# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  James vs Paul (side by side chart)

## Kevin007

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org...e/JamesPau.htm

thoughts? 

 A Chart Comparing and Contrasting  
 the Teaching of Paul and JamesPaul and James did not contradict each other; but rather they complemented each other.  What both men wrote was inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16) and true.  Paul’s focus was on the unsaved man and how he might get right with God.  James’ focus was on the saved person and how he might show his faith and demonstrate the reality of his faith. 
Paul’s Teaching
James’ Teaching

You cannot be saved by works
(Ephesians 2:8-9)
You cannot show that you are saved without works (James 2:14,18)

How can a person be saved?


By faith alone (Rom. 3:28)
How can a person show that he is saved?   How can he “show his faith”?

Only by works (James 2:18)

Faith without works saves 
(Romans 3:28)
This is a living faith (saving faith)
Faith without works does not save
(James 2:14)
This is a dead faith (James 2:17,20,26)

Faith alone saves
The faith that saves is not alone

A person is not saved by works
(“works” are rejected by Paul as *the means of salvation*: it is wrong to say that a person must do good works in order to be saved)

These are meritorious works, that is, works done to try to merit or earn salvation
A saved person will perform good works
(“works” are understood by James to be the result of salvation: a person does good works because he is saved)


These are faith works, that is, works that spring from a faith that is real and living.

Paul agreed with James

He taught that good works must accompany saving faith (Eph. 2:10; Tit. 3:8; Gal. 5:6; Phil. 2:11-12).
James agreed with Paul

He taught that a person inherits the kingdom only by faith (James 2:5) and that Abraham was justified by faith (2:23)

Paul used the example of Abraham when he first believed in God (Rom. 4:3 and compare Genesis 15:6).
James used the example of Abraham when his faith was tested by God, about 40 years later (James 2:21 and compare Genesis 22)

The error Paul corrected:
Salvation is by the works of the law (the error of legalism)
The error that James corrected:
Works are unnecessary after a person is saved (the error of antinomianism)

Paul wrote about how a guilty sinner may be justified before God.
James wrote about how a believer can show that his faith is genuine (justification or vindication before men)

At the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 the key issue was that salvation is by grace through faith and not by the works of the law.  See the error in Acts 15:1 and Peter’s conclusion in Acts 15:9,11.  James, who took a lead role in this discussion never voiced any disagreement with Peter or Paul over this crucial matter.


Paul’s perspective: He was viewing the guilty sinner who needed to be right with God. (The sinner is in view)
James’ perspective: He was viewing the believer (or professing believer) who needed to demonstrate that his faith was real. (The believer is in view)

scroll down on that link for detailed comments.

----------


## lilymc

I'm really glad that we've all been having these religious debates recently, because it caused me to do more research.... and my views on a few different things have been strengthened and clarified.  

Here is a really good excerpt on the Paul / James paradox.  Bold added by me.

We read in James 2:21, "Was not Abraham, our father, justified by works when he offered Isaac, his son, on the altar?"

*In what sense was he justified since he was already pronounced right before God years prior to this?*  [Genesis 15:6] James is saying, in contrast to Paul, that God was able to see that Abraham was righteous already, but until Abraham lifted his knife over Isaac in obedience, only God knew his righteousness. One event occurred before God who alone knows our hearts, and the other is before man who can only perceive the outward actions. In other words, our faith is invisible and can only be expressed outwardly by our works. This is the point that James is trying to emphasize, we show our faith by our deeds to our fellow man.

Our works justify the believer in the demonstrative sense, not in the procurative sense, meaning good works are not the grounds for our legal justification before God. *They justify us before the eyes of man*, demonstrating what is alive on the inside. When James says faith without works is dead, he is warning against a "words only" intellectual ascent to faith. James is not speaking about the theological aspect of justification before God, but the practical aspect before man. God alone looks at the heart but by works man is justified before other men, who can only look at the outward appearance. 

http://www.letusreason.org/occ1.htm
To GOD, we are justified by faith, because God knows our hearts.   

To PEOPLE (and for some, to themselves) we are justified by works, because another man has no idea what is in our heart, they can only see our actions.

The bible does not contradict itself, so people have to be careful not to throw out tons of other scriptures in order to accept one that appears to say something different.    I've debated a lot of atheists over the years, and one of the things they do is have a "first glance" mindset.  For example, God ordering the Israelites to wipe out entire groups of people.... they see a passage like that and immediately assume the worst, without digging deeper.    We need to dig deeper sometimes.   The bible does not contradict itself, and it should be looked at as a whole.

----------


## fr33

If they existed, neither one of them were named Paul or James. That is English revisionist history.

----------


## Kevin007

> I'm really glad that we've all been having these religious debates recently, because it caused me to do more research.... and my views on a few different things have been strengthened and clarified.  
> 
> Here is a really good excerpt on the Paul / James paradox.  Bold added by me.
> We read in James 2:21, "Was not Abraham, our father, justified by works when he offered Isaac, his son, on the altar?"
> 
> *In what sense was he justified since he was already pronounced right before God years prior to this?*  [Genesis 15:6] James is saying, in contrast to Paul, that God was able to see that Abraham was righteous already, but until Abraham lifted his knife over Isaac in obedience, only God knew his righteousness. One event occurred before God who alone knows our hearts, and the other is before man who can only perceive the outward actions. In other words, our faith is invisible and can only be expressed outwardly by our works. This is the point that James is trying to emphasize, we show our faith by our deeds to our fellow man.
> 
> Our works justify the believer in the demonstrative sense, not in the procurative sense, meaning good works are not the grounds for our legal justification before God. *They justify us before the eyes of man*, demonstrating what is alive on the inside. When James says faith without works is dead, he is warning against a "words only" intellectual ascent to faith. James is not speaking about the theological aspect of justification before God, but the practical aspect before man. God alone looks at the heart but by works man is justified before other men, who can only look at the outward appearance. 
> 
> ...


hey Lily, did you discover this website through me? It's great, eh?

----------


## RJB

I notice that in the chart the bible verses can't stand alone without some legalistic gymnastics and explanations.

Instead follow the saviors simple words:




> Luke 18:9-14
> 
>  10 Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: God, I thank you that I am not like other peoplerobbers, evildoers, adulterersor even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.
> 
> 13 But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, *God, have mercy on me, a sinner.*
> 
> 14 I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
> 
> John 13:35
> *By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.*


 Ironically, some of the biggest fools live this Wisdom, while this escapes some of the great theological minds.

----------


## mosquitobite

I have always put more weight on the red words in the Bible than anything else.   Yes, Paul's words are divinely inspired.  But I'll take Jesus' words over Paul's any day of the week!

And the bottom line from that is I have FELT God is love, Jesus came to show us love, and this world would be a better place if our hearts poured out in love.  

Debate can be divisive, a stumbling block.  I too have succumbed to it.  Just know that God doesn't need us to ARGUE on His behalf.  I am convinced He wants us to only witness in love.  If we can't, then we need to do some relationship building with Him before we move on to others.

----------


## Terry1

> http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org...e/JamesPau.htm
> 
> thoughts? 
> 
>  A Chart Comparing and Contrasting  
>  the Teaching of Paul and JamesPaul and James did not contradict each other; but rather they complemented each other.  What both men wrote was inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16) and true.  Paul’s focus was on the unsaved man and how he might get right with God.  James’ focus was on the saved person and how he might show his faith and demonstrate the reality of his faith. 
> Paul’s Teaching
> James’ Teaching
> 
> ...


Yes Kevin--I have thoughts--LOL  They are not in contrast to one another they are in direct reconciliation of one another because Paul is talking about dead works under the curse of the OT Covenant Mosaic Law to the Jews and James is talking about "works of faith" under the New Covenant of Grace through faith.  They are both saying the very same thing--you just can't see it.

I've have tried and probably wrote a book in here already attempting to explain the difference to you who believe in the perseverance of the saints doctrines that denies that there are differences between these two major covenants and laws and works associated with them.  May blind eyes be opened Lord.

----------


## RJB

> I have always put more weight on the red words in the Bible than anything else.   Yes, Paul's words are divinely inspired.  But I'll take Jesus' words over Paul's any day of the week!.


To me, Paul re-iterates Christ's words.  James 2 is written about the love of God that we must show.  St Paul is the same way.

I've misjudge Ronin Truth.  He posts about Christ's love alone without faith.  On the other hand there are people who read James and Paul and only see faith alone without mentioning love.  Who is following in the Lord's footsteps?

----------


## erowe1

> I notice that in the chart the bible verses can't stand alone without some legalistic gymnastics and explanations.
> 
> Instead follow the saviors simple words:
> 
>  Ironically, some of the biggest fools live this Wisdom, while this escapes some of the great theological minds.


Your post looks to me like an abbreviation of exactly what the OP says.

If this is really what you believe, that's encouraging.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*"Christianity is the religion founded by Paul, which replaces Jesus' Gospel with a Gospel 'about Jesus' - a religion that should rather be called Paulinism." -- Dr. Wilhelm Nestle, Church Historian

*If it's all the same with you, I think that I'd just much rather stick with Jesus.  

Actually, even if it's not the same with you. *
*

----------


## erowe1

> *"Christianity is the religion founded by Paul, which replaces Jesus' Gospel with a Gospel 'about Jesus' - a religion that should rather be called Paulinism." -- Dr. Wilhelm Nestle, Church Historian
> 
> *If it's all the same with you, I think that I'd just much rather stick with Jesus.  
> 
> Actually, even if it's not the same with you. *
> *


Who is Jesus?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Who is Jesus?


*Jesus Is an Anarchist (pdf)*

----------


## William Tell

Jesus is the King of Kings.

----------


## erowe1

> *Jesus Is an Anarchist (pdf)*


From my perusal of that article, it looks like everything the author says about Jesus is based on books contained in the Bible that are written about Jesus by other people, like Paul. Can't we just use one of the books that Jesus himself wrote, and cut out the middle man?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Jesus is the King of Kings.


Interestingly, that is also what they called the first ruler of the Persian Empire. 

Son of a gun, what are the odds?

----------


## erowe1

> Interestingly, that is also what they called the first ruler of the Persian Empire. 
> 
> Son of a gun, what are the odds?


I'm not familiar with that label for the first ruler of the Persian Empire, but the odds aren't very low, since before the Persian Empire had arisen, the prophet Daniel, who served as a high official under Cyrus the Persian king, had already applied similar titles to both God and Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon. So this would be in the background behind both the Persian usage and the early Christian usage.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> From my perusal of that article, it looks like everything the author says about Jesus is based on books contained in the Bible that are written about Jesus by other people, like Paul. Can't we just use one of the books that Jesus himself wrote, and cut out the middle man?


People like Paul? Lordy, how many *ROMANS* were involved in all of this, early on?

*The Libertarian From Nazareth?*

----------


## erowe1

> People like Paul?


Don't blame me, you're the one who presented us with that article.

But then, if the Jesus you want to go with is not the Jesus of the Bible, like the article that you posted does, then what Jesus is it?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Don't blame me, you're the one who presented us with that article.
> 
> But then, if the Jesus you want to go with is not the Jesus of the Bible, like the article that you posted does, then what Jesus is it?


No blame, you are forgiven. Did you like the article? 

*Jesus Christ, Libertarian*
Well, you see, this Archangel, it was probably Uriel, I didn't ask, came down to me in my sleep one night .................

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I'm not familiar with that label for the first ruler of the Persian Empire, but the odds aren't very low, since before the Persian Empire had arisen, the prophet Daniel, who served as a high official under Cyrus the Persian king, had already applied similar titles to both God and Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon. So this would be in the background behind both the Persian usage and the early Christian usage.


Really, are you sure that you want to do that?

*INCOMING:*  https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...62.rTJnlD_JIUk

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Who is Jesus?


Well according to Colton Burpo and Akiane Kramarik, this is a pretty close current likeness of Jesus.

http://graceology.org/receive-jesus-christ/

----------


## Influenza

> I'm not familiar with that label for the first ruler of the Persian Empire, but the odds aren't very low, since before the Persian Empire had arisen, the prophet Daniel, who served as a high official under Cyrus the Persian king, had already applied similar titles to both God and Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon. So this would be in the background behind both the Persian usage and the early Christian usage.


"Shahanshah" is a Persian word that means King of Kings and was used as a title for the King/Emperor of Persia under the Archaemenid empire and afterwards. But any true prophet of God would not associate a worldly king with God. Whatever story you are quoting is surely wrong.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> "Shahanshah" is a Persian word that means King of Kings and was used as a title for the King/Emperor of Persia under the Archaemenid empire and afterwards. But any true prophet of God would not associate a worldly king with God. Whatever story you are quoting is surely wrong.



Thanks for your confirming help. +rep

----------


## Kevin007

Paul is saying we are JUSTIFIED through faith (with God)
James is saying we are JUSTIFIED by works BEFORE MAN.

----------


## jmdrake

My thoughts?   I think this part of the chart could be worded better.

_
Paul:
Faith without works saves
(Romans 3:28)
This is a living faith (saving faith) 	

James:
Faith without works does not save
(James 2:14)
This is a dead faith (James 2:17,20,26)_

That makes it look like Paul and James are contradicting each other, when that is clearly not the author's intent nor yours.

Instead:
_
Faith saves without works 
(Romans 3:28)
This is a living faith (saving faith) 	

Faith without works does not save
(James 2:14)
This is a dead faith (James 2:17,20,26)
_

In other words while it's not the works that save, if your faith does not produce works then it's not really faith.

The key to all this is Hebrews 11:6

_And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him._

It's not enough to believe that God exists.  You have to also believe that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him?  What is the evidence that you believe He rewards those who earnestly seek Him?  Why earnestly seeking Him of course.



> http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org...e/JamesPau.htm
> 
> thoughts? 
> 
>  A Chart Comparing and Contrasting  
>  the Teaching of Paul and JamesPaul and James did not contradict each other; but rather they complemented each other.  What both men wrote was inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16) and true.  Pauls focus was on the unsaved man and how he might get right with God.  James focus was on the saved person and how he might show his faith and demonstrate the reality of his faith. 
> Pauls Teaching
> James Teaching
> 
> ...

----------


## Ronin Truth

> My thoughts? I think this part of the chart could be worded better.
> 
> _
> Paul:
> Faith without works saves
> (Romans 3:28)
> This is a living faith (saving faith) 
> 
> James:
> ...


I sure hope that you aren't messing with the unalterable *HOLY WORD OF GOD*, without a signed and notarized permit from the holy ghost.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> From my perusal of that article, it looks like everything the author says about Jesus is based on books contained in the Bible that are written about Jesus by other people, like Paul. Can't we just use one of the books that Jesus himself wrote, and cut out the middle man?


  Sure, I'm more than willing to cut out Paul, the ROMAN middle man.

*"All the good in Christianity can be traced to Jesus, all the bad to Paul." - Franz Overbeck, Protestant Theologian
*

----------


## erowe1

> But any true prophet of God would not associate a worldly king with God.


The phrase "associate with" covers a lot of things. Why would no true prophet do that?

----------


## erowe1

> Sure, I'm more than willing to cut out Paul, the ROMAN middle man.


How? Where's the book that Jesus wrote?

----------


## jmdrake

> I sure hope that you aren't messing with the unalterable *HOLY WORD OF GOD*, without a signed and notarized permit from the holy ghost.


 I wasn't messing with the word of God.  I was messing with the chart someone made interpreting the word of God.  Why would that be a problem?

----------


## Influenza

> The phrase "associate with" covers a lot of things. Why would no true prophet do that?


No King is any more "divine" or equatable with God than your average Pleb. Applying similar titles to God and the Babylonian King is doing just that, which is what I meant by associating with. then I don't see how a prophet from God could have such a messed up theology to the point that he was polytheistic.

----------


## RJB

> Your post looks to me like an abbreviation of exactly what the OP says.
> 
> If this is really what you believe, that's encouraging.


