


"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."
2 Corinthians 5:21, KJV


"Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:"
Galatians 1:3-4, KJV


"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."
1 Timothy 1:15, KJV


"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;"
Hebrews 1:3, KJV


"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."
Hebrews 9:28, KJV


"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed."
1 Peter 2:24, KJV


"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."
1 John 1:7, KJV


"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
1 John 2:1-2, KJV


"And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin."
1 John 3:5, KJV


"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
1 John 4:10, KJV


"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,"
Revelation 1:5, KJV


----------



## Madman (Jul 10, 2020)

j_seph said:


> Ask why did Christ come to begin with? What was the purpose for Christ to come? What was the purpose of him dying for our sins on the cross? God gave his *only* begotten son that *whosoever* believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. He gave one the one the I am. He came, he died, he resurrect from the dead. That is why Jesus came for us and died for us. His job was done for us, if that is what it took to bring salvation for us and if we could lose it then what would be the next means for us to find it. He died for all one time.
> 
> "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly . . . But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
> Romans 5:6, 8, KJV
> ...


j_seph,

There are a lot of wonderful verses from Holy Scripture (HS) that you have included, but I am looking for the doctrine that is being taught that once someone has professed Christ no sin in their life could ever prevent their eternal salvation.

There is much written in HS about running the race until the end.

The Bible does not speak of our salvation as a one time event that happened in the past. The Church has always viewed salvation as an on going process; 
I was saved (Eph2:8-9) 
I am being saved (Philippians 2:12)
I will be saved (1 Cor 5:5)

No doctrine on OSAS was ever taught until John Calvin came on the scene, before that the Church believed and taught 1 John 5:16-17 thereby the doctrine of mortal and venial sin. 

The witness of the entire Church has always been to run the race until the end just as Paul says.

Races are not ended at the beginning nor in the middle they are run to the finish.
"I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith."
           2 Timothy 4:7

Didache 16 "But you shall assemble together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you be not made complete in the last time” 

Christianity directs us to a life well lived for Christ.

OSAS is a very comforting doctrine, it keeps one warm at night, but I believe as HS and the Church has always taught, for the Christian this world is a fight, we all have a sin nature given to us by Adam's fall, and it is our responsibility to fight that off, daily, and when we fall repent and get back after it.  

"The ungodly and unrighteous and wicked and profane among men [shall go] into everlasting fire; but [he] may, in the exercise of his grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept his commandments, and have persevered in his love, some from the beginning,  and others from their penance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.”  Irenaeus  _Against Heresies_

I know I will never change your mind as I have no desire to do, I simply plant the words from HS and the teachings since Christ formed His church.

God's peace Brothers


----------



## j_seph (Jul 10, 2020)

Madman said:


> j_seph,
> 
> There are a lot of wonderful verses from Holy Scripture (HS) that you have included, but I am looking for the doctrine that is being taught that once someone has professed Christ no sin in their life could ever prevent their eternal salvation.
> 
> ...


I would hate to believe that I could lose my salvation because I sinned. Could not imagine being saved, see a car coming head on at say 90mph. Saying oh $%^$ or something as simple as judging them as an idiot for being in my lane, get hit, die and end up in ****.


----------



## j_seph (Jul 10, 2020)

Another thought as well, I have an aunt who is a God fearing, saved by the grace of God, born again child of the King. Only problem, she has tourette syndrome, with her tics she burst out with a cuss word. She cannot control it and has dealt with this for some 60 plus years. So she could happen to do this, then fall over dead and lose her salvation. Cannot say well God would make an exception in this case because of her condition. Remember in his word, he is no respector of person.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jul 10, 2020)

May the world certainly know what cherished is!  (While we _*were *_yet sinners ... Christ died for us) !



Madman said:


> we all have a sin nature given to us by Adam's fall, and it is our responsibility to fight that off, daily, and when we fall repent and get back after it.


I believe that if the cross did NOT crucify our old sin nature then you would be correct, we would be constantly into the re-commitments of our self sufficient flesh to solve our sin nature problem ... a former birth problem in Adam we inherited ... but taken away by the cross and resurrection, specifically, our NEW birth (and birthright) in Christ.

We were crucified with and in Christ, and a new single spiritual, holy righteous nature was birthed, and any flesh effort to sustain that (that which does not flow from God by faith) will never solve our stumbling and weaknesses since the flesh has no power to make anything perfect. 

The permanency and sustainability of the believers new nature, when understood, causes the children of God to walk in righteousness, not of their own fleshly ability, but out of the indwelling grace that both SAVES them and SUSTAINS them.  

Fight our own (sin nature) selves?  "The strife is o'er, the battle *done*", from an old hymn. No dual nature exists, just the tempts from the flesh, which is NOT us, nor our nature. That's good news to walk in!

This comfort of spiritual union is not one the new nature wants to exploit into sin, but walk it out by faith in the indestructible Life _within us_ that came to seal it.

Yes indeed, peace beloved ...


----------



## Madman (Jul 10, 2020)

j_seph said:


> I would hate to believe that I could lose my salvation because I sinned. Could not imagine being saved, see a car coming head on at say 90mph. Saying oh $%^$ or something as simple as judging them as an idiot for being in my lane, get hit, die and end up in ****.


Venial sin vs. mortal sin.
This is deep doctrine.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jul 10, 2020)

Madman said:


> The Bible does not speak of our salvation as a one time event that happened in the past.



Ummm, sorry, yes, it does ...

*Hebrews 10:14 *
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified (set apart for God's purpose).

Growth in the knowledge of the love of God, running the race as you rightly stated, is not the same as the SAVING grace that came one time ... to transform sinners into holy saints for God's purpose and indwelling.  

It's our minds, the last battlefield, that are getting renewed to believe God about our new "location".    

A child will look outwardly childish but the child's union never is in question even as it grows to know its Fathers love.  Same picture with the children of God.  We all run the race so that old fleshly beliefs get exchanged for truth. When the truth of God's permanent love grows, then so does the outcome and maturity. This is the behavioral perfection that Paul spoke of in Philippians that he did NOT attain yet.  His inner mind needed daily renewal over and over again, not salvation again and again.  To think otherwise casts the burden of growth on our self sufficiency and does not rest upon the Author and finisher of our faith. (Emphasis mine)


----------



## StriperAddict (Jul 10, 2020)

Madman said:


> Venial sin vs. mortal sin.
> This is deep doctrine.


I don't believe this should be considered in the illustration our brother shared, do you? 
The person with Tourettes is incapable of bodily control, how would a big sin - small sin comparison be a rightful judgement of her?? 
I knew  two people in the same family that suffered with Huntington's disease who loved the Lord all their lives. The raveges of this disease upon behavior are terrible. I would not become a Job's comforter toward them or anyone in Christ with such weakness.  The whole "mortal not mortal" sin topic is for another discussion.  Maybe.


----------



## Madman (Jul 10, 2020)

StriperAddict said:


> May the world certainly know what cherished is!  (While we _*were *_yet sinners ... Christ died for us) !
> 
> I believe that if the cross did NOT crucify our old sin nature then you would be correct, we would be constantly into the re-commitments of our self sufficient flesh to solve our sin nature problem ... a former birth problem in Adam we inherited ... but taken away by the cross and resurrection, specifically, our NEW birth (and birthright) in Christ.



There in lies part of our difference, the Church teaches baptism is necessary for salvation as taught in HS.  It is evident by the reading of ancient writings what the Church has always believed about baptism.