As I come to understand the Orthodox faith, I see the true folly of the schism and the schisms that later resulted from it.  I'll post a more indepth thread in the future, but basically the Roman Catholic Church defined everything legalistically with indulgences, penance, etc.  The reformers when they rebelled instead of going the other way toward Orthodoxy they made it even more legalistic by making up loopholes and clauses that didn't exist to avoid having to live like Christians.

I think most Christians know this in their hearts when they talk about the relation with Jesus.  It's not faith alone, but rather faith, hope, and (the greatest of these) charity.

The Chapter in James is not about works salvation and definitely not about faith alone, it's about loving your brethren.

----------


## Kevin007

> As I come to understand the Orthodox faith, I see the true folly of the schism and the schisms that later resulted from it.  I'll post a more indepth thread in the future, but basically the Roman Catholic Church defined everything legalistically with indulgences, penance, etc.  The reformers when they rebelled instead of going the other way toward Orthodoxy they made it even more legalistic by making up loopholes and clauses that didn't exist to avoid having to live like Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> I think most Christians know this in their hearts when they talk about the relation with Jesus.  It's not faith alone, but rather faith, hope, and (the greatest of these) charity.
> 
> The Chapter in James is not about works salvation and definitely not about faith alone, it's about loving your brethren.


Paul is speaking of being Justified before God. James about before men.  If you don't have the first one, the second doesn't matter. I would  rather be justified before God than man any day. Other men didn't die on the cross for me, Jesus did.

----------


## erowe1

> No King is any more "divine" or equatable with God than your average Pleb.


I agree. And so does Daniel.




> Applying similar titles to God and the Babylonian King is doing just that


Not always. In the case of Daniel it does the exact opposite. Have you ever read the book?

----------


## erowe1

> As I come to understand the Orthodox faith, I see the true folly of the schism and the schisms that later resulted from it.  I'll post a more indepth thread in the future, but basically the Roman Catholic Church defined everything legalistically with indulgences, penance, etc.  The reformers when they rebelled instead of going the other way toward Orthodoxy they made it even more legalistic by making up loopholes and clauses that didn't exist to avoid having to live like Christians.
> 
> I think most Christians know this in their hearts when they talk about the relation with Jesus.  It's not faith alone, but rather faith, hope, and (the greatest of these) charity.
> 
> The Chapter in James is not about works salvation and definitely not about faith alone, it's about loving your brethren.


What you're saying about James sounds like the same thing most evangelicals would say.

But do you really think that's what the Reformers were up to? Coming up with loopholes to avoid living like Christians? Where do you get that?

A legalistic way of looking at salvation isn't the only way to look at it. It doesn't capture the whole picture. But neither does any other single model. And the legalistic model isn't wrong. It's just partial, just like all the others. It is biblical and apostolic after all.

----------


## RJB

> Paul is speaking of being Justified before God. James about before men.  If you don't have the first one, the second doesn't matter. I would  rather be justified before God than man any day. Other men didn't die on the cross for me, Jesus did.


We are the bride of Christ Kevin.  Are you married to your wife with Faith alone.  That's absurd.  I can't have faith alone in my wife with out love and hope.  I can't have love alone for her with out Faith and hope.  I can't hope alone for a future without love and faith.

You have so defined your your relationship with God with legal loopholes that you can read a chapter that says to care for your brethren and says we are NOT saved by faith alone and read it to say that we are.   I find that sad.

 BTW, no surprise, Calvin was a lawyer.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> How? Where's the book that Jesus wrote?


Is a gospel required to be a book?  I think not.  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gospel

http://uuhouston.org/files/The_Jefferson_Bible.pdf

----------


## Kevin007

> We are the bride of Christ Kevin.  Are you married to your wife with Faith alone.  That's absurd.  I can't have faith alone in my wife with out love and hope.  I can't have love alone for her with out Faith and hope.  I can't hope alone for a future without love and faith.
> 
> You have so defined your your relationship with God with legal loopholes that you can read a chapter that says to care for your brethren and says we are NOT saved by faith alone and read it to say that we are.   I find that sad.
> 
>  BTW, no surprise, Calvin was a lawyer.


the legal loopholes are those who add legalism to His free gift. Jesus alone saves. If Jesus alone doesn't save then there was no need for Him to die on the cross at Calvary. We cannot take away our own sin, nor live up to the 2 commandments in the NT.Any one sin separates us from God. Without Jesus no one goes to Heaven, no one gets saved. There is not any deed, good work or act that can get us saved or keep us saved.

----------


## erowe1

> Is a gospel required to be a book?  I think not.  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gospel
> 
> http://uuhouston.org/files/The_Jefferson_Bible.pdf


If we can't get Jesus's words from a book he wrote, and we can't get them from a book someone else wrote about him, then what's left?

All those words in that Jefferson Bible were taken from the books of the real Bible, books written by people like Paul. The Gospel about Jesus recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is the same Gospel about Jesus as the one preached by Paul and the other apostles and brothers of Jesus (see 1 Corinthians 15:1-11).

----------


## erowe1

> We are the bride of Christ Kevin.  Are you married to your wife with Faith alone.  That's absurd.  I can't have faith alone in my wife with out love and hope.  I can't have love alone for her with out Faith and hope.  I can't hope alone for a future without love and faith.


Are you suggesting that the doctrine of justification by faith alone without works says that you can? If so, then you completely misrepresent it.

----------


## Kevin007

No man can mix law with grace or good works with grace. 


http://www.letusreason.org/7thad7.htm

----------


## Ronin Truth

> If we can't get Jesus's words from a book he wrote, and we can't get them from a book someone else wrote about him, then what's left?
> 
> All those words in that Jefferson Bible were taken from the books of the real Bible, books written by people like Paul. The Gospel about Jesus recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is the same Gospel about Jesus as the one preached by Paul and the other apostles and brothers of Jesus (see 1 Corinthians 15:1-11).


*"All the good in Christianity can be traced to Jesus, all the bad to Paul." - Franz Overbeck, Protestant Theologian

*

----------


## erowe1

> *"All the good in Christianity can be traced to Jesus, all the bad to Paul." - Franz Overbeck, Protestant Theologian
> 
> *


That just leads back to my question. Where can you find this good in Christianity that comes from Jesus himself and isn't mediated to us by Paul and his cohorts?

----------


## RJB

> Jesus alone saves. If Jesus alone doesn't save then there was no need for Him to die on the cross at Calvary. We cannot take away our own sin, nor live up to the 2 commandments in the NT.Any one sin separates us from God. Without Jesus no one goes to Heaven, no one gets saved. There is not any deed, good work or act that can get us saved or keep us saved.


This is the crux of western thinking.  You are thinking in an false legal axiom.  Your logic says that if a person doesn't believe in Faith Alone, he doesn't believe in that Jesus death and resurrection save us.  Again that's not true.

(No where are those two words together in the bible but James 2:24 BTW)

----------


## RJB

> Are you suggesting that the doctrine of justification by faith alone without works says that you can? If so, then you completely misrepresent it.


What does "we are saved by faith alone" mean?

----------


## Kevin007

> This is the crux of western thinking.  You are thinking in an false legal axiom.  Your logic says that if a person doesn't believe in Faith Alone, he doesn't believe in that Jesus death and resurrection save us.  Again that's not true.
> 
> (No where are those two words together in the bible but James 2:24 BTW)


you cannot mix law and grace. You can't find the word trinity either....

----------


## erowe1

> What does "we are saved by faith alone" mean?


It means that faith, an internal orientation toward God that is seen by God and not men which is inseparable from hope and love, is all that is required in order to become declared righteous by God.

Any outward acts (i.e. works) that will be produced by that inward orientation toward God are not the same thing as faith itself, and are not the means by which righteousness in God's sight is attained, but rather the result of it. Similar works as those performed by people with genuine saving faith can be performed by people who lack faith, but those works cannot make them righteous in God's sight. Therefore, no person or organization on earth has the power to dictate to people that they must perform certain acts and participate in certain ceremonies, the legitimacy of which those people and organizations control, in order to be righteous in the sight of God.

----------


## Kevin007

> It means that faith, an internal orientation toward God that is seen by God and not men which is inseparable from hope and love, is all that is required in order to become declared righteous by God.
> 
> Any outward acts (i.e. works) that will be produced by that inward orientation toward God are not the same thing as faith itself, and are not the means by which righteousness in God's sight is attained, but rather the result of it. Similar works as those performed by people with genuine saving faith can be performed by people who lack faith, but those works cannot make them righteous in God's sight. Therefore, no person or organization on earth has the power to dictate to people that they must perform certain acts and participate in certain ceremonies, the legitimacy of which those people and organizations control, in order to be righteous in the sight of God.


well said friend.

----------


## RJB

> What you're saying about James sounds like the same thing most evangelicals would say.


Some are right sometimes.




> But do you really think that's what the Reformers were up to? Coming up with loopholes to avoid living like Christians? Where do you get that?


 That was a bit harsh on my part, but so many times I've seen some troubling statements from people defending this.  Kevin once said Jesus told us to do something only to show that it's impossible.  One of them is to love God with our heart mind and soul and our neighbor as ourselves.  I believe, that you once said that this is impossible.  But martyrs prove that we can do just that with God's help.  

Faith in God is believing that God can transform us into such people.  I believe that you and I agree on this. 



> A legalistic way of looking at salvation isn't the only way to look at it. It doesn't capture the whole picture. But neither does any other single model. And the legalistic model isn't wrong. It's just partial, just like all the others. It is biblical and apostolic after all.


  This may be true, but to invent a concept such as Faith alone when those words only occurs once in the bible and it says "not by...," is wrong.

----------


## Kevin007

faith alone in Jesus for your salvation is the only correct teaching.

----------


## Kevin007

http://carm.org/are-we-saved-faith-a...need-works-too

----------


## erowe1

> This may be true, but to invent a concept such as Faith alone when those words only occurs once in the bible and it says "not by...," is wrong.


"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

True or false? Everyone who believes in Jesus in the sense meant by the word "believe" in John 3:16 has eternal life.

True or false? There do not exist people who have this kind of faith, but who do not have eternal life because they lack something else that must be added to it.

----------


## Terry1

> I wasn't messing with the word of God.  I was messing with the chart someone made interpreting the word of God.  Why would that be a problem?



Yeah--that chart was giving it's own interpretation there and it really didn't serve any good purpose.

----------


## lilymc

> It means that faith, an internal orientation toward God that is seen by God and not men which is inseparable from hope and love, is all that is required in order to become declared righteous by God.
> 
> Any outward acts (i.e. works) that will be produced by that inward orientation toward God are not the same thing as faith itself, and are not the means by which righteousness in God's sight is attained, but rather the result of it. Similar works as those performed by people with genuine saving faith can be performed by people who lack faith, but those works cannot make them righteous in God's sight. Therefore, no person or organization on earth has the power to dictate to people that they must perform certain acts and participate in certain ceremonies, the legitimacy of which those people and organizations control, in order to be righteous in the sight of God.


Very well said erowe.  

I think the entire Old Testament is one huge teaching that people can't measure up on their own... we all need the Savior.   This is why God wants us to trust HIM and Him alone.  We need to surrender and die to our old self and receive new life in Christ.

I would say that it's not HOW much faith one has, but _where_ they place their faith.   If we put our faith in our works, we are showing that we  still think we can earn our salvation.

You don't earn a free gift, you receive it.

And since salvation is a gift - not a subject of merit - it cannot be lost by demerit.    The only thing we can lose is rewards and future privileges.

I'm beginning to realize that IF a person doesn't understand those things when they first come to Christ or at some point after that, then they will inevitably have doubts about their salvation, live under the yoke of slavery, or - in the worst case - never actually get saved in the first place if they didn't put their trust in what Jesus did, but in their own performance.

God doesn't want us to live in doubt, not knowing if we are saved until judgement day to see if we "made the cut."  He wants us to have assurance.  The following passage states just that:

 Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son.   And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.   Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.


*  I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.* 

1 John 5:10-13

----------


## Terry1

> Very well said erowe.  
> 
> I think the entire Old Testament is one huge teaching that people can't measure up on their own... we all need the Savior.   This is why God wants us to trust HIM and Him alone.  We need to surrender and die to our old self and receive new life in Christ.
> 
> I would say that it's not HOW much faith one has, but _where_ they place their faith.   If we put our faith in our works, we are showing that we  still think we can earn our salvation.
> 
> *You don't earn a free gift, you receive it.
> 
> And since salvation is a gift - not a subject of merit - it cannot be lost by demerit.*    The only thing we can lose is rewards and future privileges.
> ...


The gift can be rejected and is by many because they lack the knowledge of God that comes as a result of walking in the Spirit.  Someone can give you a car or a bike, but if you don't know how to use that gift--what good is it?

*Hosea 4: 

6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

7 As they were increased, so they sinned against me: therefore will I change their glory into shame.
*

----------


## Influenza

> Not always. In the case of Daniel it does the exact opposite. Have you ever read the book?


No, and if that's the case then your post was very misleading

----------


## Ronin Truth

> That just leads back to my question. Where can you find this good in Christianity that comes from Jesus himself and isn't mediated to us by Paul and his cohorts?


 You can take that up with Franz, if he's still available. 

Some folks tend to be institution junkies, others are anti-institution, by nature. I tend to be the latter. Almost all institutions just tend to give me the creeps. 
*"By their fruits, ye shall know them."
*
I'll go along with TJ on this one. 
*
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." ~ TJ


*

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I wasn't messing with the word of God. I was messing with the chart someone made interpreting the word of God. Why would that be a problem?


Oh OK, no problem, just checking,  never mind.

----------


## lilymc

> The gift can be rejected and is by many because they lack the knowledge of God that comes as a result of walking in the Spirit.  Someone can give you a car or a bike, but if you don't know how to use that gift--what good is it?
> 
> *Hosea 4: 
> 
> 6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
> 
> 7 As they were increased, so they sinned against me: therefore will I change their glory into shame.
> *


I agree that the gift can be rejected.  Many people in the world reject it.    However, once a person has truly received that gift, it's not returnable.    And once a person becomes a son or daughter of God and has passed from death to life, it's a one time thing.  You can't hop back and forth from saved to unsaved to saved to unsaved.

As was posted on another thread, this passage clearly states that nothing can separate us from the love of God, including ourselves!  

Notice the bold. 


 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers,  nor height nor depth, *nor anything else in all creation*, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 8:38-39

----------


## RJB

I'm going to tone it down a lot.  I find when we get to the heart of the matter I agree with you a lot more than you would guess. 

If this is your personal faith, it's very similar to my own. 



> It means that faith, an internal orientation toward God that is seen by God and not men which is inseparable from hope and love, is all that is required in order to become declared righteous by God.


  That may be your outlook, but that is not what the doctrine Faith Alone means or says.  That's you prettying it up for me.  We could have faith to move mountains, but without love, we are nothing.  *This doctrine was purely a protest against the Roman Catholic Church and really has no other biblical or historical foundation.
*




> Any outward acts (i.e. works) that will be produced by that inward orientation toward God are not the same thing as faith itself, and are not the means by which righteousness in God's sight is attained, but rather the result of it.


  To an extent, I agree, but sometimes it takes a lot of effort to do a good deed or resist temptation.  This is why we are commanded to do good works--  Jesus wasn't wasting his breath in telling us to love one another and God--  That's where prayer, almsgiving, and fasting come into play to be more Christ-like, but I agree the works in and of themselves don't save us.





> Similar works as those performed by people with genuine saving faith can be performed by people who lack faith, but those works cannot make them righteous in God's sight.


  Agreed.



> Therefore, no person or organization on earth has the power to dictate to people that they must perform certain acts and participate in certain ceremonies, the legitimacy of which those people and organizations control, in order to be righteous in the sight of God.


 I pretty much agree, but again this was a protest against Rome.  The fasting thread is a great example of what a dangerous doctrine this is.  We fast because there are so many examples  people fasting from Jesus to St. Paul.  You learn to die to self.  Yet the whole thread was hijacked by people claiming we were trying to fast our way into heaven.  That was False But there are a lot of knee jerk reactions like that and not just on the forum, but this was one of the saddest for me.  Fasting with prayer is a great way to follow in his footsteps.

I disagree with the Roman Catholic doctrine that eating meat on Fridays in Lent is a very grave sin and requires a trip to confession and saying a few prescribed prayers for penance.  In Orthodoxy, we have more rigorous and more frequent fasting but when you fail you pick yourself up, pray and continue.  The same with the sacraments.  They are here to bring us closer to God.  In reaction to Rome, many since the reformation have completely turned against them.  Turning marriage from a sacrament into a government action is just one of the many devastating effects it has had.

----------


## erowe1

> No, and if that's the case then your post was very misleading


It wasn't misleading. If you didn't even know what I was talking about, you were in no position to make the comment you did.

----------


## erowe1

> I pretty much agree, but again this was a protest against Rome.


What was? Nothing in my post mentioned Rome.

Also, if you pretty much agree, are you sure that your view of the Eucharist is in line with Eastern Orthodoxy?

----------


## erowe1

> "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." ~ TJ


Your Google research failed you again. TJ didn't say that.

----------


## RJB

> What was? Nothing in my post mentioned Rome.


  I know. Although I like your personal definition.  I was pointing out the historical context for the invention of the doctrine.  Was that doctrine coined in the 1500s for another reason?




> Also, if you pretty much agree, are you sure that your view of the Eucharist is in line with Eastern Orthodoxy?


  Where does it say one is damned without receiving the Eucharist?  God works in his own way beyond our knowledge.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Your Google research failed you again. TJ didn't say that.


That wasn't Google. 

This is: *INCOMING:*  https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...74.9gBDj0oOFwI

Just a helpful thought, you may want to start with this one. http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

----------


## erowe1

> I know. Although I like your personal definition.  I was pointing out the historical context for the invention of the doctrine.  Was that doctrine coined in the 1500s for another reason?


I'm not familiar with what you're saying. I got the idea from books written in the first century AD.




> Where does it say one is damned without receiving the Eucharist?  God works in his own way beyond our knowledge.


That squiggly line at the end of my sentence was a question mark. I don't claim to speak for Eastern Orthodoxy.

ETA: There is a section on the Eucharist in the Confession of Dositheus which I take to be an accurate representation of Eastern Orthodox dogma.
http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html
Among other things it says both of the following:



> Further, that the all-pure Body Itself, and Blood of the Lord is imparted, and enters into the mouths and stomachs of the communicants, whether pious or impious. Nevertheless, they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins and life eternal; but to the impious and unworthy involve condemnation and eternal punishment.





> Further, that this Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist can be performed by none other, except only by an Orthodox Priest, who has received his priesthood from an Orthodox and Canonical Bishop, in accordance with the teaching of the Eastern Church.


What do you think about those statements?

----------


## RJB

> I don't claim to speak for Eastern Orthodoxy.


Thank you.  I'll quit attempting to speak for Luther

----------


## William Tell

> That wasn't Google.


But it was bull$#@!, according to the official Jefferson site:
http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...nity-quotation




> Home › Jefferson › Quotations › Spurious Quotations
> 
> *
> Earliest known appearance in print:* 1883[1]
> *Earliest known appearance in print, attributed to Jefferson:* See above.
> *Status:* We have not found this quotation in any of Jefferson's known writings.





> Just a helpful thought, you may want to start with this one. http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm


Just a helpful thought, do research

----------


## RJB

> I'm not familiar with what you're saying. I got the idea from books written in the first century AD.


I'm just curious if you believed or knew about the 1500's doctrine of faith alone when you started to read the bible?  And did you mistakenly over look the word "not" that came before the only time "faith alone" is mentioned in the Bible?

----------


## erowe1

> I'm just curious if you believed or knew about the 1500's doctrine of faith alone when you started to read the bible?  And did you mistakenly over look the word "not" that came before the only time "faith alone" is mentioned in the Bible?


If I had ever heard about something taught in the 1500's I didn't know it, and I certainly didn't have any interest in making the Bible conform to something someone in the 1500's said.

No, I didn't miss that line in James. But I also understood that that passage was not addressing the topic that I'm talking about and did not in any way contradict any of the numerous passages of the Bible that teach that all who have faith are saved, even before they perform the works that demonstrate that faith.

----------


## erowe1

..

----------


## Ronin Truth

> But it was bull$#@!, according to the official Jefferson site:
> http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...nity-quotation
> 
> 
> 
> Just a helpful thought, do research





> Letter Not Found
> *
> I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.
> 
> *-- Quotation 'Not Found,' while Remsburg did have access to sources that have since been lost, *and while this sounds like other statements Jefferson is kown to have made,* we feel safer keeping this one out of our collection unless and until the letter in question surfaces and is verified to be from the President's hand.


http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/.../jefferson.htm

*You have much more to learn, than you have to teach.

*

----------


## William Tell

> *You have much more to learn, than you have to teach.
> 
> *


You are dancing around the fact your quote, was a BS quote. IF, Thomas Jefferson said: 



> "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not  find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming  feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."


(and he did not)
Then why would he bother to have his watered down Bible at all? Why keep the "redeeming features" he supposedly did not believe in?

----------


## erowe1

> http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/.../jefferson.htm
> 
> *You have much more to learn, than you have to teach.
> 
> *


You just quoted people saying that they are not comfortable attributing those words to TJ in order to defend your own attribution of them to TJ?

The fact that those people think it sounds like other things he said doesn't count for anything. If you think that some other genuine quote of his says something like that, then give that quote. I don't think you'll find one that does.

----------


## RJB

I will say that I am impressed.  To have come to the idea of faith alone without having heard of it before is pretty amazing.  I still find myself having to reread passages a few times to understand them, especially Paul's.  Peter did warn about that.  

Did you start off reading Romans?  When I was nondenominational I started reading the Gospels, and something about them had me thinking of faith and love and seeing the phrase "faith alone," just didn't sound right.  Oddly, I was familiar with the term faith alone before hand.

BTW if your definition had nothing to do with Luther and Calvin, why did you feel the need to dialogue with me, if my beef was with them and their reasons for adopting it and had nothing with what you picked up on your own?




> If I had ever heard about something taught in the 1500's I didn't know it, and I certainly didn't have any interest in making the Bible conform to something someone in the 1500's said.
> 
> No, I didn't miss that line in James. But I also understood that that passage was not addressing the topic that I'm talking about and did not in any way contradict any of the numerous passages of the Bible that teach that all who have faith are saved, even before they perform the works that demonstrate that faith.

----------


## William Tell



----------


## erowe1

> I will say that I am impressed.  To have come to the idea of faith alone without having heard of it before is pretty amazing.  I still find myself having to reread passages a few times to understand them, especially Paul's.  Peter did warn about that.  
> 
> Did you start off reading Romans?  When I was nondenominational I started reading the Gospels, and something about them had me thinking of faith and love and seeing the phrase "faith alone," just didn't sound right.
> 
> BTW if your definition had nothing to do with Luther and Calvin, why did you feel the need to dialogue with me, if my beef with them and their reasons and had nothing to do with you?


Romans was the first book I studied beginning to end very carefully when I was 18 and really felt like I understood it. I had read passages of the Bible a lot before that, but never with an understanding of the argument they made like that.

Of course John is another important book affirming faith alone as the prerequisite for salvation over and over again within it, and has the purpose statement, "but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:31). It was another of the books of the Bible that influenced me the most early on, and is one that I would consider one of the easier to understand ones.

James, on the other hand, while easy to comprehend, does not anywhere within it present the Gospel, or claim to present it. It hardly even mentions Jesus. It's best seen as a book instructing those who already believe in Jesus how to live, not telling unbelievers how to become saved.

My dialogue with you had nothing to do with Calvin or Luther. I don't know as much about them as you seem to know. Nor do I know or care what your beef with them is, nor was even really aware that you had one.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You are dancing around the fact your quote, was a BS quote. IF, Thomas Jefferson said: 
> 
> (and he did not)
> Then why would he bother to have his watered down Bible at all? Why keep the "redeeming features" he supposedly did not believe in?


Who cares? Get a life.

----------


## William Tell

> Who cares? Get a life.


Lol!

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You just quoted people saying that they are not comfortable attributing those words to TJ in order to defend your own attribution of them to TJ?
> 
> The fact that those people think it sounds like other things he said doesn't count for anything. If you think that some other genuine quote of his says something like that, then give that quote. I don't think you'll find one that does.



Post #65 still awaits you. I understand that you are usually just in HOG heaven when you manage to find a truffle.  Found an error and then everything else just has to be wrong too.  Life just doesn't work that way, and especially not in 2,000 or 200 year old history.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Lol!


Then why don't you research your questions and the answers, if you care so much about them, which I really very seriously doubt. A little beyond your capacity and capability there?

----------


## William Tell

> Then why don't you research your questions and the answers, if you care so much about them, which I really very seriously doubt. A little beyond your capacity and capability there?


Research answers to rhetorical questions I posed, in order to show the absurdity of the alleged quote?

----------


## erowe1

> Post #65 still awaits you. I understand that you are usually just in HOG heaven when you manage to find a truffle.  Found an error and then everything else just has to be wrong too.  Life just doesn't work that way, and especially not in 2,000 or 200 year old history.


If you have an argument to make in your own words, that you want me to respond to then go ahead.

If instead you just want to take 5 seconds to do a google search and then expect me to spend hours sifting through all the hits and responding to things other people said that you haven't even read, then gambit declined.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Research answers to rhetorical questions I posed, in order to show the absurdity of the alleged quote?


Here's the Google link bomb, for you too. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...74.9gBDj0oOFwI 

Your job is now half done. 

Enjoy.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> If you have an argument to make in your own words, that you want me to respond to then go ahead.
> 
> If instead you just want to take 5 seconds to do a google search and then expect me to spend hours sifting through all the hits and responding to things other people said that you haven't even read, then gambit declined.


 I expect nothing. Your declining is absolutely a ZERO on the surprise meter. OMG, otherwise you just might actually learn something new.  HORRORS!  We both know that will never do.

----------


## RJB

> *My dialogue with you had nothing to do with Calvin or Luther.* I don't know as much about them as you seem to know. Nor do I know or care what your beef with them is, *nor was even really aware that you had one*.


Actually you did ask me about my thoughts on them in this post.  That's why I brought them up again because it seemed you wanted me to clarify my statements.



> *But do you really think that's what the Reformers were up to?* Coming up with loopholes to avoid living like Christians? *Where do you get that?
> *.


I'll leave you alone and let you and Ronin play.

I notice that you are very knowledgeable about the bible and the early church.  That is why I also took an interest in your knowledge of the reformers, but I'll try to leave them out of future conversations with you.

----------


## Influenza

> It wasn't misleading. If you didn't even know what I was talking about, you were in no position to make the comment you did.


Not everyone is as well-versed in Biblical passages as you. Your comment was ambiguous at best. If both this King Nebuchadnezzar and God are referred to as "King of Kings" there is clearly a problem in the Bible itself.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *1816 January 9.* (Jefferson to Charles Thomson). "I too have made a wee little book, from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus. it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. a more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen. it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel, and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its Author never said nor saw. they have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognise one feature. if I had time I would add to my little book the Greek, Latin and French texts, in columns side by side, and I wish I could subjoin a translation of Gassendis Syntagma of the doctrines of Epicurus, which, notwithstanding the calumnies of the Stoics, and caricatures of Cicero, is the most rational system remaining of the philosophy of the ancients, as frugal of vicious indulgence, and fruitful of virtue as the hyperbolical extravagancies of his rival sects."[13]


http://www.monticello.org/site/resea...igious-beliefs

----------


## erowe1

> Not everyone is as well-versed in Biblical passages as you. Your comment was ambiguous at best. If both this King Nebuchadnezzar and God are referred to as "King of Kings" there is clearly a problem in the Bible itself.


That's not a problem. It's literary art. It would be more of a problem if the Bible didn't have that kind of thing.

----------


## Influenza

> That's not a problem. It's literary art. It would be more of a problem if the Bible didn't have that kind of thing.



God is likened to a king.... ART

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Actually you did ask me about my thoughts on them in this post. That's why I brought them up again because it seemed you wanted me to clarify my statements.
> 
> 
> I'll leave you alone and let you and Ronin play.
> 
> I notice that you are very knowledgeable about the bible and the early church. That is why I also took an interest in your knowledge of the reformers, but I'll try to leave them out of future conversations with you.


I think only one of us is really playing. I have a whole lot less to lose, in the fun and games department. The "Christians" seem to be REALLY tough on their own. Maybe it's that Roman gladiator historical influence coming through. Or more probably just because the stakes are so small. 

Have you noticed?

----------


## Miss Annie

1Jo 3:13 *Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you*.
1Jo 3:14 ¶ We know that *we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.*
1Jo 3:15 *Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer*: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
1Jo 3:16 *Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.*
1Jo 3:17 *But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?*
1Jo 3:18 My little children, *let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.*
1Jo 3:19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
1Jo 3:20 ¶ *For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things*.
1Jo 3:21 *Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.*
1Jo 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him,* because we keep his commandments*, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jo 3:23 ¶ *And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.*
1Jo 3:24 *And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us*.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> http://www.monticello.org/site/resea...igious-beliefs


I'm aware of this quote.  I've always wondered what TJ would think of Eastern Rite Christianity if he had been able to study it.  (FWIW, TJ had some downright nasty things to say about Calvin, his doctrine, and the five points...and I totally agree with him on that)

ETA: For future reference, I would appreciate your posts a lot more and take them more seriously if you were as thoughtful and articulate as TJ.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> God is likened to a king.... ART


I don't understand your facepalm.  erowe is correct WRT the artistry of the literary genre y'all are discussing.  IMO, the reason a lot of Westerners don't understand the OT (and the NT apocalyptic lit) well is because the literary genres are so different than what we're accustomed to.

----------


## Terry1

> I agree that the gift can be rejected.  Many people in the world reject it.    However, once a person has truly received that gift, it's not returnable.    And once a person becomes a son or daughter of God and has passed from death to life, it's a one time thing.  You can't hop back and forth from saved to unsaved to saved to unsaved.
> 
> As was posted on another thread, this passage clearly states that nothing can separate us from the love of God, including ourselves!  
> 
> Notice the bold. 
> 
> 
>  For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers,  nor height nor depth, *nor anything else in all creation*, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
> 
> Romans 8:38-39


Then by your belief, people who confess Jesus and are baptized are Once Saved Always Saved.  Then you're saying if they reject the gift at any point and time that they were never saved to begin with.  

Today people are sued in a court of law for this kind of practice.  You can't guarantee a gift based upon confession and baptism and then tell them if they choose to walk away from that gift it was never theirs in the first place.

Obviously they were guaranteed the gift--owned it based upon a promise and then chose to abandon it.  It was always theirs based upon that promise, so you can't say that they never owned the gift or that they never received something they were guaranteed to receive.  Hence--they were saved at one point and chose to walk away from the gift.

----------


## RJB

> Today people are sued in a court of law for this kind of practice.  You can't guarantee a gift based upon confession and baptism and then tell them if they choose to walk away from that gift it was never theirs in the first place.


I'm sure Calvin, Attorney at Law, could find a legal loophole at the Pearly Gates.

----------


## Terry1

> I'm sure Calvin, Attorney at Law, could find a legal loophole at the Pearly Gates.


I'm sure he would. This entire belief system of the perseverance of the saints is totally biblically illogical.  It's as if those who believe this are trying to pound a square peg into a round hole to make it fit by using Old Testament scripture that applies to what we shouldn't do-- then they're misunderstanding that and attempting to apply the very same to what we should be doing now under the New Testament Law of faith.