Even poor Martin Luther had strong beliefs about baptism; 

 “Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved” (Large catechism 4:6)

_1 Peter 3:21
21 and this water symbolizes *baptism that now saves you *also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, _

_John 3:5
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit._

_Acts 22:16
Romans 6:3-4
Colossians 2:11-12_


But I am not sure what you teach regarding baptism.

If I understand you then Christ took everyone's sin upon himself and all are forgiven, but HS has much more to say;

_Acts 2:38-41 _
_38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the *forgiveness of your sins.* And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day._

_Titus 3:5
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.* He saved us through the washing *of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, _

_Mark 16:16
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. _

_Acts 2:38_

At the risk of sounding pompous, of which I have no intention, or harsh towards any brothers beliefs, which I do not, I choose to stand with the ancient teachings of the Church as proven by HS.

Mankind is born with a sin nature, baptism removes the hold that it has on us and we are to live our lives "following the commandments of God and walking in His holy ways".

It is a life we willing live because of our infinite gratitude for his willingness to don flesh and defeat sin for his bride.

God's peace brothers.


----------



## Madman (Jul 10, 2020)

StriperAddict said:


> Ummm, sorry, yes, it does ...
> 
> *Hebrews 10:14 *
> For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified (set apart for God's purpose).



That speaks to the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice.  Sanctification vs. salvation is another road block you and I have.


----------



## Madman (Jul 10, 2020)

StriperAddict said:


> I don't believe this should be considered in the illustration our brother shared, do you?
> The person with Tourettes is incapable of bodily control, how would a big sin - small sin comparison be a rightful judgement of her??
> I knew  two people in the same family that suffered with Huntington's disease who loved the Lord all their lives. The raveges of this disease upon behavior are terrible. I would not become a Job's comforter toward them or anyone in Christ with such weakness.  The whole "mortal not mortal" sin topic is for another discussion.  Maybe.



I did not respond to that post, in fact I just saw it.  I was responding to to #108.
Perhaps you would like J_eph to address it somewhere else.  I would ask you not to take someone else's offence as your own.


We are discussing WILLFUL sin and it can be mortal or venial as I offered HS passage for.

If we can sin mortally then our salvation is at stake.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 10, 2020)

Is anyone really saved or have salvation now? Seems like you only get it or need it when you die a physical death. So in the interim, it's only a promise of salvation or a promise of being saved.

So we are all "being saved" or "will be saved." 

I guess the question is do we have assurance of this future salvation.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 10, 2020)

I don't see it as an ongoing process of works. Either Christ died for our sins and He saves us or we perform certain works that saves us.

If it's both, then what are the percentages? 75% Cross and 25% Works? 50-50? 

Would God really send His only Son to die for our sins, and then keep us guessing if he came to do what he said he would for the rest of our individual lives?

And yes, I know what Paul said about the race. Paul said a lot of things about grace and works. Back and forth kind of.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 10, 2020)

Madman said:


> I did not respond to that post, in fact I just saw it.  I was responding to to #108.
> Perhaps you would like J_eph to address it somewhere else.  I would ask you not to take someone else's offence as your own.
> 
> 
> ...


Is lust a willful sin? What about hatred? Jealousy? Pride?

Willfull sin vs accidental sin? Seems like if someone sins, it's the will of their flesh. I really don't see a difference between lust or adultery, hatred or murder as for as sin being sin. As for as God sees it.

Now how man sees it, that's a different story.


----------



## Israel (Jul 11, 2020)

The Great Divide between our experience(s) and the reality of God.

The retarded age in which we live has already all been accounted for in Christ by God. The wicked, cunning, clever assaults against the faith that began first with "say the body was stolen" have been laboriously honed over centuries to such extent in craftiness that, by immersion into a milieu as described by Paul and others, the believer finds himself thrust. Yet...each found is found prepared for this time.

But as presumption is not fit to any age, era, epoch, or time, so must the presumptions of our understandings meet the dealings of God. At every single point.
But because the days are retarded by virtue of headwinds against the truth and our proclivity is to imagine we walk when we have not yet even stood, God gives...more time.

It is not science that lengthens the life or has...but God's wisdom and mercy. What "is seen" is not outgrowth of Christ's seasoning of the world to a kinder disposition toward Him...what histories attest to as verifiable proof in and by longevity as substance and approval of God are only appreciated by the man not of spirit, but yet bound by time and its harsh distribution of increment.

The time of Christ's denial is always at hand. His almost effectuality needing my labor, or His ineffectuality calling for my addition. The stripes of time are added as salubrious reminder and tutor; one can never get ready...only receive the command to be ready. This will not tell the man he is ready as that is not the end of faith. It tells the man he is under command to be ready for what he could never get ready for...all that is not understood by him.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jul 11, 2020)

Madman said:


> If I understand you then Christ took everyone's sin upon himself and all are forgiven, but HS has much more to say;


I never said that ALL are forgiven, it takes belief in the cross and resurrection, grace thru faith! 

You make a point about baptism which, by the Holy Spirit, happens at Spiritual _REBIRTH, transformation, indwelling_, not by water ... which is the SYMBOL of the Holy Spirit Baptism.  



Madman said:


> _Titus 3:5
> 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.* He saved us through the washing *of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, _


It's interesting you bold the term "thru the washing" but neglect to include _rebirth and renewal by the Spirit_ in it.  The Holy Spirit baptizes the believer, or  to clarify, _brings us into Christ_, by grace thru faith. Water baptism is the celebration, not the "power" that Baptizes! 

Your right on reference to 1 Pet 3:21 also shows this ...
"and this _water symbolizes baptism_ that now saves you also—_not the removal of dirt from the body_ but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. _It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ._"

Water cleanses the body, but the Holy Spirit unites us to Christ when we trust the gospel of salvation.  This is the simple path that God makes available to all who would call on Him, even the thief next to Christ - having no water around for washing.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jul 11, 2020)

Madman said:


> I did not respond to that post, in fact I just saw it.  I was responding to to #108.
> Perhaps you would like J_eph to address it somewhere else.  I would ask you not to take someone else's offence as your own.


My mistake, sorry. 



Madman said:


> We are discussing WILLFUL sin and it can be mortal or venial as I offered HS passage for.
> 
> If we can sin mortally then our salvation is at stake.



The book of Hebrews only describes one sin as "mortal" although it does not use that word (nor venial) and that sin is _UNBELIEF_.  It can rightly be stated that if we, in our unbelief, go on rejecting, or un-believing, then that one will suffer their rejection of the gospel, a fate described in the 10th chapter.  Yet for _those in Christ_, receivers of His Life the writer offers:

6:9 But, _beloved_, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and _things that accompany salvation_, though we are speaking in this way.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jul 11, 2020)

This just was posted in the "Religion Free Movement" found on FB, and I'll conclude my postings with this encouragement ...

I have been
(past tense, already accomplished)

...crucified with Christ
(His death is death to the old me)

...and I
(separate from Him)

...no longer live
(Old me is really dead - I'm no longer the cause or source of the "living, producing, doing, fixing" of life).

The life I live in this body
(New me is still in the old body for awhile, but don't confuse it for the old me)

...is by faith
(My part in living is dependence on Him, not production for Him; remember, old-self me apart from Him is dead)

...in the Son of God
(Faith is not in ME living for Him, but in HIM living through me!)

...who loves me
(I can trust Him)

...and gave Himself
(He's not withholding - and I'm not earning, just receiving; all that is His by merit is mine by grace!)

...for me.
(not for what He wants FROM me, but FOR me)

-A few devotional thoughts on Galatians 2:20
Live graced, my friends!
-mike (& the folks at
*Mike Q. Daniel Ministries*


----------



## Madman (Jul 11, 2020)

StriperAddict said:


> My mistake, sorry.
> .



No harm, no foul.  Mistakes are forgiven, as are sins.

God's peace


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 11, 2020)

Madman said:


> I dont understand the idea that once someone comes to Christ, they can go on about life and live however, because their sins, even those not committed are forgiven.





> I dont understand the idea that once someone comes to Christ, they can go on about life and live however



From anyone else I would see that as a straw man, but I do see your point though I think it's comes with a misunderstanding.  I think that many do accept Christ and yet fall away at some point down the road.  That's indisputable.  Christ spoke of it in the parable of the sower.  

11 ‘Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12 The ones on the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. 13 The ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. But these have no root; they believe only for a while and in a time of testing fall away. 14 As for what fell among the thorns, these are the ones who hear; but as they go on their way, they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature. 15 But as for that in the good soil, these are the ones who, when they hear the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patient endurance.

If you will note, it's only the first group that it is said "so that they may not believe and be* saved*."  The next 2 groups, one could argue, the parable implies they *were* saved despite falling away or being stripped of their bearing of fruit via pains or pleasures.  The latter 3 groups all believed and I would argue were saved the moment that happened.  



> their sins, even those not committed are forgiven.



To this I will simply say, God knew every sin I had ever committed and every sin I would ever commit before I was even born, every thought I have ever had and every one I will ever have.  When I was saved, I was saved with his foreknowledge of all this.  Given this, what would be the point of me being saved only for him to know my later actions wouldn't warrant it, but here's the kicker: my former actions didn't warrant it.  

If I could pinpoint were most people err with regard to believing one can lose his salvation, it would be this:  We can't conceive of the infinite grace and mercy God has for us.  We can't because when someone hurts us we have a tendency(at some point) to say "Enough,  I'm not going to subject myself to the pain of them hurting me again."  The more we love someone the more pain we are willing to endure from them.  That's just a given.  God has infinite love for us and he endures infinite pain for us.  Love is the key.  Love makes grace and mercy possible and pain is a necessary consequence.  Without love there is no pain, but there's no grace or mercy either.  Love, mercy, pain all exist in unison, as a trinity if you will.  

But here's another thing most people don't think about: God doesn't work in spite of the pain/suffering, he works through it.  He uses the pain caused by sin to perform his miracles.  The greatest miracle he performed 3 days after the greatest sin and again, we look to his love to explain it.


----------



## Madman (Jul 11, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> From anyone else I would see that as a straw man, but I do see your point though I think it's comes with a misunderstanding.  I think that many do accept Christ and yet fall away at some point down the road.  That's indisputable.  Christ spoke of it in the parable of the sower.
> 
> 11 ‘Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12 The ones on the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. 13 The ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. But these have no root; they believe only for a while and in a time of testing fall away. 14 As for what fell among the thorns, these are the ones who hear; but as they go on their way, they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature. 15 But as for that in the good soil, these are the ones who, when they hear the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patient endurance.
> 
> ...


Semperfidawg, 
I understand the argument I just dont agree with it.  I see, in Holy Scripture,  the need to persevere,  run the race to the end.  The description of sins, one type that even leads to eternal death.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 11, 2020)

Madman said:


> j_seph,
> 
> There are a lot of wonderful verses from Holy Scripture (HS) that you have included, but I am looking for the doctrine that is being taught that once someone has professed Christ no sin in their life could ever prevent their eternal salvation.
> 
> ...





> the Church believed and taught 1 John 5:16-17 thereby the doctrine of mortal and venial sin.





I'm way over my head here, but here's it goes:  This is the context.

John 5:12

"12 The one who has the Son has life. The one who doesn’t have the Son of God does not have life."

So it's clear John is differentiating between 2 groups.  The saved (one who has the Son) and the unsaved (The one who doesn't have the Son of God *does not have life.*)

Verses 16 and 17 are clearly speaking of the unsaved as the bold makes clear as to which of the two he is speaking of.  

"
16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin that does not bring death, he should ask,* and God[c] will give life to him*—to those who commit sin that doesn’t bring death. There is sin[d] that brings death. I am not saying he should pray about that. 17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin that does not bring death."

Verse 18 is speaking of the saved as a contrast.  


 In 5:18 John concludes, "18 *We know that everyone who has been born of God does not sin,* *but the One who is born of God keeps him,*  and the evil one does not touch him."

Now we know that even us "saved" still sin(intentional or unintentional), but it's made clear above that "*everyone who has been born of God does not sin",* because *the One who is born of God(CHRIST) keeps him.*

*"and the evil one does not touch him.*" echos exactly what Christ said John 10
"27 My sheep hear My voice, I know them, and they follow Me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish—ever! No one will snatch them out of My hand. 29* My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 The Father and I are one.*”

To me at least, you could not ask for a better explanation of how OSAS is justified
*"everyone who has been born of God does not sin."   *

Keep in mind, what you and I call sin is not really sin.  What we call 'sin' is *our interpretation* of a visible/physical action that *we surmise* equates to a spiritual insult against God.   Also let's not forget that all 'sin' is against God and God only, not you, me, my wife, you're sister, etc and as such God has the *only* say in what constitutes sin.  If he says "*everyone who has been born of God does not sin."*
then what is that to you and me but good news.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 11, 2020)

Madman said:


> Semperfidawg,
> I understand the argument I just dont agree with it.  I see, in Holy Scripture,  the need to persevere,  run the race to the end.  The description of sins, one type that even leads to eternal death.



I thought you had suggested scriptural support for OSAS.  I was only attempting to provide it.

The type of sin that leads to eternal death: un-atoned sin.


----------



## Madman (Jul 11, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm way over my head here, but here's it goes:  This is the context.
> 
> John 5:12
> 
> ...


That breaks my heart, I thought I was born of God and yet I sin, I repent, I weep, I am forgiven.


----------



## furtaker (Jul 11, 2020)

Folks who say you can lose your salvation believe that if you don't persevere until the end, you lose it. Calvinists say that if you don't persevere until the end, you never really had it.

Where's the difference?


----------



## StriperAddict (Jul 11, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I thought you had suggested scriptural support for OSAS.  I was only attempting to provide it.
> 
> The type of sin that leads to eternal death: un-atoned sin.



Unbelief is the only sin that leads to spiritual death. Heb 10.  
Besides atonement (old covenant of Moses) is only a covering of sin(s), in the New Covenant ALL believers sins have been REMOVED. Another strong case for OSAS, that for believers in the cross theres no wrath left for sin. Jesus paid the entire debt in FULL. 
> Glory! <


----------



## Madman (Jul 11, 2020)

StriperAddict said:


> Unbelief is the only sin that leads to spiritual death. Heb 10.
> Besides atonement (old covenant of Moses) is only a covering of sin(s), in the New Covenant ALL believers sins have been REMOVED. Another strong case for OSAS, that for believers in the cross theres no wrath left for sin. Jesus paid the entire debt in FULL.
> > Glory! <


Romans 11:22
22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity towards those who have fallen, but God’s kindness towards you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jul 11, 2020)

Clarification to ...*everyone who has been born of God does not sin."* 
Meaning, we do not keep on "keeping on" in sin, because we truly do not want to, because of our new transformed heart and spirit. Again, this is teaching not given in most churches, because for many it appears a license TO sin. And let's be clear, without this new heart we WOULD  want to sin! 