Faith can never work alone by itself and nowhere in scripture does it say that "faith alone" does anything but "die" as James tells us.

What scripture does support and say is that faith without our good works is dead, just the same as works without faith are dead too.

They're continually quoting scripture about the dead works of the Mosaic Law that the NT refers to as those we shouldn't do and not understanding that our good works of faith are what we're told to do and that faith absent these good works is no faith at all and dead.

This isn't something that's not important with regard to our salvation, because people who believe in OSAS don't place any emphasis on their good works at all thinking that they're some automatic byproduct of faith that simultaneously happens as a result of confession of belief.  

In other words, the Holy Spirit could be dropping bricks on their heads trying to get a response out of them regarding their calling and they're just sitting back saying--"well that won't save me--so why worry about doing it".  That is what saves us because that's called "walking in the spirit" and is the only way we know what we're supposed to be doing with regard to answering our calling.

Those "good works" are what we're commanded to do and the only way to glorify the Father in heaven as Jesus tells us in Matthew.  Those good works are our choice to do or not to do.  If someone believes that this isn't what saves us--then there's no possible way they can be walking in the spirit and choosing to do those same good works that are in response to what we're being called to do.

----------


## RJB

> Faith can never work alone by itself and nowhere in scripture does it say that "faith alone" does anything but "die" as James tells us.


Looking up the definitions of both "faith" and "Alone" shows the inconsistencies of this doctrine.  

Someone will say faith alone, but then they will add more to it making it not by faith alone.

By the definition below and using the same logic, it could say something to the effect of we are saved by "love alone which is inseparable from hope and faith."  St Paul said otherwise with his quotations of faith to move mountains...  

And this definition was in response to a post I made about hope, faith, and love.  If I had made a post that left out hope and love but mentioned Grace or the Holy Spirit, I imagine the definition would have changed.  For such a seemingly solid doctrine, it seems to have a lot of wiggle room, to the point that I could say I agree with faith alone if I could add whatever I wanted to the definition.

I might be a bit too nit-picky but "alone" is a pretty solid word.  Maybe the doctrine should have been called "Faith, hope, and love... ...with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit...   ...with Grace...  ...that leads to good works...  ...alone."




> It means that faith, an internal orientation toward God that is seen by God and not men which is inseparable from hope and love, is all that is required in order to become declared righteous by God...
> 
> Any outward acts (i.e. works) that will be produced by that inward orientation toward God are not the same thing as faith itself, and are not the means by which righteousness in God's sight is attained, but rather the result of it. Similar works as those performed by people with genuine saving faith can be performed by people who lack faith, but those works cannot make them righteous in God's sight. Therefore, no person or organization on earth has the power to dictate to people that they must perform certain acts and participate in certain ceremonies, the legitimacy of which those people and organizations control, in order to be righteous in the sight of God.

----------


## Terry1

> Looking up the definitions of both "faith" and "Alone" shows the inconsistencies of this doctrine.  
> 
> Someone will say faith alone, but then they will add more to it making it not by faith alone.
> 
> By the definition below and using the same logic, it could say something to the effect of we are saved by "love alone which is inseparable from hope and faith."  St Paul said otherwise with his quotations of faith to move mountains...  
> 
> And this definition was in response to a post I made about hope, faith, and love.  If I had made a post that left out hope and love but mentioned Grace or the Holy Spirit, I imagine the definition would have changed.  For such a seemingly solid doctrine, it seems to have a lot of wiggle room, to the point that I could say I agree with faith alone if I could add whatever I wanted to the definition.
> 
> I might be a bit too nit-picky but "alone" is a pretty solid word.  Maybe the doctrine should have been called "Faith, hope, and love... ...with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit...   ...with Grace...  ...that leads to good works...  ...alone."


You're exactly right.  What this all comes down to is that they believe that faith and belief are synonymous as if these two spiritual elements could inhabit a rock and still have the same effect that they do on people.

So the rock says--I believe and have faith and Jesus says to the rock show me your good works and the rock says again, but I have belief and faith.  So James says that your faith is dead without good works.  So the rock says--but I have faith and my faith is my good works.  So Jesus says--but I'm telling you to go feed the hungry sitting out in the cold and the rock says--but that won't save me because I have belief and faith that does.  So Jesus says--I'm commanding you to go love them and do this and the rock replies--I don't have to because that's not what saved me, my belief and faith alone saved me.  

So the starving man died out in the cold and Jesus said--why didn't you feed him like I asked you to do?  The rock says--well that wasn't a prerequisite for my salvation.  All you told me to do was to believe and have faith.

----------


## erowe1

> God is likened to a king.... ART


Did I read you wrong? Or did you not just admit that you haven't even read the book that you're mocking?

----------


## erowe1

> By the definition below and using the same logic, it could say something to the effect of we are saved by "love alone which is inseparable from hope and faith."  St Paul said otherwise with his quotations of faith to move mountains...


I don't see the problem here.

What quotations of Paul are you talking about?

One reason for adopting the word "faith" to describe that inward orientation (it needs some word for it after all) is that the Greek noun the New Testament most often uses for it is _pistis_, which is best translated as faith, and the verb it most often uses for the adoption of this inward orientation is _pisteuo_, which is best translated to believe.

When a person has this _pistis_, prior to doing any works, then according to the Bible they are declared righteous in God's sight, are forgiven of all their sins, past, present, and future, possess right then eternal life, and are 100% certain to go to Heaven.

Is there such a thing as a person who genuinely has this _pistis_ but is not righteous in God's sight because they lack something else that needs to be added to it? The Bible says, no there is not. We can never say to someone, "That's good that you have faith, but unless you also perform actions A, B, and C, you can't be saved."

There do exist people like James talks about who don't have genuine saving living _pistis_, but who instead just have this dead _pistis_ which doesn't save. And the difference between saving faith and dead faith is bound to be demonstrated by the works that flow from them. But none of those works is a prerequisite for salvation. In that same passage in James he says that God declared Abraham righteous as soon as he believed, decades before he performed the good work that James points to as proof that his faith was the living kind.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I'm aware of this quote. I've always wondered what TJ would think of Eastern Rite Christianity if he had been able to study it. (FWIW, TJ had some downright nasty things to say about Calvin, his doctrine, and the five points...and I totally agree with him on that)
> 
> ETA: For future reference, I would appreciate your posts a lot more and take them more seriously if you were as thoughtful and articulate as TJ.



Noted! I ain't here for the popularity contest. Check the Google TJ link bomb and you may be able to correctly discern and SWAG TJ's view on the EO too.

TJ was a "red pill" guy (in a Matrix sense), I consider myself to be one too. Having a July 4th birthday has lead me, I believe, to have a real soft spot in my head for TJ.

If I was as thoughtful and articulate as TJ, I wouldn't be spending so much of my time here on RPF. (Nor being POTUS either.)

----------


## RJB

It's odd, earlier this week I started looking into the definition of the word pistis.  Right now it's like going through the devastation of a Ronin google bomb 

In most websites I'm seeing articles using their own definition to justify their own beliefs and contradicting each other.  I may return to this post in the distant future.  If you could suggest a fairly neutral, or even a not-so neutral but a good read, I'll read it.

As to the bible verse: 



> 1 Corinthians 13:2  If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.




I know I said I'd stay away from this discussion but I had some new thoughts over the evening.




> But do you really think that's what the Reformers were up to? *Coming up with loopholes to avoid living like Christians?* Where do you get that?


I believe I was wrong about the reformers in that statement.  In the historical context of the reformation in rebelling against the abuses by the Catholic Church (most of which wasn't church policy but was rather priests taking advantage of a situation) I see the honor in what they were trying to say.

However, when separated from the context of the reformation, the definition of "faith alone" (not your personal one, Erowe) logically leads to antinomianism.  Although, by far most Protestants seem to go by your definition (which I pretty much agree with) there is a visceral distaste to living the gospel in daily life-- as demonstrated by the reaction in the fasting thread.  Among other things, It also went on to desacramentalize what God has united making marriage  a government action.  I believe it has wreaked more havoc than good.

I know I've said this over a few post, but I wanted a concise summery.

The sad part of these arguments is that on the basic level, I think we pretty much agree.  If you note, my big disagreement is where I see it potentially leading rather than me telling you what you believe.  I notice that you return the favor.  Thank you.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't see the problem here.
> 
> What quotations of Paul are you talking about?
> 
> One reason for adopting the word "faith" to describe that inward orientation (it needs some word for it after all) is that the Greek noun the New Testament most often uses for it is _pistis_, which is best translated as faith, and the verb it most often uses for the adoption of this inward orientation is _pisteuo_, which is best translated to believe.
> 
> When a person has this _pistis_, prior to doing any works, then according to the Bible they are declared righteous in God's sight, are forgiven of all their sins, past, present, and future, possess right then eternal life, and are 100% to go to Heaven.
> 
> Is there such a thing as a person who genuinely has this _pistis_ but is not righteous in God's sight because they lack something else that needs to be added to it? The Bible says, no there is not. We can never say to someone, "That's good that you have faith, but unless you also perform actions A, B, and C, you can't be saved."
> ...


You good works are your faith, of which without--James (2:17), Paul (1 Thes. 1:3), (2 Thes. 1:11), (John 15:5) and (Hebrews 6:4).  Without the fruit of faith being acted upon and evident, which Jesus calls our "light that shines for all to see"--you have no faith--it's dead.  Hence--without these good works and works that follow faith by us choosing to do them in obedience--you can not be in a state of elect or saved.

Also,  Pistis is a noun, it means to trust something/someone with great confidence.  One of the problems in our Bibles is that the translators used the word believe for a derivative of pistis-- Pisteuo. Everyone should be able to see the same root there-- Pistis is faith, and Pisteuo should be the verb form of faith--to faithe, faithes, faithing.

While you are rightly calling the word Pisteuo a verb--you're still attempting to say that faith acts upon itself as in having *faith in faith* and that an effort required on the part of the believer is not necessary--which is totally incorrect.  The only way our faith can live is if we act upon it according to what the Holy Spirit is telling us to do.  This is the *only* way a believer can walk in the spirit of the Lord--otherwise--you're not walking in the spirit and your faith is dead as the NT tells you.  Without these fruits that are supposed to be the result of our faith and belief--the branch "in the true Vine" dies and is cut off and burned.  John 15:5, Hebrews 6:4.

----------


## erowe1

> you're still attempting to say that faith acts upon itself as in having *faith in faith*


No I'm not.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Ahem, http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/pistis

----------


## erowe1

> It's odd, earlier this week I started looking into the definition of the word pistis.  Right now it's like going through the devastation of a Ronin google bomb 
> 
> In most websites I'm seeing articles using their own definition to justify their own beliefs and contradicting each other.  I may return to this post in the distant future.  If you could suggest a fairly neutral, or even a not-so neutral but a good read, I'll read it.
> 
> As to the bible verse:


It's significant to me that Paul isn't talking about how to become saved in that verse. It would be wrong to use it that way.

The way most people today use the word "love" is different than the way it's used in the Bible, IMHO. Today most people do think of love as something on the inside, like an emotion, or maybe something more than just an emotion, but still something basically internal. When the Bible uses it, I think it's usually talking about actions themselves. For example, John 3:16 isn't saying that God had this emotion of love that motivated him to send his son, it's saying that the manner in which God loved was by sending his son. Notice that the KJV translates this word in 1 Corinthians 13 as "charity" rather than "love."

So 1 Corinthians 13:2 is saying something a lot like what James is saying in James 2. It's telling believers what their faith ought to produce outwardly.

If we're trying to use the word "love" in this biblical sense, then I don't think it would be a good replacement for the word faith, in referring to that inward quality that leads to the doing of good works. It would be better to use the word "love" for the works themselves.

However, the other word that Paul uses in that chapter, "hope," I think is much closer in meaning to "faith." And sometimes, especially in Hebrews, the Bible does use the word "hope" for that same inward orientation toward God that it usually calls faith.

----------


## Influenza

> Did I read you wrong? Or did you not just admit that you haven't even read the book that you're mocking?


Meh, I guess I shouldn't be surprised how theologically messed up Christianity is. After all this is the religion that believes a man who walked on earth is God... Obviously there is no concept of the Oneness of God to offend, so liken Kings with God all you want!

----------


## erowe1

> Obviously there is no concept of the Oneness of God to offend, so liken Kings with God all you want!


Just to be clear, by your own admission you still don't have any idea what you're talking about. Is that right?

----------


## Influenza

> Just to be clear, by your own admission you still don't have any idea what you're talking about. Is that right?


I skimmed the first few chapters of Daniel. I don't need to have read any of it if you are accurately depicting it

----------


## erowe1

> I skimmed the first few chapters of Daniel. I don't need to have read any of it if you are accurately depicting it


Why do you insist on pontificating about something that, by your own admission, you know nothing about?

----------


## Influenza

> Why do you insist on pontificating about something that, by your own admission, you know nothing about?


You really bore me. It's ok, I'm done.

----------


## lilymc

> Then by your belief, people who confess Jesus and are baptized are Once Saved Always Saved.  Then you're saying if they reject the gift at any point and time that they were never saved to begin with.  
> 
> Today people are sued in a court of law for this kind of practice.  You can't guarantee a gift based upon confession and baptism and then tell them if they choose to walk away from that gift it was never theirs in the first place.
> 
> Obviously they were guaranteed the gift--owned it based upon a promise and then chose to abandon it.  It was always theirs based upon that promise, so you can't say that they never owned the gift or that they never received something they were guaranteed to receive.  Hence--they were saved at one point and chose to walk away from the gift.



No, that is not what I said or what I believe.      

But I can see why you wanted to set up that strawman, to have something easy to knock over.

God knows our hearts.  GOD (not you, or anyone else) knows if one's confession of faith is sincere and genuine, and if the faith is in HIM and not in our works.    

Nobody is saying that simply stating a few magic words means someone is saved.   That seems to be where your problem is, you seem to think that OSAS means one can state a few words then automatically be saved.    You are not giving God enough credit for being able to do His job.     You can trust that God knows what He's doing.  Nobody is going to pull the wool over His eyes.

So to imply that the gift is "guaranteed" upon merely stating a few words or being water baptized is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding.  

Again, just trust that God knows what He's doing.   He doesn't make mistakes.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't see the problem here.
> 
> What quotations of Paul are you talking about?
> 
> One reason for adopting the word "faith" to describe that inward orientation (it needs some word for it after all) is that the Greek noun the New Testament most often uses for it is _pistis_, which is best translated as faith, and the verb it most often uses for the adoption of this inward orientation is _pisteuo_, which is best translated to believe.
> 
> When a person has this _pistis_, prior to doing any works, then according to the Bible they are declared righteous in God's sight, are forgiven of all their sins, past, present, and future, possess right then eternal life, and are 100% certain to go to Heaven.
> 
> Is there such a thing as a person who genuinely has this _pistis_ but is not righteous in God's sight because they lack something else that needs to be added to it? The Bible says, no there is not. We can never say to someone, "That's good that you have faith, but unless you also perform actions A, B, and C, you can't be saved."
> ...


Actually all along faith and works were together.  The very first mention of Abraham is when he obeyed God and left his homeland in search for the promised land.

Please read:

_Genesis 15 King James Version (KJV)

15 After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

2 And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?

3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

4 And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

6 And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

7 And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it._

So, by the time Abraham was declared righteous through his faith, he had already acted on it.  Compare with Hebrews 11.

_8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.

15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.

16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:_

Note that in Hebrews 11:8 the evidence of Abraham's faith was that he was willing to leave his homeland.  So it's a mistake to pretend that there were no works of faith until Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac.  But check out what God, through His angel, had to say when Abraham was willing to sacrificing Isaac.

Genesis 15
_11 And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.

12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me._

Now isn't that an odd thing for God to say?  Or even for an angel of the Lord to say?  "For *now* I know that thou fearsest God".  Wasn't that already known?  Here is something to consider.  While Abraham had shown faith by leaving his homeland, his faith was not complete.  Note that when he was "declared righteous" what was he having faith in?  Genesis 15 is where Abraham told God that he would leave his property to his servant because he and his wife were childless.  God promised Abraham a son.  Abraham had faith in that promise.  But that faith wavered.  It wavered twice when Abraham told two different kings that his wife was his sister.  (Half truth.  She was his half sister.  But he was not up front about the fact that she was his wife.)  Why is this showing a lack of faith in God's promise that he would have a son?  Well obviously if you are childless and God has promised you a son, that must mean that you're going to live long enough to impregnate someone.  His faith also wavered with the choice of Hagar to bear him a son.  God didn't tell Abraham to "help him out."  So in a way, the call to sacrifice Isaac was the ultimate test of Abraham's faith in that promise.  After all, God didn't just promise Abraham a son, but promised him that all the nations would be blessed through that son.  Like the test Abraham failed when he sought to spare his own life, would he fail and put more stock in his love for his son than in his faith in God?

Interestingly enough, I keep hearing people saith that works of faith are for "justification before men."  Really?  Where is that in the Bible?  Who man was Abraham "justified" in front of?  And why did the angel of the Lord say "Now I know" as opposed to "Now some man knows"?

----------


## erowe1

> Actually all along faith and works were together.  The very first mention of Abraham is when he obeyed God and left his homeland in search for the promised land.
> 
> Please read:
> 
> _Genesis 15 King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 15 After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
> 
> 2 And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?
> ...


The points you're making from Genesis are valid. But they're different from the point James makes. The only work he mentions is the offering up of Isaac, not the leaving of the homeland. And it was when Abraham believed God that God declared him righteous, before he did that work. What you're saying about God's words "now I know" is not a point James chooses to bring out, nor is the question of what men saw what Abraham did (from James' point of view, everyone who knows the story is a witness of the work that demonstrates Abraham's faith). But for the practical purposes of his audience, it is their outward demonstration of their faith, such as can be seen by others, that he means by the word "justify." God can see their faith, and declare them righteous on the basis of what he sees that men can't. But if their faith is genuine, then the will also demonstrate their righteousness outwardly (i.e. be justified).

Paul in Romans 4 also makes the point of the time relationship between Abraham's faith, justification, and works. And when he refers to his justification he's talking about his being declared righteous in the sight of God. The work Paul mentions is Abraham's circumcision, which also happened years after his faith and his righteousness in God's sight. Paul goes out of his way to point out that this proves that Abraham's works were not a prerequisite for being righteous in God's sight, but only his faith was.

Neither author mentions the work of leaving Ur. But we can still make the same point with that. Abraham's faith preceded that work. Of course Genesis 15:6 comes later in the narrative of Genesis, but since it is a retrospective, it must be referring to the faith he already had when he left Ur. His leaving Ur was another outward demonstration of that inner faith that he already must have had, since, had he not had faith he wouldn't have left Ur, as Hebrews 11 points out.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, that is not what I said or what I believe.      
> 
> But I can see why you wanted to set up that strawman, to have something easy to knock over.
> 
> God knows our hearts.  GOD (not you, or anyone else) knows if one's confession of faith is sincere and genuine, and if the faith is in HIM and not in our works.    
> 
> Nobody is saying that simply stating a few magic words means someone is saved.   That seems to be where your problem is, you seem to think that OSAS means one can state a few words then automatically be saved.    You are not giving God enough credit for being able to do His job.     You can trust that God knows what He's doing.  Nobody is going to pull the wool over His eyes.
> 
> So to imply that the gift is "guaranteed" upon merely stating a few words or being water baptized is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding.  
> ...


It's not just someone saying "magic words" Lily.  Again I give you the example of Baalam.  He believed in God.  He prophesied *for* God.  And on the way to curse God's people, God had another conversation with him.  From everything we can tell Baalam was lost.  Jesus said not only did some of the "goats" say the "magic words" but they did works in His name including casting out demons.  It is impossible to cast out demons in the name of Jesus without having faith in Jesus.  There were some young men in the book of Acts that tried that and the demon possessed man kicked their butts.  And of course James says that the "Devils believe and tremble".  So nobody is talking about someone who just says "I believe in Jesus" as a catch phrase, not really believing in Jesus at all, but going through the motions for insurance.  We're talking about people that at the very least at one point had an existential belief in Jesus.  But in the parable of the sower, Jesus goes further and talks about people who hear the gospel and at first *accept it with joy* but then wither away at persecution because they have no root or people where the seed of the gospel germinated but got choked out by the "cares of this world."  So that's beyond existential belief that even demons have.

As for "trusting that a living God knows what He's doing", I don't see anyone arguing otherwise.  The question is, what is He doing?  Do we take the parables of Jesus, which seem clearly to debunk OSAS, at face value?  The man with the large debt that was forgiven but was later reinstated because he was unforgiving to a fellow servant who owed a small debt?  How about the parable of the talents where each *servant* (i.e. believer) was given certain talents, but one servant decided to hide his?  What happened to that servant?  He was bound and cast into "outer darkness."  

Here is the deal.  You show God that you trust Him the same way you show Him that you love Him and that's by doing what He says.  You don't have to make up stuff to do in order to impress Him.  That's the mistake the Jews made in the rules they added to the Sabbath.  That's also the mistake, IMO, of "salvation by sacrament" and the"indulgence system."  

Anyway, the question that I have yet to see you or Kevin or Erowe1 attempt to answer is how does one know they have what you call "saving faith?"  Why is that question so hard to answer?

----------


## jmdrake

> The points you're making from Genesis are valid. But they're different from the point James makes. The only work he mentions is the offering up of Isaac, not the leaving of the homeland. And it was when Abraham believed God that God declared him righteous, before he did that work. What you're saying about God's words "now I know" is not a point James chooses to bring out, nor is the question of what men saw what Abraham did (from James' point of view, everyone who knows the story is a witness of the work that demonstrates Abraham's faith). But for the practical purposes of his audience, it is their outward demonstration of their faith, such as can be seen by others, that he means by the word "justify." God can see their faith, and declare them righteous on the basis of what he sees that men can't. But if their faith is genuine, then the will also demonstrate their righteousness outwardly (i.e. be justified).


Okay.  But no where does James say anything about "justification before men."  And really, that's rather absurd on its face.  I don't think very highly of Jeptha for example.

Edit: And for the record, it was you who brought up the first instance of Abraham being declared righteous long before the incident with Isaac.  James makes no mention of the first declaration of righteousness.  Paul does.  But by going to where that happened you are taken to Genesis 15 where God observes the fact that Abraham had already acted on his faith by leaving Ur.

----------


## erowe1

> Okay.  But no where does James say anything about "justification before men."  And really, that's rather absurd on its face.  I don't think very highly of Jeptha for example.
> 
> Edit: And for the record, it was you who brought up the first instance of Abraham being declared righteous long before the incident with Isaac.  James makes no mention of the first declaration of righteousness.  Paul does.  But by going to where that happened you are taken to Genesis 15 where God observes the fact that Abraham had already acted on his faith by leaving Ur.


James 2:18:



> 18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
> 
> Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.


And James does quote Genesis 15:6 in James 2:23.

----------


## jmdrake

> James 2:18:
> 
> 
> And James does quote Genesis 15:6 in James 2:23.


Okay.  Toche' on James 2:23.  But James 2:18 does not say "Justification before men".  You're reading that into the text.  What he is saying is that if faith does not produce deeds then it's not faith.  It doesn't justify you before men or before God.

----------


## Terry1

> It's not just someone saying "magic words" Lily.  Again I give you the example of Baalam.  He believed in God.  He prophesied *for* God.  And on the way to curse God's people, God had another conversation with him.  From everything we can tell Baalam was lost.  Jesus said not only did some of the "goats" say the "magic words" but they did works in His name including casting out demons.  It is impossible to cast out demons in the name of Jesus without having faith in Jesus.  There were some young men in the book of Acts that tried that and the demon possessed man kicked their butts.  And of course James says that the "Devils believe and tremble".  So nobody is talking about someone who just says "I believe in Jesus" as a catch phrase, not really believing in Jesus at all, but going through the motions for insurance.  We're talking about people that at the very least at one point had an existential belief in Jesus.  But in the parable of the sower, Jesus goes further and talks about people who hear the gospel and at first *accept it with joy* but then wither away at persecution because they have no root or people where the seed of the gospel germinated but got choked out by the "cares of this world."  So that's beyond existential belief that even demons have.
> 
> As for "trusting that a living God knows what He's doing", I don't see anyone arguing otherwise.  The question is, what is He doing?  Do we take the parables of Jesus, which seem clearly to debunk OSAS, at face value?  The man with the large debt that was forgiven but was later reinstated because he was unforgiving to a fellow servant who owed a small debt?  How about the parable of the talents where each *servant* (i.e. believer) was given certain talents, but one servant decided to hide his?  What happened to that servant?  He was bound and cast into "outer darkness."  
> 
> Here is the deal.  You show God that you trust Him the same way you show Him that you love Him and that's by doing what He says.  You don't have to make up stuff to do in order to impress Him.  That's the mistake the Jews made in the rules they added to the Sabbath.  That's also the mistake, IMO, of "salvation by sacrament" and the"indulgence system."  
> 
> Anyway, the question that I have yet to see you or Kevin or Erowe1 attempt to answer is how does one know they have what you call "saving faith?"  Why is that question so hard to answer?


You did a pretty good job of answering Lily, so I'll just leave it right there.   I'm glad that you asked that question for them to describe their version of "saving faith" again too, because I've already asked it and got zip.  Maybe they'll answer you.

----------


## Terry1

> No, that is not what I said or what I believe.      
> 
> But I can see why you wanted to set up that strawman, to have something easy to knock over.
> 
> God knows our hearts.  GOD (not you, or anyone else) knows if one's confession of faith is sincere and genuine, and if the faith is in HIM and not in our works.    
> 
> Nobody is saying that simply stating a few magic words means someone is saved.   That seems to be where your problem is, you seem to think that OSAS means one can state a few words then automatically be saved.    You are not giving God enough credit for being able to do His job.     You can trust that God knows what He's doing.  Nobody is going to pull the wool over His eyes.
> 
> So to imply that the gift is "guaranteed" upon merely stating a few words or being water baptized is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding.  
> ...


Well then you might as well believe in the doctrine of Predestination then instead of OSAS.  Because OSAS also implies that we have no choice in the matter.  FF was right in his assessment, even though he's wrong on all points still with regard to what and how we're saved.  

What you're saying now is that no one could have possibly been saved---even after confession and baptism if they choose to walk away from Christ.  And you're basing that on Romans 8:39.  Which that particular scripture where Paul is describing those who continually walk in the Spirit of the Lord.  Here is verse 33, within that same context, Paul is talking about the "elect".  

*33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.* 

What you need to do is compare that scripture with others that tell us that the state of being "elect" in this life is only "sealed" as long as we "abide" in Christ and continually walk in the Spirit of the Lord.  You agree we have a choice to walk with God or not--you and Kevin said that you both believe in a "free will to choose".  

Here again Paul confirms this:

*Galatians 5:16 

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.*

*Galatians 5:25

If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
*

What is Paul telling you here?  That you have a choice to walk in the spirit or not.  He's warning us to remain in the spirit of the Lord.  Why the warnings if we nothing to lose then?  It's not talking about "rewards" in heaven either--scripture is referring to falling away and faith dying as a result of not acting upon it.  They were saved and believed and had faith, but then the things of the world drew them away again and by their own free will--chose to walk away.   

Then Hebrews 6:4  and John 15:5 also tell you why we need to walk in the spirit of the Lord and uses the word *abide in Christ* because if we don't and for too long--what are these scriptures saying can happen to us?  We are then cut off and burned having the ability to walk away and not return to God.  You can't say that they were never once saved and walked in the Spirit.  Hebrews 6:4 is clearly telling you that they did and were once in the state of elect, but fell.  So no one can possibly be once saved always saved if they have the choice to walk away.  So then by that same logic--you might as well believe that we don't have a free will at all if you're also going to say that a true believer will never walk away, when the scriptures are clearly telling you the exact opposite.

God may foreknow people, but He doesn't make our choices for us.  This is our liberty in Christ and freedom to choose in this life who we will follow and believe in.  God won't take that away from us because that is how and what He uses to sort us out from those who will come to Him and remain and those who won't.  Having a *choice* is really not to our benefit, but only to God.  Read the separating the wheat from the tares and the harvest.

Why do you think that God is saying throughout scripture--"RETURN UNTO ME AND I WILL RETURN UNTO YOU".   Why is God then saying that we have the ability to walk away?  Then in Revelations 2: God is speaking to believers--the churches telling them--I gave them space to repent and they repented not.  Then God says what he will do to those who do not repent and return here which also reconciles with Hebrews 6:4 and John 15:5

*Rev. 2: And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.

22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
*

----------


## RJB

> Anyway, the question that I have yet to see you or Kevin or Erowe1 attempt to answer is how does one know they have what you call "saving faith?"  Why is that question so hard to answer?


This is why it's hard to convert people over the internet.  I was an atheist for fifteen years.  All religious stuff was hocus pocus to me.  Calling it genuine saving faith when touching on the infinite sounds ridiculous.  I was envious of St. Thomas for being able to touch the wounds himself.  St. John for resting his head on our Lord's chest.  That would be what it would take for me to believe.

If there was one earthly thing I can credit, it would be my mother's prayers for my salvation.  Somehow I made a weak prayer to a God I knew didn't exist, but I knelt and humbly asked, "Jesus I don't believe in you, but if you exist, please show me the way so I may trust in you."  I didn't repent at the time.  I really thought there was nothing wrong with anything I had done, but slowly over the next year my eyes were open.  

When it did hit me, it was like I could feel the weight of my sins on my shoulders.  I was aware of them all, and I realized I had been carrying them for years, but had grown used to them.  I could feel them lifted off my shoulders.  I can feel him in my heart when I do his will.  I can feel him in my marriage bonding my lovely wife and I to each other and him.  I've experience much in life but nothing compares.

*GOD IS LOVE MY, FRIENDS!!!*  You know him if you have him and he has you.  This is what needs to be posted in every thread, not some dry chart comparing St. Paul and St. James, like God can be reduced to a science.  The Word of God is alive!*  Is the love of God inside you?* is the question that should be asked instead.  An atheist who was a bigger doubter than St. Thomas now believes.

----------


## Kevin007

jm- the Holy Spirit lives inside of you and convicts you of sin, shows you bible truths and helps you in your walk- that is how....

----------


## Kevin007

> Well then you might as well believe in the doctrine of Predestination then instead of OSAS.  Because OSAS also implies that we have no choice in the matter.  FF was right in his assessment, even though he's wrong on all points still with regard to what and how we're saved.  
> 
> What you're saying now is that no one could have possibly been saved---even after confession and baptism if they choose to walk away from Christ.  And you're basing that on Romans 8:39.  Which that particular scripture where Paul is describing those who continually walk in the Spirit of the Lord.  Here is verse 33, within that same context, Paul is talking about the "elect".  
> 
> *33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.* 
> 
> What you need to do is compare that scripture with others that tell us that the state of being "elect" in this life is only "sealed" as long as we "abide" in Christ and continually walk in the Spirit of the Lord.  You agree we have a choice to walk with God or not--you and Kevin said that you both believe in a "free will to choose".  
> 
> Here again Paul confirms this:
> ...