Correct that we repent, as in change our thinking about our choices to walk for a season in the flesh,  we see it for what it is, are remorseful, and return our thinking to the once and for all sacrifice that paid for today's sins, yesterday's and tomorrow's. 

"Tomorrow's sins ? Aren't only my past sins paid, but not my future sins??"  Well consider this, ALL my sins were in the future when Christ died. Amen. 

Peace, beloved.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 11, 2020)

Madman said:


> OSAS is a very comforting doctrine, it keeps one warm at night, but I believe as HS and the Church has always taught, for the Christian this world is a fight, we all have a sin nature given to us by Adam's fall, and it is our responsibility to fight that off, daily, and when we fall repent and get back after it.



I agree completely, but I still fail to grasp how OSAS doctrine affects any of that in any way other than to empower the man to be even more emboldened knowing the battle had already been won.  The apostles only became emboldened AFTER they realized that the battle had been won and they saw the resurrected Christ.  Beforehand they were.....well,beaten men who were doubting where their salvation stood.  There wasn't a martyr among them.  After realizing that their salvation was assured there was no stopping them.  Death had been defeated and there was nothing, nothing to fear.  I think you are looking at the glass half empty and not half full.  I think for you and many others the OSAS doctrine presents as a case to the saved of "well I'm saved, now I can do anything I want because I can't go to hades.  I have a license to sin, now I'm gonna go out and do all that stuff I've always wanted to and all I have to worry about is the consequences* in this life*, not the next one."  To me it's "I'M SAVED. I don't just have a license, but I have a *commission* to go "ALL OUT" for Christ without any consequence be it *in this world* or the next.  As with everything else it's a personal 'heart' matter, but just because it can be abused, doesn't make it unscriptural.  

There are people who are saved and take the path you fear, yet I don't think it's many.   
For the most part, I think "christians" who live out their life like that represent the "depart from me I never knew you" crowd.  The others "but he will be saved; yet it will be like an escape through fire."  But on the flip side, the OSAS emboldens many, many, many to take up his mantle and live that ""He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal."  In other words it nourishes and emboldens this:  "for the Christian this world is a fight, we all have a sin nature given to us by Adam's fall, and it is our responsibility to fight that off, daily, and when we fall repent and get back after it."

Goodnight and God Bless you Brother.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 11, 2020)

Madman said:


> That breaks my heart, I thought I was born of God and yet I sin, I repent, I weep, I am forgiven.





> That breaks my heart



Think you pinned it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 11, 2020)

furtaker said:


> Folks who say you can lose your salvation believe that if you don't persevere until the end, you lose it. Calvinists say that if you don't persevere until the end, you never really had it.
> 
> Where's the difference?


I think it's in line with what SemperFiDawg said;
"God knew every sin I had ever committed and every sin I would ever commit before I was even born, every thought I have ever had and every one I will ever have.  When I was saved, I was saved with his foreknowledge of all this.  Given this, what would be the point of me being saved only for him to know my later actions wouldn't warrant it, but here's the kicker: my former actions didn't warrant it."

I would agree, why would God grant you salvation on a temporary or losing ability when he already knows what our future sins will be? Why wouldn't the Father just never lead such a person to the Son?


----------



## Madman (Jul 12, 2020)

Gentlemen,
The doctrine of OSAS is comforting, it is warm, reassuring, directs us to the sovereignty of God, etc., the idea that once you have truly tasted the grace of God it is overwhelming and irresistible,  however we know Biblically and practically that is not true.

Adam walked with God and yet through him sin entered the world, lucifer knows God as well as any created being, and yet chose to rebel.

God has dominion  and loves his creation so much that he gives us free will.

Read the story of Charles Templeton, go back and search the Scriptures.

May each and everyone of us have a blessed Lord's Day.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 12, 2020)

Madman said:


> Gentlemen,
> The doctrine of OSAS is comforting, it is warm, reassuring, directs us to the sovereignty of God, etc., the idea that once you have truly tasted the grace of God it is overwhelming and irresistible,  however we know Biblically and practically that is not true.
> 
> Adam walked with God and yet through him sin entered the world, lucifer knows God as well as any created being, and yet chose to rebel.
> ...




I'm familiar with Templeton.
Lee Strobel interviewed him in his A Case for Faith.

This is his account of the interview.



> “And how do you assess this Jesus?” It seemed like the next logical question—but I wasn’t ready for the response it would evoke.
> Templeton’s body language softened. It was as if he suddenly felt relaxed and comfortable in talking about an old and dear friend. His voice, which at times had displayed such a sharp and insistent edge, now took on a melancholy and reflective tone. His guard seemingly down, he spoke in an unhurried pace, almost nostalgically, carefully choosing his words as he talked about Jesus.
> “He was,” Templeton began, “the greatest human being who has ever lived. He was a moral genius. His ethical sense was unique. He was the intrinsically wisest person that I’ve ever encountered in my life or in my readings. His commitment was total and led to his own death, much to the detriment of the world. What could one say about him except that this was a form of greatness?”
> I was taken aback. “You sound like you really care about him,” I said.
> ...



Reading this I see a stark naked heart exposed and I'm reminded of God's mercy.


----------



## barryl (Jul 12, 2020)

Madman said:


> That breaks my heart, I thought I was born of God and yet I sin, I repent, I weep, I am forgiven.


Maybe Romans  Ch.7 (KJ AV) would help you out. There's a difference in "Salvation" (1 Cor. 15: 1-4) and "Fellowship" (1 John 1: 3-10)


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 12, 2020)

furtaker said:


> Folks who say you can lose your salvation believe that if you don't persevere until the end, you lose it. Calvinists say that if you don't persevere until the end, you never really had it.
> 
> Where's the difference?


The difference I see is who is understood to have the power, who is in control, who calls the shots, whose will is supreme, who's boss, who tells who, who commands and who must, of necessity, obey (yes, even disobedience is ultimately the prerogative of the ultimate commander).


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 12, 2020)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think it's in line with what SemperFiDawg said;
> "God knew every sin I had ever committed and every sin I would ever commit before I was even born, every thought I have ever had and every one I will ever have.  When I was saved, I was saved with his foreknowledge of all this.  Given this, what would be the point of me being saved only for him to know my later actions wouldn't warrant it, but here's the kicker: my former actions didn't warrant it."
> 
> I would agree, why would God grant you salvation on a temporary or losing ability when he already knows what our future sins will be? Why wouldn't the Father just never lead such a person to the Son?


"

Good point Art.

"Temporary Eternity"

Now that's funny; I don't care who you are that's funny.


----------



## Madman (Jul 12, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm familiar with Templeton.
> Lee Strobel interviewed him in his A Case for Faith.
> 
> This is his account of the interview.
> ...


Yes I had read that; "I miss him" was heart wrenching to read.

The point was he used his free will to walk away.


----------



## Madman (Jul 12, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> The difference I see is who is understood to have the power, who is in control, who calls the shots, whose will is supreme, who's boss, who tells who, who commands and who must, of necessity, obey (yes, even disobedience is ultimately the prerogative of the ultimate commander).


God loves us enough to give us grace, he also loves us enough to give us free will.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 12, 2020)

Madman said:


> God loves us enough to give us grace, he also loves us enough to give us free will.


So it's all about "us".  Got it.  Anthropocentric.


----------



## Madman (Jul 12, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> So it's all about "us".  Got it.  Anthropocentric.


So who is salvation about saving?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 12, 2020)

Madman said:


> So who is salvation about saving?



God's people.

"I will be your God, and you will be My people" (pick your verse, there are about 40 of them).