*talking about we will fall into sin if we do not walk in the spirit. Believer's fall out of FELLOWSHIP with God if we do.*

----------


## Kevin007

falling out of fellowship, falling from grace is NOT losing your salvation. Again, if it was so important there would have been at least one mention of a person losing their salvation. Even IF I agreed you could lose it- why doesn't the Bible just plainly say it. "You will lose your salvation IF........?


YOU WILL LOSE YOUR SALVATION IF... you sin? No- we are all sinners.

YOU WILL LOSE YOUR SALVATION IF... you do not repent? no.. because not repenting is a sin..... Jesus died for sinners. Those who are Believer's are covered by His Blood and our sins are nailed to the cross.

----------


## lilymc

> It's not just someone saying "magic words" Lily.  Again I give you the example of Baalam.  He believed in God.  He prophesied *for* God.  And on the way to curse God's people, God had another conversation with him.  From everything we can tell Baalam was lost.  Jesus said not only did some of the "goats" say the "magic words" but they did works in His name including casting out demons.  It is impossible to cast out demons in the name of Jesus without having faith in Jesus.  There were some young men in the book of Acts that tried that and the demon possessed man kicked their butts.  And of course James says that the "Devils believe and tremble".


I'm not sure what your point is in bringing up Baalam.  What are you trying to say?  Are you just saying that you know the difference between merely believing God exists, and having a genuine faith?




> So nobody is talking about someone who just says "I believe in Jesus" as a catch phrase, not really believing in Jesus at all, but going through the motions for insurance.  We're talking about people that at the very least at one point had an existential belief in Jesus.  But in the parable of the sower, Jesus goes further and talks about people who hear the gospel and at first *accept it with joy* but then wither away at persecution because they have no root or people where the seed of the gospel germinated but got choked out by the "cares of this world."  So that's beyond existential belief that even demons have.


You and Terry have an odd interpretation of the Parable of the Sower.  It's not about "losing salvation"! 

Jesus is talking about different reactions or responses to the Gospel.  How a person responds has to do with the condition of their heart. 

The one that you mentioned  - the rocky ground who at first received it joyfully was not saved.  There are some people who hear the Gospel and have a very shallow, temporary, emotional response to it.    Verse 13 (of Luke 8) clearly states  *"But these have no root"*   If the seed never took root, how can you say he was truly saved?   If there's no root, there's nothing there.

Only one out of the four - the one represented by the "good ground-  had the right type of soil, and received the "seed", and later beared fruit.    

I have always seen the Parable of the Sower in this way -  that people have different responses to the Gospel, and either reject it right away or reject it after a while, for a variety of reasons.   It was always clear to me that only one of them was able to truly receive the seed of the Gospel, and that one represented a true believer.




> As for "trusting that a living God knows what He's doing", I don't see anyone arguing otherwise.  The question is, what is He doing?  Do we take the parables of Jesus, which seem clearly to debunk OSAS, at face value?  The man with the large debt that was forgiven but was later reinstated because he was unforgiving to a fellow servant who owed a small debt?  How about the parable of the talents where each *servant* (i.e. believer) was given certain talents, but one servant decided to hide his?  What happened to that servant?  He was bound and cast into "outer darkness."


Wow.  I don't even know where to begin here.  TBH, I don't have the time right now to go into detailed discussions on each of those parables, but once again, it seems you are misunderstanding the point of those parables and interpreting them through your anti-OSAS goggles.  They are not about losing salvation or being saved by works.

As for trusting God -  the bible is super clear that when a person is saved, they receive eternal life.   The belief that a person can "lose their salvation" is calling God a liar, because it's saying that a person can be saved  (therefore receive eternal life) then lose that eternal life.... which means _it was never eternal_.  It was temporary.  But that's not what God said.   

So unless you and Terry are claiming that NOBODY is saved until Judgement Day, then your position that one can lose their salvation makes no sense at all.

It  goes directly against God's word.




> Here is the deal.  You show God that you trust Him the same way you show Him that you love Him and that's by doing what He says.  You don't have to make up stuff to do in order to impress Him.  That's the mistake the Jews made in the rules they added to the Sabbath.  That's also the mistake, IMO, of "salvation by sacrament" and the"indulgence system."


I think we have stated at least 50,000 times that when a person is saved, the works inevitably will follow.   A person who loves God and has made a genuine commitment and is born again is someone that has a new heart, a new nature.  They WANT to do God's will.   However, for some, it may take some time to "get" that.   Spiritual growth and maturity happens at different paces, for different people.   

Yes, it's true that if we love and trust God we obey Him.   But our salvation doesn't depend on our performance.  Only rewards and future privileges are related to what we do.     

And speaking of obeying God -  that includes giving up on trying to earn our salvation.  God wants us to fully surrender.  As I said numerous times on the other thread, we have to do step 1 first.  Jesus said, "You must be born again."    I must have posted that to Terry at least 10 times, if not more.  Terry has not acknowledged that even once (as far as I've seen.)

There are numerous good reasons why we obey and do good works, but none of them are to stay out of hell or to try to maintain our salvation.




> Anyway, the question that I have yet to see you or Kevin or Erowe1 attempt to answer is how does one know they have what you call "saving faith?"  Why is that question so hard to answer?


I don't remember you asking me that question before.  But if I missed it, I'm sorry.   To answer your question - in the last few weeks, it has become more clear to me that when it comes to salvation, it's not necessarily about HOW much faith we have, but WHERE we place our faith.

We have to trust Christ and Christ alone, not our own works.  If we try to add something to Jesus  (Jesus + works, or Jesus + this, that or the other) then we are showing that we are thinking about ourselves and our own performance.... and I believe that is actually rooted in pride, or unbelief.

As I said earlier on the thread, salvation is a gift.  You don't pay for a gift, you receive it.   

To be saved, we also have to understand that we are a sinner, and the bible is clear that no one is righteous, not even one.     So, instead of trying to "be a good person" we have to fully rely on Jesus and believe with all our heart that HE paid our price for us, by what He did on the cross.... and simply receive that, instead of trying to add to it by mixing in works with grace.  As I posted on the other thread, when we rely on works we are basically rejecting God's grace.

So, I really don't like to say this....because I don't want to offend anyone, but in the last few weeks, I've begun to realize that a person who rejects OSAS seems to be at risk for not being saved, because they are not believing God, that we receive eternal life, and that He will never abandon us or stop loving us once we are truly His.

This is what 1 John 5:10-13 says.  (which happens to my signature at the moment, but I'll post it here in case I change my sig)

Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. And this is the testimony,* that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.* Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God *that you may know that you have eternal life.* 
I could list a number of other things that are good indications that we're saved.  But this is getting lengthy, so maybe another time.  If this debate is still going on!

----------


## RJB

> jm- the Holy Spirit lives inside of you and convicts you of sin, shows you bible truths and helps you in your walk- that is how....


That's basically what I said.  I may have left out that the spirit seems to lead you, Kevin, to post rabidly anti-Catholic, (and anti-Adventist, heck anti everything to the point that I don't know what you believe) cut-and-pastes that aren't accurate and spam them robotically.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm not sure what your point is in bringing up Baalam.  What are you trying to say?  Are you just saying that you know the difference between merely believing God exists, and having a genuine faith?


You are the one that's making the claims.  I'm pointing out that Baalam believed in God, talked to God, served God and was ultimately lost.  Paul mentioned the possibility of having "faith that can move mountains" but not having love and that it "profits nothing".  I'm still waiting on you to give your definition of "saving faith".  And "the faith that people have who are ultimately saved" doesn't count because that is a circular definition.




> You and Terry have an odd interpretation of the Parable of the Sower.  It's not about "losing salvation"!


Right  Because any interpretation that is different from yours must be wrong and "odd."  




> Jesus is talking about different reactions or responses to the Gospel.  How a person responds has to do with the condition of their heart.


Some people responded to the gospel by "receiving it with joy" but then it withered and died.  Do you think those people didn't really believe?  How could they respond by receiving it with joy without believing it?




> The one that you mentioned  - the rocky ground who at first received it joyfully was not saved.  There are some people who hear the Gospel and have a very shallow, temporary, emotional response to it.    Verse 13 (of Luke 8) clearly states  *"But these have no root"*   If the seed never took root, how can you say he was truly saved?   If there's no root, there's nothing there.


Okay.  So then you are not saying that having a "shallow belief" doesn't mean you're saved.  So how long must you believe before your belief has "taken root" and you are actually "saved"?  Note that you are showing a lack of understanding of biology if you say that "if there's no root, there's nothing there."  A sprouted seed that hasn't rooted yet is not "nothing".  




> Only one out of the four - the one represented by the "good ground-  had the right type of soil, and received the "seed", and later beared fruit.


Uh huh.  So it depends on how good you are to start off with?  God "predestines" some with good ground and some with bad ground?




> I have always seen the Parable of the Sower in this way -  that people have different responses to the Gospel, and either reject it right away or reject it after a while, for a variety of reasons.   It was always clear to me that only one of them was able to truly receive the seed of the Gospel, and that one represented a true believer.


That's clear to you maybe, but that's not what Jesus actually said.  That's your interpretation and frankly I find it quite "odd".  So basically a new believer cannot know if he/she is really a believer or not.  That person may just *think* they believe.  Some "assurance" of salvation that is. 




> Wow.  I don't even know where to begin here.  TBH, I don't have the time right now to go into detailed discussions on each of those parables, but once again, it seems you are misunderstanding the point of those parables and interpreting them through your anti-OSAS goggles.  They are not about losing salvation or being saved by works.


Do you enjoy building straw men?  I never said anything about being saved by works.  That said a servant being cast into outer darkness isn't exactly being welcomed into the pearly gates.




> As for trusting God -  the bible is super clear that when a person is saved, they receive eternal life.   The belief that a person can "lose their salvation" is calling God a liar, because it's saying that a person can be saved  (therefore receive eternal life) then lose that eternal life.... which means _it was never eternal_.  It was temporary.  But that's not what God said.


Oh.  So now Jesus is a liar.  God it.  Really Lily, it's this kind of hyperbole that makes it difficult to take you or Kevin seriously.  Those who *take the Bible for what it says* are falsely accused by you of all sorts of things.  Here is the truth.  The Bible can be interpreted different ways.  You pick and choose the verses that *seem* to support your point of view, then angrily accuse other Christians of calling God a liar because other Christians read the Bible and clearly see things that disagree with your point of view.  That is not how to have a rational discussion.  If you have a different interpretation of a parable where Jesus clearly talks about servants of God getting tossed into outer darkness, deal with the parable.  Saying "Your interpretation is wrong because the Bible says so" is a child's answer.  




> So unless you and Terry are claiming that NOBODY is saved until Judgement Day, then your position that one can lose their salvation makes no sense at all.


Another straw man.  You must have an army of them by now.  




> It  goes directly against God's word.


Nope.  It goes against your interpretation of your selective reading of God's word.  The fact that you can't actually deal with the Bible verses that disagree with you shows that you really haven't thought this through.




> I think we have stated at least 50,000 times that when a person is saved, the works inevitably will follow.   A person who loves God and has made a genuine commitment and is born again is someone that has a new heart, a new nature.  They WANT to do God's will.   However, for some, it may take some time to "get" that.   Spiritual growth and maturity happens at different paces, for different people.


Uh-huh.  And sometimes those people that have those "works inevitably following" end up turning around and getting thrown into outer darkness.  Question Lily.  With what power did Judas Iscariot cast out demons?  You are aware that he was given power to cast out demons right?




> Yes, it's true that if we love and trust God we obey Him.   But our salvation doesn't depend on our performance.  Only rewards and future privileges are related to what we do.


I never said our salvation depends on our performance.  Our salvation depends on the power of God working in our lives.  But it's possible to have that power working in one's live and to turn one's back on it.  Examples of that are Judas Iscariot and Balaam.




> And speaking of obeying God -  that includes giving up on trying to earn our salvation.  God wants us to fully surrender.  As I said numerous times on the other thread, we have to do step 1 first.  Jesus said, "You must be born again."    I must have posted that to Terry at least 10 times, if not more.  Terry has not acknowledged that even once (as far as I've seen.)


Well I'm not Terry so what's your point?  I believe one has to surrender to God.  That's something one must do daily.  "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily and follow me."  Judas Iscariot didn't do that.  Balaam didn't do that.




> There are numerous good reasons why we obey and do good works, but none of them are to stay out of hell or to try to maintain our salvation.


Another straw man.  I never said do good works = stay out of hell.  Surrendering daily to Jesus = stay out of hell.




> I don't remember you asking me that question before.  But if I missed it, I'm sorry.   To answer your question - in the last few weeks, it has become more clear to me that when it comes to salvation, it's not necessarily about HOW much faith we have, but WHERE we place our faith.


And so the person who accepts the gospel with joy but later withers put his faith where exactly?  Really OSAS is a frightening belief system.  Someone could think they are saved because they've accepted Jesus but not know they have "bad ground" and will never "take root."




> We have to trust Christ and Christ alone, not our own works.  If we try to add something to Jesus  (Jesus + works, or Jesus + this, that or the other) then we are showing that we are thinking about ourselves and our own performance.... and I believe that is actually rooted in pride, or unbelief.


Yeah.  There goes that works straw man again.




> As I said earlier on the thread, salvation is a gift.  You don't pay for a gift, you receive it.


Here goes the works straw man again.




> To be saved, we also have to understand that we are a sinner, and the bible is clear that no one is righteous, not even one.     So, instead of trying to "be a good person" we have to fully rely on Jesus and believe with all our heart that HE paid our price for us, by what He did on the cross.... and simply receive that, instead of trying to add to it by mixing in works with grace.  As I posted on the other thread, when we rely on works we are basically rejecting God's grace.


Works straw man.




> So, I really don't like to say this....because I don't want to offend anyone, but in the last few weeks, I've begun to realize that a person who rejects OSAS seems to be at risk for not being saved, because they are not believing God, that we receive eternal life, and that He will never abandon us or stop loving us once we are truly His.


Works straw man + hyperbole + arrogance. 




> This is what 1 John 5:10-13 says.  (which happens to my signature at the moment, but I'll post it here in case I change my sig)
> 
> Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. And this is the testimony,* that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.* Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
> 
>  I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God *that you may know that you have eternal life.* 
> I could list a number of other things that are good indications that we're saved.  But this is getting lengthy, so maybe another time.  If this debate is still going on!


Right.  Except you don't actually believe that.  You believe that someone can believe in the Son of God but not really believe in the Son of God because they only think they believe in the Son of God.

----------


## jmdrake

> jm- the Holy Spirit lives inside of you and convicts you of sin, shows you bible truths and helps you in your walk- that is how....





> That's basically what I said.  I may have left out that the spirit seems to lead you, Kevin, to post rabidly anti-Catholic, (and anti-Adventist, heck anti everything to the point that I don't know what you believe) websites that aren't accurate and spam them robotically.


Kevin, I may have missed RJB saying it, but I know I said it.  I've talked about the importance of walking in the spirit.  Yes, the Holy Spirit convicts you of sin.  When the Holy Spirit convicts you of sin He does not force you to respond to that conviction.  That response is a freewill choice.  Resisting that conviction is rebellion which is as the sin of witchcraft.  It was that active rejection of the Holy Spirit that Jesus was warning the Pharisees about when He talked about the "sin that will not be forgiven."

----------


## moostraks

> Those who, because of the rigour of their own ascetic practice, despise the less zealous, think that they are made righteous by physical works.  But we are even more foolish if we rely on theoretical knowledge and disparage the ignorant.  Even though knowledge is true, it is still not firmly established if unaccompanied by works.  For everything is established by being put into practice (§11-12).
> 
> When we fulfil the commandments in our outward actions, we receive from the Lord what is appropriate; but any real benefit we gain depends on our inward intention.  If we want to do something but cannot, then before God, who knows our hearts, it is as if we have done it.  This is true whether the intended action is good or bad.  The intellect does many good and bad things without the body, whereas the body can do neither good nor evil without the intellect.  This is because the law of freedom applies to what happens before we act. (§15-17).
> 
> Some without fulfilling the commandments think that they posses true faith.  Others fulfil the commandments and then expect the kingdom as a reward due to them.  Both are mistaken. A master is under no obligation to reward his slaves; on the other hand, those who do not serve him well are not given their freedom. (§18).
> 
> When the Scripture says He will reward every man according to his works (Matt. 16:27), do not imagine that works in themselves merit either hell or the kingdom.  On the contrary, Christ rewards each man according to whether his works are done with faith or without faith in Himself; and He is not a dealer bound by contract, but God our Creator and Redeemer. (§22).


http://theophilogue.com/2010/10/09/q...scetic-part-1/

----------


## erowe1

> Anyway, the question that I have yet to see you or Kevin or Erowe1 attempt to answer is how does one know they have what you call "saving faith?"  Why is that question so hard to answer?


That question is hard for me to answer because there are people who deceive themselves into thinking they have saving faith when they don't. Any criterion I could give, there would be ways a false believer could convince themselves that they meet it if they choose to keep rebelling against the words of God and the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Those people shouldn't think they're saved. But I don't have a silver bullet to cut through their self-deception.

People who do have saving faith will persevere, they will do good works, they will produce fruit, they do related to God as his children. People who lack saving faith might still persevere in the dead faith that they mistake for living, might do similar works, and might suppress the truth of their enmity with God insisting to themselves that they relate to him as a father.

On the other hand, a person who is saved should know it with full confidence. They shouldn't worry about some other criteria out there that they haven't met, or whether or not they at some point in their past committed the unpardonable sin, or anything like that. Their spirits cry out to God, "Abba, father." And they read his promises of Heaven to them and rejoice, knowing that God has given them that and every other blessing that flows from union with Christ purely by his grace on account of nothing they did when they were his enemies, and that now that they are his friends there is nothing they can do to undo God's love for them.

As for telling another person how they can have that assurance, as if I can give them a litmus test, though, I don't think I can do that. I can pray for them and trust God to give them that assurance if they are saved or lead them to trust in him and then have it if they aren't. But the only person whose calling and election I need to make sure is mine. And that assurance that I should have is bound to be internal and not communicable to someone else.

----------


## Terry1

What is "saving faith"?  Well--think about this and answer it for yourself.  

By what spiritual attribute did Abraham, obediently take his son Isaac to the mountain to sacrifice him before God?

By what spiritual attribute did Noah obediently build the Ark?

By what spiritual attribute did Rahab help the spies of God?

What is Paul saying here?

Romans 4:16

*Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace;* to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 

Why is Paul saying that *"it *IS* of faith------------"that *it might be* by grace.*

Do you remember all of those scriptures I posted on "the hope" and that "it might be" or "it may be"?  Why is Paul indicating that it's not guaranteed by telling us that "it might be by grace".  

We can not ignore those prepositions or any of the "IF"S "might be's" or "may be" and that we "have the hope".  There's a reason Paul leaves us with doubt about our eternal security in this life.

Where faith is mentioned--"good works" are also mentioned.  Note the word "works of the law" is not mentioned in the same context with "good works" ever.  "Good works" are always associated with our faith because faith can only live if we do something in response to what we're being called to do.

You must understand the difference between the Old Mosaic Law of dead works vs the New Testament Law of Faith "good works" in order to rightly divide the word of God and understand that Paul talks about two completely different set of works.   Paul is making a distinction here and so is James, John, Hebrews and Revelation when they speak of "good works" that are not the same as "the works of the law".  The "works of the law" are what Paul tells us not to do because they were a curse under the Mosaic Law that Jesus fulfilled on the cross.  "Good works" are the only way that our faith can live as James tells us--without these "good works" our faith is dead and grace of no effect.  

Hence this is what Paul is saying in Romans 4:16--that *it IS* of faith------"that it might be by grace".  He's telling you the exact same thing here.  That grace can only be of any effect depending upon what we do as a result of our faith--that being--"good works".  Jesus told you--our "good works glorify the Father in Heaven".  Let them shine! Meaning--they must be seen by the unbelievers and the physical world around us so that by our example--unbelievers know who we are as well as fellow brethren.

This is NOT "trying to earn salvation through self righteousness"--this is not "dead works"--this is NOT "legalistic".  This is what and how we are commanded to live in faith that can only be alive if we put forth an effort to be obedient to the Holy Spirit.  This is the only way we can love our neighbor as God and ourselves is through proof--evidence by feeding them, comforting them, helping those in need and doing the "good works" that through faith is the only possible way faith can be alive or do any good in a believers life.  Otherwise--grace is of no effect and again why Paul tells you that "it is of faith--that it *might be* by grace.

God's word is harmonious and just as I have told you that grace and faith are not mutually exclusive and neither are faith and good works.  They must all work together in harmony with one another and this is why no one can say with any truth at all that "faith alone saves" or that "Grace alone saves" or that "works alone saves".  They must all work in perfect harmony and simultaneously for a believer to have the ability to be of the state of elect and walk in the spirit of the Lord.

Being of the "Elect" is a state of mind and heart--this is not something that's guaranteed throughout and to the end of our lives.  Being of the "Elect" is a conscious choice that "endures" to the end of this life--only if that believer *chooses* to remain in faith that it "might be" by grace.

EOC does not teach the doctrine of election for this very reason--because they realize that being "Elect" depends upon what we do as a result of our faith in Christ.  This is a life long process that isn't over until it's over and why no one can presume upon God that He's already perfected and glorified them--because again--this can not happen in this life--only the next.  This again is why Paul only gives assurance of his eternal security at the very end of his life here.

2 Timothy 4: 6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.

7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:

8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

----------


## jmdrake

LOL.  This is getting funnier by the post.  Okay.  Before I respond to what you wrote I will ask you one more question and give you a chance the clear this up.  You, erowe1, have the personal assurance that you are not one of those people who have deceived yourself into believing that you are a true believer in Christ who has "saving faith" that will persevere until death or the end of time whichever comes first because.....?




> That question is hard for me to answer because there are people who deceive themselves into thinking they have saving faith when they don't. Any criterion I could give, there would be ways a false believer could convince themselves that they meet it if they choose to keep rebelling against the words of God and the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Those people shouldn't think they're saved. But I don't have a silver bullet to cut through their self-deception.
> 
> People who do have saving faith will persevere, they will do good works, they will produce fruit, they do related to God as his children. People who lack saving faith might still persevere in the dead faith that they mistake for living, might do similar works, and might suppress the truth of their enmity with God insisting to themselves that they relate to him as a father.
> 
> On the other hand, a person who is saved should know it with full confidence. They shouldn't worry about some other criteria out there that they haven't met, or whether or not they at some point in their past committed the unpardonable sin, or anything like that. Their spirits cry out to God, "Abba, father." And they read his promises of Heaven to them and rejoice, knowing that God has given them that and every other blessing that flows from union with Christ purely by his grace on account of nothing they did when they were his enemies, and that now that they are his friends there is nothing they can do to undo God's love for them.
> 
> As for telling another person how they can have that assurance, as if I can give them a litmus test, though, I don't think I can do that. I can pray for them and trust God to give them that assurance if they are saved or lead them to trust in him and then have it if they aren't. But the only person whose calling and election I need to make sure is mine. And that assurance that I should have is bound to be internal and not communicable to someone else.

----------


## Kevin007

> That's basically what I said.  I may have left out that the spirit seems to lead you, Kevin, to post rabidly anti-Catholic, (and anti-Adventist, heck anti everything to the point that I don't know what you believe) cut-and-pastes that aren't accurate and spam them robotically.


I'm anti anything that isn't grace by faith in Jesus' finished work. Church doesn't save you- your good works don't save you. Only Jesus saves.

----------


## Terry1

> I'm anti anything that isn't grace by faith in Jesus' finished work. Church doesn't save you- your good works don't save you. Only Jesus saves.


Kevin--you keep repeating the words--"Jesus finished work", but you're not truly understanding what that was and is or entailed.  Has Jesus finished your future for you?  Read this scripture again it will help--read it closely and see what's actually being said here and pay close attention to the raised font.

John 19:28-30 

After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.


If Jesus finished your life for you--why is John saying "that the scripture *might be* fulfilled?  What is John talking about when he said that the scripture might be fulfilled--what or who is he referring to there?  Why didn't John say that the scripture *is* fulfilled?  "Might be" is then indicating that something still needs to be done to fulfill the scripture--hmm--what could that be? 

Charles Stanley is wrong when he preached that we're "forgiven in advance" of our sins.  There's no such thing as "advanced forgiveness".  We are always forgiven only upon repentance of them.  Even when we stumble as believers---the only way back to God is by repentance--or changing our minds.  

No one can just keep on sinning after they confess Christ and be already be forgiven for them before they've committed them just because they're believers.  This is Stanley's fuzzy unbiblical logic to support the OSAS doctrine.  Believers still have to repent or change their minds to be forgiven when they stumble--that is what Jesus said.  That's also why Hebrews 6:4 told you that when God gives up on a believer--He knows they're not going to return to repentance any longer so He further hardens them to the point where they can never-ever be "renewed to repentance" again.  This is where they're cast into the fire and burned.

It's impossible for the OSAS doctrine to be true based upon these scriptural truths.

----------


## Kevin007

> Kevin--you keep repeating the words--"Jesus finished work", but you're not truly understanding what that was and is or entailed.  Has Jesus finished your future for you?  Read this scripture again it will help--read it closely and see what's actually being said here and pay close attention to the raised font.
> 
> John 19:28-30 
> 
> After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
> 
> 
> If Jesus finished your life for you--why is John saying "that the scripture *might be* fulfilled?  What is John talking about when he said that the scripture might be fulfilled--what or who is he referring to there?  Why didn't John say that the scripture *is* fulfilled?  "Might be" is then indicating that something still needs to be done to fulfill the scripture--hmm--what could that be? 
> 
> ...


what in the world are you babbling about? Jesus' finished my life? Where do you come up with this stuff? Jesus finished His work. He redeemed mankind- those who accept His free gift of salvation. What must I do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Can't get much simpler than that. Btw Charles Stanley is one of the most well respected Preachers.

----------


## Kevin007

God the Father required a spotless sacrifice- Jesus was that. Jesus bridged the infinite gap between us (sinners) and a perfect Holy God. This is Bible 101 stuff you seem not to grasp.

----------


## Terry1

> what in the world are you babbling about? Jesus' finished my life? Where do you come up with this stuff? Jesus finished His work. He redeemed mankind- those who accept His free gift of salvation. What must I do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Can't get much simpler than that. Btw Charles Stanley is one of the most well respected Preachers.


Not "babbling", although I know that's how you interpret most things.  I'm asking you if Jesus has finished your life on this earth for you?  Has Jesus lived out your life for you and made all of your future choices?  You obviously believe so if you believed that you're already eternally secure and that Jesus finished everything for you.

You remind me of people who stand in line for free food stamps too.  Someone else is doing the work that needs to be done to feed those people who believe that "food is free".  The *gift* of grace through faith was always *a choice* where we didn't have one before under the curse of the Old Mosaic Law.  Entailing--*will you choose Christ?*  *Will you choose to remain there for the rest of your life?*  With the gift of choice always comes responsibility to choose wisely in all things.  Do you know what the future holds for you and that you'll always choose Christ no matter what kind of hell might tempt you to do otherwise?

If Peter believed that he'd never betray and deny Christ and did (three times)--what makes you believe that there will never come a time when you will have to choose?  If Judas betrayed Christ who was once saved and fell--what makes you believe that you never will?   What makes you so sure of yourself when Paul himself feared for himself being castaway after having preached to all (1 Cor. 9:27) before he finished his course and life here on earth?

"Babbling"?  Who's doing the babbling here? 

And before you go saying that Judas was never among the Elect or saved--that is wrong.  Judas was once amongst the ministry and counted as one of them, but he fell and lost that state of elect through his betrayal and falling back into sin.  Judas was one of the apostles before he fell and lost his salvation.


Acts 1:
25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

----------


## Kevin007

> Not "babbling", although I know that's how you interpret most things.  I'm asking you if Jesus has finished your life on this earth for you?  Has Jesus lived out your life for you and made all of your future choices?  You obviously believe so if you believed that you're already eternally secure and that Jesus finished everything for you.
> 
> You remind me of people who stand in line for free food stamps too.  Someone else is doing the work that needs to be done to feed those people who believe that "food is free".  The *gift* of grace through faith was always *a choice* where we didn't have one before under the curse of the Old Mosaic Law.  Entailing--*will you choose Christ?*  *Will you choose to remain there for the rest of your life?*  With the gift of choice always comes responsibility to choose wisely in all things.  Do you know what the future holds for you and that you'll always choose Christ no matter what kind of hell might tempt you to do otherwise?
> 
> *If Peter believed that he'd never betray and deny Christ and did (three times)--what makes you believe that there will never come a time when you will have to choose?  If Judas betrayed Christ who was once saved and fell*--what makes you believe that you never will?   What makes you so sure of yourself when Paul himself feared for himself being castaway after having preached to all (1 Cor. 9:27) before he finished his course and life here on earth?
> 
> "Babbling"?  Who's doing the babbling here?



OH BROTHER. Judas was never saved. Peter was not saved either- Jesus hadn't died yet. Besides Peter was denying He knew the MAN, not the Savior. Do some homework, then get back to me

----------


## Kevin007

> Not "babbling", although I know that's how you interpret most things.  I'm asking you if Jesus has finished your life on this earth for you?  Has Jesus lived out your life for you and made all of your future choices?  You obviously believe so if you believed that you're already eternally secure and that Jesus finished everything for you.
> 
> You remind me of people who stand in line for free food stamps too.  Someone else is doing the work that needs to be done to feed those people who believe that "food is free".  The *gift* of grace through faith was always *a choice* where we didn't have one before under the curse of the Old Mosaic Law.  Entailing--*will you choose Christ?*  *Will you choose to remain there for the rest of your life?*  With the gift of choice always comes responsibility to choose wisely in all things.  Do you know what the future holds for you and that you'll always choose Christ no matter what kind of hell might tempt you to do otherwise?
> 
> If Peter believed that he'd never betray and deny Christ and did (three times)--what makes you believe that there will never come a time when you will have to choose?  If Judas betrayed Christ who was once saved and fell--what makes you believe that you never will?   What makes you so sure of yourself when Paul himself feared for himself being castaway after having preached to all (1 Cor. 9:27) before he finished his course and life here on earth?
> 
> "Babbling"?  Who's doing the babbling here?


if you knew your Bible? You know that if you do good works you're not supposed to tell anyone or brag about it before man. I could have done no good works today or 100, but thats not your business to know or my business to brag.

----------


## Deborah K

In my flea bitten opinion, faith in, and love for God impels us to do good works.  When you love someone, you want to do things for them. IOW, it is sort of a by-product of our deep faith. It's what we WANT to do.  

So, to me, it's meaningless to argue over whether salvation comes from good works, or faith, since when you truly have faith, good works follow.

----------


## Kevin007

> In my flea bitten opinion, faith in, and love for God impels us to do good works.  When you love someone, you want to do things for them. IOW, it is sort of a by-product of our deep faith. It's what we WANT to do.  
> 
> So, to me, it's meaningless to argue over whether salvation comes from good works, or faith, since when you truly have faith, good works follow.


the key is- you've just said it in a different way we do good works because we are saved, not to get saved.

----------


## Terry1

> God the Father required a spotless sacrifice- Jesus was that. Jesus bridged the infinite gap between us (sinners) and a perfect Holy God. This is Bible 101 stuff you seem not to grasp.

----------


## Terry1

> the key is- you've just said it in a different way we do good works because we are saved, not to get saved.