----------



## Madman (Jul 12, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> God's people.
> 
> "I will be your God, and you will be My people" (pick your verse, there are about 40 of them).


And who are God's people?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 13, 2020)

Madman said:


> And who are God's people?


Those with whom God is in the stated covenantal relationship.


----------



## Madman (Jul 13, 2020)

Jeremiah 30 "The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2 Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: Write in a book all the words that I have spoken to you."

That was spoken to Israel, are they the only ones in the covenental relationship?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 13, 2020)

God is a Spirit. John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Why do Christians disagree as to the spirit and truth of God? The spirit of God was in the beginning to turn Adam and Eve out of their rest and away ( a separation)  from the original relationship He had with them. This is in the spirit of God to do this. Yes? No? It is truth or not truth?

Now God does not change. Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

What is the truth on God's Spirit regards the event of man's separation from Him? To the churches in Revelations does Jesus warn Chritians of a possible separation with him? The church at Laodecia why was is warned to repent--- where they aiming towards a separation with  Jesus?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 13, 2020)

Madman said:


> Jeremiah 30 "The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2 Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: Write in a book all the words that I have spoken to you."
> 
> That was spoken to Israel, are they the only ones in the covenantal relationship?


National Israel?, or racial Israel?, or genealogical Israel?; yes, that would be an anthropocentric understanding.  Theocentric understanding does not recognize corporeal distinctions.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 13, 2020)

Israel said:


> What if Christians do not disagree?


Yes what if?

I find more evidence that they-we disagree regards God's Spirit and truth  and so as to his will regards salvation than the other way around. Am I out of covenant for seeing what I see,  or hugely carnal at least? From the day His seeding fell on me it is choked by my too many weeds? What do you see? I will admit that I thought that I might be least in the Kingdom, but a bit more than John the Baptist but all along I might have been incorrect about this?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 13, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> Notional Israel?, or racial Israel?, or genealogical Israel?;



Or GON Israel?  Sorry, I couldn’t resist.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 13, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Or GON Israel?  Sorry, I couldn’t resist.


 Yes, that has an appearance of irresistibility.

And it exposed "Notional" vs "National".


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 13, 2020)

On disagreements: Was Martin Luther really listening for the others and did the others really listen to him? To the  ones and the others on him we  tagged on our  self-regarding spins and so to the extent that the other might be as yourself as per the golden rule, but nevertheless we stopped listening to him, the other, as once Martin might have hoped?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 13, 2020)

Madman said:


> You fellows go considerably deeper than I do or can.
> 
> I am convinced that "once saved always saved" comes from Calvin's doctrines of the total depravity of man. (No where in church history do we see this, even in discussion, before Calvin.)
> 
> ...



Madman.  I found this while reviewing your posts on this thread.

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...each-the-doctrine-of-once-saved-always-saved/

It's a convincing read and leaves the whole subject a mystery to me, which is exactly where I was to start with.  I just don't know the answer, and I'm OK with that.  I only know I'm washed in the blood through no action of my own and it's wonderful.  All the mysteries, well they will be a wonder to behold in the hereafter.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jul 13, 2020)

Israel said:


> What if Christians do not disagree?


Indeed. What if being in Christ is the big agreement we're not seeing?

Methinks how we go about disseminating such reality is troublesome at least, but thought provoking at best. I for one like to turn these discussions into further dialogue with dad, where we (all, heaven and earthers)  grow relationally even if there are other trainings ABBA dad brings. 

I'm growing here because sans disagreements our Lord is expressed, and I will choose to see him expressed in you, you and you.  No condemnation in growth, which,  in my opinion is the far greater gleaning.  

Off topic but just a needful add on.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 13, 2020)

I found this: while researching the views of the early Church followers.  I'll post the link and the commentary on it. 

https://chnetwork.org/2010/03/16/salvation-from-the-perspective-of-the-early-church-fathers/



> What exactly did these first Christians believe and teach with regard to salvation? It is important to note that these  *Christian teachers of antiquity were not attempting to define precise theological points of doctrine; they were more concerned with general concepts, instructions, and admonitions for living the Christian faith in a time of often intense persecution.* Therefore we won’t find the early Fathers engaged in dissecting a particular Pauline phrase in order to understand the Christian concept of justification. Moreover, such an approach would be foreign to the early Church since it can lead to misconceptions:



My first thought was "How lucky we are to live in a place where we have the luxury to debate such intricacies of doctrine and not burdened with the thought of persecution, but on second thought, maybe we're the unlucky ones.  I don't recall any crowns promised to those who split doctrine. 



> The earliest Christian document outside the New Testament writings comes to us from Clement of Rome: _The Letter of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth_ (commonly known as_ Clement’s First Letter_). It was so highly esteemed in Christian antiquity that for a while it was even accepted as part of the canon of Scripture in Egypt and Syria. Many scholars believe Clement is identified as the Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3. Regardless, Clement was the bishop of Rome at the close of the first century. He was familiar with St. Paul’s Epistles, and he certainly believed and taught that we are justified by faith:
> _And we, therefore…are not justified of ourselves or by our wisdom or insight or religious devotion or the holy deeds we have done from the heart, *but by that faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the very beginning* (ch. 32:4). _​
> ​


​And it occurred to me that maybe so much hair-splitting has occurred and is occurring over the Works, that the Faith has been lost in the smoke. You know, The Faith,  well that's kind of where the crux of the matter is.  We don't focus on it because it's not tangible, physical, observable, like the Works.  Probably a good thing it isn't or we would be debating it too.  I guess I'm just asking myself "What's the point?" 

I'm just gonna leave this here.  Earlier this year I had something really bad happen.  Something was handed to me I couldn't stop, couldn't avoid, couldn't fix.  On the day of, I got up extra early that morning and hit my knees.  I told God I couldn't understand why he was letting it happen, that it made no sense and went against what I clearly understood his word to teach.  Through sobs and tears I told him I didn't want it and that I couldn't make it through it.  A voice came back clear and distinct, "Haven't I done enough for you to trust me?"  It hit me right between the eyes and shut me down in my tracks.    The question was a mirror that reflected my lack of faith back to me and I could see the contrast between where it was and where it should be given all that God had done in my life over the last year.  I answered "Yes, Lord you have." and I got up, because the conversation was over.  I felt just like Job when he said "I will shut my mouth."    I have tried to remember that every day since then.  I try to go to that exact same spot to pray every morning, and it never fails that when I get on my knees in that spot I'm reminded like no other spot I pray at......that he has done enough for me to trust him and trust him completely.  I like to think that on that day, in that moment, after that question,  I had faith or the closest thing to faith I have ever attained.  The memory of that exchange has changed my life and I can't imagine a day when it will fail to.  Don't know what anyone can take from this, if anything.  Just the wondering thoughts of an oft lost pilgrim, but reading what Clement wrote "_*but by that faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the very beginning."*_ reminded me of it.


----------



## Madman (Jul 13, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> National Israel?, or racial Israel?, or genealogical Israel?;



Jeremiah 30 "The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2 Thus says the Lord, *the God* of Israel: Write in a book all the words that I have spoken to you." 

Which Israel do believe is spoken of here?



hummerpoo said:


> yes, that would be an anthropocentric understanding.  Theocentric understanding does not recognize corporeal distinctions.


More succinctly, How do you understand it?


----------



## Madman (Jul 13, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Madman.  I found this while reviewing your posts on this thread.
> 
> https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...each-the-doctrine-of-once-saved-always-saved/
> 
> It's a convincing read and leaves the whole subject a mystery to me, which is exactly where I was to start with.  I just don't know the answer, and I'm OK with that.  I only know I'm washed in the blood through no action of my own and it's wonderful.  All the mysteries, well they will be a wonder to behold in the hereafter.


SemperFiDawg,

It is a good read, unfortunately, when you read the ancient documents so much must be taken into account to put them in context.  Everyone has a bias, even me, I am inclined to read into the documents what I want them to say, therefore I yield to the church on most of it.

It can be confusing, Biblically and historically, I settled this issue ears ago.  

Take care.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 14, 2020)

Madman said:


> Jeremiah 30 "The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2 Thus says the Lord, *the God* of Israel: Write in a book all the words that I have spoken to you."
> 
> Which Israel do believe is spoken of here?



Spiritual Isreal.

Jer 30:22,24; 31:1,7
Mat. 13:10-17, 24-30, 36-43




> More succinctly, How do you understand it?



I see it through God's revelation, but in a mirror dimly (1 Cor 13:12)

Due 30:6
1 Kings 19:18
Isaiah 10:22
Rm. 2:11,28,29; 9,6-13,14-29; 11:1-5
Gal. 3:7,8,28,29; 6:15,16
Phil 3:3
Col 2:11-13


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 14, 2020)

Madman said:


> ... I settled this issue ears ago...



A purely rhetorical question, to which no response is desired or expected — Have you ask yourself, and God, what you are doing here?


----------



## Israel (Jul 14, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> A purely rhetorical question, to which no response is desired or expected — Have you ask yourself, and God, what you are doing here?


O! That's a beauty! 

(can we ask more than once?)


----------



## Madman (Jul 14, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm just gonna leave this here.  Earlier this year I had something really bad happen.  Something was handed to me I couldn't stop, couldn't avoid, couldn't fix.  On the day of, I got up extra early that morning and hit my knees.  I told God I couldn't understand why he was letting it happen, that it made no sense and went against what I clearly understood his word to teach.  Through sobs and tears I told him I didn't want it and that I couldn't make it through it.  A voice came back clear and distinct, "Haven't I done enough for you to trust me?"  It hit me right between the eyes and shut me down in my tracks.    The question was a mirror that reflected my lack of faith back to me and I could see the contrast between where it was and where it should be given all that God had done in my life over the last year.  I answered "Yes, Lord you have." and I got up, because the conversation was over.  I felt just like Job when he said "I will shut my mouth."    I have tried to remember that every day since then.  I try to go to that exact same spot to pray every morning, and it never fails that when I get on my knees in that spot I'm reminded like no other spot I pray at......that he has done enough for me to trust him and trust him completely.  I like to think that on that day, in that moment, after that question,  I had faith or the closest thing to faith I have ever attained.  The memory of that exchange has changed my life and I can't imagine a day when it will fail to.  Don't know what anyone can take from this, if anything.  Just the wondering thoughts of an oft lost pilgrim, but reading what Clement wrote "_*but by that faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the very beginning."*_ reminded me of it.



Beaut


hummerpoo said:


> A purely rhetorical question, to which no response is desired or expected — Have you ask yourself, and God, what you are doing here?


Where exactly?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 15, 2020)

Madman said:


> Where exactly?


My intent was "here" in this discussion, or "here" on this subforum.

However, as he often does, Israel has a more poignant take on the question.  Being rhetorical, I suggest that we all take his view of the question very seriously.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 15, 2020)

Israel said:


> O! That's a beauty!
> 
> (can we ask more than once?)


We probably can ask many times, but I'm pretty sure we should not anticipate that the answer will include contingencies.


----------



## Madman (Jul 15, 2020)

I am on this forum to discuss the topics posted with other Christian's.

Why are you here?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 15, 2020)

The perfecting of God's love in one's outlook and seen in the outlook of others and so leading to practical responses to living is why I'm here. I'm a romantic hopeful--such is my spiritual makeup. And so it was that one day I realized that some Christians really really lived by this and my heart was pierced having not know it before!:

4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

And so to those that are one day as David and another as Goliath I sit and judging myself as they do themselves I am here hopeful in the faith that God's love will be perfected in the hearts of all, not only  to myself... so that in the unforeseen events that life will bring... men and women will respond in practical ways from an increasing spirit of God's love perfected. I am here for such and all contingencies from and for all who would be and could be called to love.

Without being worldly ( as politics can be)  I submit I am here to purge my fears in order to advance in God's love :

" So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing *we have* to *fear* is...*fear itself* — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

So let us not make ourselves a fearful people... for me. It is why I'm here. Make it so that I do not fear you, nor will my grand children fear yours and fear me not nor the future generations as spawned from spirits unclean, unclean and simply tolerated. Understand me, I will to understand you... that is why I'm here.


To the Golden rule you are me, and so to the command are others converted to being fully myself. You morn, I morn. Your fears are my fears. Your loves are my  loves.  Your life is my life.

Wise let us be so as fearless children to Christ and not as adults holding on to the fears of the past. For me this  is ever a tall order, but I have to hope that in Christ it is  of real simplicity.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 15, 2020)

> Madman said:





> ... I settled this issue ears ago...





hummerpoo said:


> A purely rhetorical question, *to which no response is desired or expected* — Have you ask yourself, and God, what you are doing here?





Israel said:


> O! That's a beauty!
> 
> (can we ask more than once?)






Madman said:


> Where exactly?





hummerpoo said:


> My intent was "here" in this discussion, or "here" on this subforum.
> 
> However, as he often does, Israel has a more poignant take on the question.  Being rhetorical, I suggest that we all take his view of the question very seriously.





Madman said:


> I am on this forum to discuss the topics posted with other Christian's.
> 
> Why are you here?




*



			MERRIAM-WEBSTER
		
Click to expand...

*


> *Definition of rhetorical*





> 1a*: *of, relating to, or concerned with rhetoric
> b*: *employed for rhetorical effectespecially *: **asked merely for effect with no answer expected*
> //a rhetorical question


To be helped and perhaps help others.
Exemplified, perhaps, by Israel's success and my failure.


----------



## j_seph (Jul 15, 2020)

gordon 2 said:


> The perfecting of God's love in one's outlook and seen in the outlook of others and so leading to practical responses to living is why I'm here. I'm a romantic hopeful--such is my spiritual makeup. And so it was that one day I realized that some Christians really really lived by this and my heart was pierced having not know it before!:
> 
> 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
> 
> ...


For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind....................................That should tell you where fear came from


----------



## Israel (Jul 15, 2020)

I don't know that anyone but God can truly appreciate what courage it takes for a christian to admit he is seeking to have his fears purged.


----------



## Madman (Jul 15, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> *MERRIAM-WEBSTER
> Definition of rhetorical*
> 
> 1a*: *of, relating to, or concerned with rhetoric
> ...




Just because you desired no response nor required one should not prevent one, that being me, from answering.

I apologize for not following your line of thought, please forgive me.

P.S. I do know the meaning of _rhetorical._


----------



## Madman (Jul 15, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> To be helped and perhaps help others.
> Exemplified, perhaps, by Israel's success and my failure.



I am pleased to know that you can be of help, as I am of no help to anyone here.

As for being helped, since I do not know a single person on here personally, I am very particular about whose advise or theology I follow.
As I have stated "teaching and edification of the saints" should be left to the Church, if we follow the Biblical model.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 15, 2020)

Madman said:


> I am pleased to know that you can be of help, as I am of no help to anyone here.
> 
> As for being helped, since I do not know a single person on here personally, I am very particular about whose advise or theology I follow.
> As I have stated "teaching and edification of the saints" should be left to the Church, if we follow the Biblical model.