What Deb said was right, but where you err is believing that a one time choice will always be the same choice you'll make for the rest of your life--when you have no idea what the future holds or what temptation might cause you to deny Christ in the future.  Hence--OSAS can not be true based upon the fact that none of us know what the future holds or what we will do come a time when we're tempted to the point of doing something we'd never thought we'd do. 

 This is why you can't presume upon God that you'll always be in a state of elect.  Paul teaches you this along with the entire NT.  We have assurance as long as we continually endure to the end of this life in the spirit, but Paul never gives us any guarantees in this life--only the next life and after we've finished our course and endured to the very end of it.  Because we are made of corrupt flesh and bone that will always be susceptible to temptation and sin as long as we're in these bodies and living on this earth.

Being predestined to be perfected and glorified is a future event in the next life--not this one.  In this life--we are called to remain in the spirit to the end of it and if we don't and for too long--only God knows--then they are cut off and burned.  John 15:5 Hebrews 6:4

----------


## Kevin007

> What Deb said was right, but where you err is believing that a one time choice will always be the same choice you'll make for the rest of your life--when you have no idea what the future holds or what temptation might cause you to deny Christ in the future.  Hence--OSAS can not be true based upon the fact that none of us know what the future holds or what we will do come a time when we're tempted to the point of doing something we'd never thought we'd do. 
> 
>  This is why you can't presume upon God that you'll always be in a state of elect.  Paul teaches you this along with the entire NT.  We have assurance as long as we continually endure to the end of this life in the spirit, but Paul never gives us any guarantees in this life--only the next life and after we've finished our course and endured to the very end of it.  Because we are made of corrupt flesh and bone that will always be susceptible to temptation and sin as long as we're in these bodies and living on this earth.
> 
> Being predestined to be perfected and glorified is a future event in the next life--not this one.  In this life--we are called to remain in the spirit to the end of it and if we don't and for too long--only God knows--then they are cut off and burned.  John 15:5 Hebrews 6:4


Terry- how many times did Jesus have to die on the Cross? Once How many times do you accept Hid free gift of salvation? Once. If someone gave you a gift and its yours do you have to keep doing something or else they take it back? No. How much MORE will God not take it back.

----------


## Kevin007

> What Deb said was right, but where you err is believing that a one time choice will always be the same choice you'll make for the rest of your life--when you have no idea what the future holds or what temptation might cause you to deny Christ in the future.  Hence--OSAS can not be true based upon the fact that none of us know what the future holds or what we will do come a time when we're tempted to the point of doing something we'd never thought we'd do. 
> *
>  This is why you can't presume upon God that you'll always be in a state of elect.*  Paul teaches you this along with the entire NT.  We have assurance as long as we continually endure to the end of this life in the spirit, but Paul never gives us any guarantees in this life--only the next life and after we've finished our course and endured to the very end of it.  Because we are made of corrupt flesh and bone that will always be susceptible to temptation and sin as long as we're in these bodies and living on this earth.
> 
> *Being predestined to be perfected and glorified is a future event* in the next life--not this one.  In this life--we are called to remain in the spirit to the end of it and if we don't and for too long--only God knows--then they are cut off and burned.  John 15:5 Hebrews 6:4


that's exactly why. He was perfect, I'm not. I trust Him completely.

Luckily for us, Jesus died for us while we were still sinners

----------


## Terry1

> Terry- how many times did Jesus have to die on the Cross? Once How many times do you accept Hid free gift of salvation? Once. If someone gave you a gift and its yours do you have to keep doing something or else they take it back? No. How much MORE will God not take it back.


How many times do you need to repent when you fall back into sin?  It's an easy answer.

----------


## lilymc

> You are the one that's making the claims.  I'm pointing out that Baalam believed in God, talked to God, served God and was ultimately lost.  Paul mentioned the possibility of having "faith that can move mountains" but not having love and that it "profits nothing".  I'm still waiting on you to give your definition of "saving faith".  And "the faith that people have who are ultimately saved" doesn't count because that is a circular definition.


JM, the reason I asked you to state your point is because I didn't want to guess or wrongly assume what you were really saying.  So I'll just ask you.  Are you claiming that Balaam was saved?   Or that according to the OSAS view Balaam was saved?   

No, no, no.    As it states in Joshua 13:22, Balaam was a soothsayer.  Look at the meaning of the word *soothsayer*, it is someone who practices divination.     

I don't know if you have been a Christian all your life, but if in the past you were a non-Christian, have you ever visited a fortune teller?

There are fortune tellers who claim to believe in God.  Some of them might even have a picture of Jesus up on the wall.  But then they'll also have New Age or pagan paraphernalia there too.   God's word is clear on divination and messing with the Occult.  (Or mixing the Occult with Christianity)... It is an abomination to God.  

But I don't think I have to tell you all this.  I'm sure you know that.  

So getting back to Balaam,  despite believing in God's existence, and even knowing certain things about God,  Balaam never truly belonged to God and he was never a true prophet. He was basically a sorcerer.  He was an opportunist, who put money above God. 

Evidently, he was one of the top fortune tellers or (false) "prophets" of his day, so that is why he was offered money by the King of Moab  to curse God's people. (Numbers 22:7)  And what you may have missed is that in his heart, he was willing to do that.  

But then God intervened, of course.  And God (amazingly) used him, even though he was unsaved, never a true man of faith.  God can use whoever or whatever He wants, for His purposes.  God can use a plant, a donkey, a rock, and even an unsaved person.

Do you want to get into the whole story of Balaam?  Because I'm willing to do that, if you want to.    I am willing to go through the entire chapter, to drive the point home that he was never saved, and was not a true prophet, despite being used by God.    

So let me know if you want to go through all of that, and we can.




> Right  Because any interpretation that is different from yours must be wrong and "odd."  
> 
> Some people responded to the gospel by "receiving it with joy" but then it withered and died.  Do you think those people didn't really believe?  How could they respond by receiving it with joy without believing it?


JM, I'm sorry for the way I said that (about your interpretation).  I should've put that in a different way.    

But to answer your question,  there could be a number of reasons why someone would initially respond in a joyful way, yet never become born again.

Maybe they liked certain aspects of Christianity, and they want those good parts, without ever truly having a change of mind and heart.

God knows our hearts from the beginning, He knows us better than we know ourselves, but sometimes people don't realize that they're not truly believing and trusting God.  

I'm sure you've heard of the term fair weather friend?    I think that idea also applies to people who claim to be Christians, but later reject the Gospel, when trials and testing occurs.

If that person never had a true change of mind and heart....then as soon as that testing happens, they are not going to stick around.   

That doesn't mean that they were a true believer who lost their salvation. It means they never had it in the first place.  




> Okay.  So then you are not saying that having a "shallow belief" doesn't mean you're saved.  So how long must you believe before your belief has "taken root" and you are actually "saved"?  Note that you are showing a lack of understanding of biology if you say that "if there's no root, there's nothing there."  A sprouted seed that hasn't rooted yet is not "nothing".


There are numerous ways to know if a person is saved.   One way of knowing if a person truly has Jesus is transformation in that persons' life.

A person who God is transforming doesn't have the same interests they used to have.    They don't have the same priorities.  Their viewpoint changes, on nearly everything.

The tricky part of of this is that these things don't happen overnight.  Learning is something that takes time.  Growing, maturing and sanctification is a process, it takes time.

You asked how long  but I can't give you a specific number, because it's different for different people.

BUT, if someone says they're a Christian, yet has very little change in their life (even decades later)  that is one indication that they might be simply playing religion, and were never regenerated or born from above. 




> Uh huh.  So it depends on how good you are to start off with?  God "predestines" some with good ground and some with bad ground?


No, no, no, no.  That is not what I said or what I believe.  

It doesn't depend on how good we are  and God doesn't create some people who are good ground and others who are not.

We have the free will to put our faith in Jesus, or not.       A person's heart can be hard for a variety of reasons.   Pride, refusal to do God's will, a worldly mindset, etc.

God didn't create some people that way, but as I just said, there are a number of reasons why a person's heart can be hard, and THAT is what prevents them from truly receiving the Gospel.




> That's clear to you maybe, but that's not what Jesus actually said.  That's your interpretation and frankly I find it quite "odd".  So basically a new believer cannot know if he/she is really a believer or not.  That person may just *think* they believe.  Some "assurance" of salvation that is.


No, I believe that a new believer (or any believer) CAN have assurance of salvation IF they  understand the basics of salvation.    The problem is that there are churches that teach false doctrines (works-based churches) and teach people that they have to jump through hoops and strive to maintain their salvation,  instead of teaching the true, simple Gospel.

It is becoming more clear to me that the people who don't have the assurance that they are saved are most likely people who have wrong beliefs about salvation.... Either no one ever taught them, or  they were taught it, but didn't believe it.  So they are people who are following a different Gospel.  

I'm going to reply to the rest of your post later, because doing a point by point reply takes time, and at the moment, I have to get back to work.  But  I'll try to come back tonight.

----------


## Terry1

> that's exactly why. He was perfect, I'm not. I trust Him completely.
> 
> Luckily for us, Jesus died for us while we were still sinners


Will you always trust Him and for the rest of your life?  Can you say that now with absolute assurance?  Apostle Paul couldn't even do that.

----------


## Kevin007

> How many times do you need to repent when you fall back into sin?  It's an easy answer.


you should repent daily, as I do.. but that repenting doesn't save you or keep you saved. If you think it does- than the repenting is something you must do to be saved, but the Bible doesn';t say that.

----------


## Kevin007

> Will you always trust Him and for the rest of your life?  Can you say that now with absolute assurance?  Apostle Paul couldn't even do that.


 What makes Paul better than you or me? They were sinful men just like us. Jesus is not a respector of Persons. He loves you and me the same.

----------


## Kevin007

> *Will you always trust Him and for the rest of your life*?  Can you say that now with absolute assurance?  Apostle Paul couldn't even do that.


of course. If you know my story and what I've been through, you'd agree.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry- how many times did Jesus have to die on the Cross? Once How many times do you accept Hid free gift of salvation? Once. If someone gave you a gift and its yours do you have to keep doing something or else they take it back? No. How much MORE will God not take it back.


Also--there is a blatant contradiction in your belief.  If confession and belief are all it takes to obtain the "free gift" as you say--then how is it then that those who have done this before have walked away?  You can't turn around and say that they were never saved if it was their "free gift" upon confession of belief.  You just said--"God doesn't take back the gift", but people do abandon that gift--so it doesn't mean that they were never saved or that the gift was never theirs.  They chose to abandon it--they fell and lost their salvation.

----------


## Terry1

> of course. If you know my story and what I've been through, you'd agree.


Matthew 26: 

33 Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.

34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

35 Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.

----------


## Kevin007

> Also--there is a blatant contradiction in your belief.  If confession and belief are all it takes to obtain the "free gift" as you say--then how is it then that those who have done this before have walked away?  You can't turn around and say that they were never saved if it was their "free gift" upon confession of belief.  You just said--"God doesn't take back the gift", but people do abandon that gift--so it doesn't mean that they were never saved or that the gift was never theirs.  They chose to abandon it--they fell and lost their salvation.


God knows the heart Terry. The free gift isn't confession- it was Jesus' sacrifice. People who are born agin don't get "unsaved". Judas was not an example.Judas was never saved.

----------


## Terry1

> you should repent daily, as I do.. but that repenting doesn't save you or keep you saved. If you think it does- than the repenting is something you must do to be saved, but the Bible doesn';t say that.


It doesn't?  Then why are those believers who can not be "renewed to repentance" cut off and burned to ashes?  Hebrews 6:4

----------


## Terry1

> God knows the heart Terry. The free gift isn't confession- it was Jesus' sacrifice. People who are born agin don't get "unsaved". Judas was not an example.Judas was never saved.


Yes and if God knows the heart--then He knows those who will not remain, but it doesn't mean that God took back the "free gift"--it means that they abandoned it willingly.

----------


## lilymc

JM -  this thread is moving fast, and I didn't want you to miss my reply to you on the previous page. 

I just wanted to say again that I replied to you, in post #148.

----------


## Deborah K

> God knows the heart Terry. The free gift isn't confession- it was Jesus' sacrifice. People who are born agin don't get "unsaved". Judas was not an example.Judas was never saved.


How do you know with any certainty that Judas was not saved?  He saw Christ's miracles right along with the others, he knew he was the Messiah. It's why he killed himself out of grief when they crucified Jesus.

----------


## Terry1

> How do you know with any certainty that Judas was not saved?  He saw Christ's miracles right along with the others, he knew he was the Messiah. It's why he killed himself out of grief when they crucified Jesus.


That's right Deb, Judas was most certainly saved at one point, part of the ministry and counted among them and an apostle of Christ.  He most certainly was saved and fell by his own willingness to betray Christ.  

Scripture confirms this also when they were replacing Judas with Matthias:

Acts 1:
 25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

----------


## RJB

> *How do you know with any certainty that Judas was not saved? * He saw Christ's miracles right along with the others, he knew he was the Messiah. It's why he killed himself out of grief when they crucified Jesus.


Because Kevin is a genius.  He even knows that I believe that my works can save me when I thought that I didn't believe that.  He knows my mind and soul better than me.  You should listen to this prophet.

----------


## RJB

> How do you know with any certainty that Judas was not saved?  He saw Christ's miracles right along with the others, he knew he was the Messiah. It's why he killed himself out of grief when they crucified Jesus.


In seriousness, that's what's wrong with these legalistic doctrines.  For them to hold true, they must color the way you read the rest of the bible.

----------


## jmdrake

> JM -  this thread is moving fast, and I didn't want you to miss my reply to you on the previous page. 
> 
> I just wanted to say again that I replied to you, in post #148.


I saw.  I will reply when I have time.

----------


## Deborah K

> In seriousness, that's what's wrong with these legalistic doctrines.  For them to hold true, they must color the way you read the rest of the bible.


Agree wholeheartedly.

----------


## Kevin007

> It doesn't?  Then why are those believers who can not be "renewed to repentance" cut off and burned to ashes?  Hebrews 6:4


 Lily, myself and others showed you you are taking Hebrews 6:4 out of context..... the entire letter was written to Jewish believers  who were being enticed back into keeping the Law, so the context is NC vs OLD Covenant.

----------


## Terry1

> Lily, myself and others showed you you are taking Hebrews 6:4 out of context.....


And you and Lily both have been corrected on that too--many times.  The really amazing part about all of this is that now you're not just debating the Catholics Kevin, but also Protestants who do share many core biblical truths in common here.  When it comes to the Gospel of Christ--there are many Protestants that do *get it* right.  It's mainly those what subscribe to the perseverance of the saints doctrine that are very confused biblically.

----------


## Kevin007

> And you and Lily both have been corrected on that too--many times.


look again. I edited.

----------


## Kevin007

the warning of * Hebrews 6* is against interrupting our Fellowship with God, not breaking our  Union with Him. The key is the phrase "renew again to repentance."  Those who relied on the daily sacrifice instead of confessing directly to  God were in effect crucifying the Lord all over again, since He is the Lamb of  God who takes away the sin of the world. The daily sacrifice was a foreshadowing  of Him, and when He came the shadow gave way to the reality. The old way was no  longer sufficient to restore them to fellowship. *Relying on our own works to keep ourselves saved, instead of  trusting God to keep us*.

----------


## Kevin007

> How do you know with any certainty that Judas was not saved?  He saw Christ's miracles right along with the others, he knew he was the Messiah. It's why he killed himself out of grief when they crucified Jesus.


He never called Him Messiah, only "teacher" Judas wasn't saved for a number of reasons.

----------


## Kevin007

*The Betrayer JUDAS ISCARIOT*
 To this day Judas being called with the other disciples is somewhat mysterious. Judas Iscariot is noted in history as the one who betrayed Him (Jesus). Yet Judas was first numbered among the Twelve apostles (Lk.6:13, 22:3; Acts 1:16-17 numbered with us), “chosen” by