Right, so for what it's worth this is my take. YOU are helpful if only for this:

It is my understanding  that generally there are two lights in Christianity from which  believers need to go to to check their first sources. (<<< This is my bias.)  One is the witness of scripture (which we read a whole lot about here and the other is the witness of the Church as an equal light of which we read little here.

You articulate the light of the Church well, and it seems to me you do it in genuine goodness. What you say about what you believe and understand seems to be genuinely who you are as a Christian.

Your view of the Church as a positive light is rare here, because the Church as you know and understand it and that you live with has traditionally been viewed negatively here for many reasons from genuine concern to old prejudices.

So you are especially helpful in my view... because outside of here you views are plain and majority view regards Christians.  So you are helpful...  and the Church from and as the apostolic tradition of Christianity as a light equal to scripture or in tandem with it needs to be spoken  of in my view of Christianity--especially on forums with cultures  that have historically kicked it to the curb.

So yes, you are helpful... to me at least.


----------



## Madman (Jul 15, 2020)

gordon 2 said:


> Right, so for what it's worth this is my take. YOU are helpful if only for this:
> 
> It is my understanding  that generally there are two lights in Christianity from which  believers need to go to to check their first sources. (<<< This is my bias.)  One is the witness of scripture (which we read a whole lot about here and the other is the witness of the Church as an equal light of which we read little here.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your kind thoughts, and you are correct, I LOVE the Church, warts and all, it is the bride of Christ.  I cannot imagine being able to navigate this realm without it.

I am immensely saddened by peoples "bad" church experience, especially when it has driven them away.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 15, 2020)

Madman said:


> I am pleased to know that you can be of help, as I am of no help to anyone here.
> 
> As for being helped, since I do not know a single person on here personally, I am very particular about whose advise or theology I follow.
> As I have stated "teaching and edification of the saints" should be left to the Church, if we follow the Biblical model.



So you can neither provide nor receive benefit from discussion related to theology.  That's good to know; even more time and effort might have been wasted.  Thanks.


----------



## Madman (Jul 15, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> So you can neither provide nor receive benefit from discussion related to theology.  That's good to know; even more time and effort might have been wasted.  Thanks.


Rudeness is not very becoming.  If you believe conversation is a waste of time so be it.

I'll waste no more of yours.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 15, 2020)

It's not our's (Col 3:16,17).


----------



## Madman (Jul 15, 2020)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...gwDXoECA0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0n7sxHsXUO_kX4Q6m1vTC1


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 15, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> So you can neither provide nor receive benefit from discussion related to theology.  That's good to know; even more time and effort might have been wasted.  Thanks.



And that’s a prime example that theology is not only not synonymous with a personal relationship with God but oft antagonistic to one.  Educate a man right into hades thinking the warmth he imagines is the love of  God when all the while it’s just his ego being stoked by Pridemaster himself.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jul 16, 2020)

gordon 2 said:


> Wise let us be so as fearless children to Christ and not as adults holding on to the fears of the past. For me this  is ever a tall order, but I have to hope that in Christ it is  of real simplicity.


Love this note of the heart,  for the heart. 

Yes, how awesome, Being one who was helped with many a fear by the real simplicity of the message of Christ. 

Aside from our docturnal differences we speak Christ, I for one attempt to do so, sharing that simple grace that has made us whole.  That is why I am here. 

Peace longings.


----------



## Israel (Jul 16, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> It's not our's (Col 3:16,17).


I had to look that up. Glad I did, cause my first thought was wrong about it.

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, _do_ all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

Those verses actually go a very long way in answer to the question "Why am I here?" Or at least to me in them a good consideration can be found for answer.

But when I say answer I do not mean in all cases it may be my answer. That answer _convicts me _itself. In that it is _the better_ answer. And perhaps that is why our brother wrote "It's not ours". I could give that as answer...but almost any could, if wanting to make a show of me by holding me to it, easily ask:

"Israel, are you saying you do everything (that "all") in the name of the Lord Jesus...?"
"You always speak and act in full accord with the name of Christ?"

Ohhh, what a spot. The answer is good, the answer is right, and I can endorse it so...but to say I walk in "all" its fullness...well...that is an entirely different matter.

That may well be God's answer to me of "Why am I here...?" (and none of it is unsavory or burdensome)...but I had better consider what I am doing if in wrong attitude I seek to adopt it to myself before men. Oh, I may be able to catch a naif (if catching is what I am after) but I also may be able to catch the wisest of all (if catching is what I am after) who may both say the same thing "OK, if this is so then I will follow you to where and how you live _to learn of you_".

Have you ever tried to teach the Christ? I have. I have corrected Him, told Him why things are a bit different than what He sees and says, how I am a bit different than all the others He may have ever spoken to or known, and why my motives need full explanation to be rightly understood. (Lord, you've never met anyone like me!)

And before all men and angels (and of course firstly the Lord Himself) I am demonstrated as Clouseau in these






I have been so complicit in creating painfully teachable moments I have no trouble understanding why a brother might say he needs his fears purged. My will to be, my desire to be, even any hope to be shown as a "good Christ detective" has ended in such plain folly that all except me may see it, that I am brought to a place where (to whatever extent I may appreciate it) my will, my desire, my hope is clearly demonstrated as totally ineffective. And not only so...but of some great damage and suffering (the cross) to any who would "allow" for me. A man now totally convinced of the _butterfly effect _in his creation of hurricanes elsewhere by any of his own motions.

So where does that place...the man?
(I speak as a believer, I trust)

I am not forbidden desire. I am not forbidden a will of "mine", I am not forbidden...hope. (I have no persuasion the Father was repulsed by Jesus' will at all. Nor that Jesus was Himself...except...as it was shown inferior. Which one could argue without contradiction..."Anything inferior to the will of God is unrighteousness"...and this is haply and happily where faith brings us. To show us a superior/_the superior _will.)

Do you get where I aim when I speak of will...especially in experience of "mine"?
Before the entrance of Christ, I never doubted my own will superior in all...even when it was being met with all obstacle to frustration. It had to be (to me)...because it was so very good (to me). Therefore all that resisted it was evil...lesser...trying to thwart a "good thing"...my will.

But faith reveals a will (not only able to thwart my own)...but especially able to because of its superiority of goodness. A will to surpass even my own will for (what I once considered) the good for me...(and any other "beloved one" I may have also held good will toward).

So, where once I was aware of opposition (and always considered it evil) faith shows me (or the revelation of grace if one prefers) a will set above my own...which...even if at first merely experienced as opposition, can be sought and seen. (Make no mistake here if I sound like I am trying to be "high minded"...without question any first taste of resistance to my will I consider "enemy"...it is only grace that quiets my first _seemingly very right_ initial response)

My testimony in so many ways can be reduced to an experience of salvation by intervention...but such that I am kept from "doing what I would do"...or "saying what I would say". And I would be a liar to not say this has come in an allowance of experience...to do both those things and taste outcomes. I thank God for slapping His hand over my mouth, and nailing my feet to the floor as necessary...when in those times I know how ready I was to "say" or "do"...according to first impulse.

What has this to do with anything?
This:

"Fear not little flock, it is the Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom"

Had I not been brought (and by grace continue to recognize that experience) where I see my will fail, my desire fail, my own hope fail _to secure_...(often thinking these things are set for employment to security...for myself and_ loved ones_) I would be absolutely in continual despair.

I need the truth of it. (As I believe we all do)...that the superior (_all superior_) will of goodness is toward a man _to give_, and so far in excess of that man _to have_...that fears there cannot but be abolished. Desire may move me, my will may move me, my hope may move me, but if left to their _own power _I have found them in all, insufficient. Do I "want to be saved"? Really...who doesn't or wouldn't? Do I have hope for hopes fulfilled? Again...who doesn't...? But unless that will (from above) is constantly at work toward me in every form of work...I am lost. And also leading others (if any "see" me) into further darkness of trusting in themselves for securing and accomplishing.

"This is the work of God, that you believe upon Him whom He has sent".
Truly...seriously...in all honesty I say I once thought "OK, _I have done that_...what's next?"

_"I have done that."_

_Oh! The folly!_

I say this in all sobriety believing it need be said. The church...in whatever manifestation any man may claim it...his sight or understanding of it, his perception of it, his declaration of it...is never concerned with anything but the primacy of Christ in all things. It is very much a cart and horse thing...the church is not for the teaching of its primacy...rather it is what is comprised of those who relentlessly hold to the primacy of Christ in faith and by grace. Only Christ can reveal His Bride to any...but it is not in the testimony of the Bride to herself she is made secure.

This will seem a subtle thing...till it is not. And Christ (who only comes by revelation) can show a man that when he is found in Him...He is found in the Church. Some who think they sense a disdain from some in regards to the church will be set aright even as so much of what has testified to itself, of itself as "the place" will learn.

There's a sign outside a building I pass almost daily. It reads "Let us be the Church for you"

If you think this sentiment is rare take heart when you yourselves are bounced from the place you too have been trying to fit.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 17, 2020)

annnnnnnnnnnnnd this thread has pretty much went the way of all the others on OSAS: lot of heat and smoke, but very little light.


----------



## Israel (Jul 17, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> annnnnnnnnnnnnd this thread has pretty much went the way of all the others on OSAS: lot of heat and smoke, but very little light.



smoke 'em if ya got 'em.



ya got a light?


----------



## j_seph (Jul 17, 2020)

Israel said:


> smoke 'em if ya got 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> ya got a light?


I do, because Jesus went away and I became the light. How about you


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 17, 2020)

Israel said:


> smoke 'em if ya got 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> ya got a light?


I see men as trees, walking.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 17, 2020)

In theology, divine *light* (also called divine radiance or divine refulgence) is an aspect of divine presence, specifically an unknown and mysterious ability of angels or human beings to express themselves communicatively through *spiritual* means, rather than through physical capacities.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 18, 2020)

j_seph said:


> I do, because Jesus went away and I became the light. How about you


A vessel of Light.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 18, 2020)

SemperFiDawg said:


> And that’s a prime example that theology is not only not synonymous with a personal relationship with God but oft antagonistic to one.  Educate a man right into hades thinking the warmth he imagines is the love of  God when all the while it’s just his ego being stoked by Pridemaster himself.


One can no more educate a man into Hades than he can educate a man into Heaven.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 18, 2020)

hummerpoo said:


> We probably can ask many times, but I'm pretty sure we should not anticipate that the answer will include contingencies.


Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth!


----------



## Israel (Jul 18, 2020)

It would be a silly thing to think that the believer is less concerned with the matter of security than any other; when in fact it is only the believer to whom this is made of such paramount significance. Only the believer is given any insight (revelation/understanding/appreciation) into matters eternal (lasting/enduring) and matters temporal (passing away).

That matter of the veil by which we are told even Moses' visage (and vision) was shrouded is not found of Christ, nor in Christ. Did that make Moses at all bereft of any knowledge of God? God forbid!

The prophets of whom Jesus speaks as righteous...even singling out John (the Baptist) of such note "among women born" is nevertheless spoken of as "less great" than the least in the Kingdom. We can leave all matters of considerations of comparisons and the ultimate quagmire of metrics men might assign to reconcile such to themselves as they were also left to me...to be waded through (as, and if, need be) until one comes up hard against the word of Christ alone.

Time, in that sense, is of no consequence to the Spirit; He is faithful to minister _in patience _of what is _of Christ; _it is (things are) as the Lord speaks. And even such matters that may yet appear as "to be" will be...according as the Lord speaks. What is "of Christ" is _of Christ, _what is stranger to Him...not "of His own" also have a place assigned.

When Paul said:


And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, _even_ as unto babes in Christ.


Was that for their disqualifying...or as reproval?

Was it:

"I guess you don't belong to Christ"?
or
"Because I am persuaded you do (belong to Christ) it is not fitting to remain as babes where things can only be ministered according to some temporal (carnal) references you can understand"?

It might even be a third thing.

By persistent reproval at those points of resistance and Paul's unyielding...yielding to the Spirit, and in such persistence to reprove carnal things and understandings and preferences...it would be made plain as to the nature of the hearers, and he needn't be concerned at all with anything but his only hearing rightly, and speaking accordingly. "To him who has, more will be given..."

The trail that becomes of "what belongs and what does not" comes only in trial by the word of the Lord; for if one has not learned of the abundance of grace needed there...both _in _that trial and_ for _it (recognizing trials come because _of it, that is the word of the Lord) _one may have very little interest (or none) in the instruction to make one's calling and election sure.

Paul was no doubt about this...perhaps not even reading Peter's epistle. Though to the untuned ear it sounds of some caprice as in speaking...and "let the chips fall where they may", but in another (though not at all of caprice) a relief is ensured (secured) in that instruction to submit one's self to examination to see whether one be of the faith. For what is simple may not be easy and what is easy may result in more complications than any man might have ever imagined. Yet, it _is simple. _What the spirit speaks is accomplished by the spirit.

It cannot be but so no matter what vessel is chosen. Even a high priest who will sentence Jesus to death may prophesy. It might then be too silly for any man to think or propose "I will choose the how, where, and of whom I will hear from the Lord".

When Paul spoke of "grievous" wolves rising up not sparing the flock one may come to the curious place of recognizing that every response but one is_ not salubrious_ to the soul.

Not, "But what can be done to prevent this?" Not, "Oh that's terrible and shouldn't happen". Surely not "But that could never happen amongst "us", or "we will not let this happen". Nor even "But we have been attentively seeking to be obedient for so long..."

"Is it I Lord?" is about all I am led to.

My wife laughed recently in my recognition of me. Whether it was a laugh of relief like "OK, now maybe we can move off this spot..." or just a common laugh folks have when they both nod after admitting how they can both be made to see the same thing in the same way, matters not much...a good laugh...is a good laugh.

I told her how at once I was the man with both a deep inferiority complex while also having a lofty superiority complex. How that in most of my dealings with others I have pretty much felt_ I needed to feel sorry for them_...for not being me. A sort of awkward pity or condescension that I see infected all my relationships...eventually. And then when I told her how I also see this had grown out of (but _more probably_ with) a sense of inferiority...of always feeling I was in way over my head and treading water as best I could...clueless...is when she laughed...and nodded "yep".

It's good to be seen. It's good to be loved.

It's good to be both seen and loved. And I don't know if either can take place apart unless both are. Taking place.

It's good to be known. Yet impossible to hide.

It's good to be loved. There's no life apart from it.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 18, 2020)

Israel said:


> "Is it I Lord?" is about all I am led to.


Ha! That is a good place to be.

But you're not that important and neither am I.


----------



## Israel (Jul 18, 2020)

gemcgrew said:


> Ha! That is a good place to be.
> 
> But you're not that important and neither am I.


Thank you. What a relief!


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 18, 2020)

gemcgrew said:


> Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth!


Thank you Brother.  I was in need of the comfort of that chapter.


----------

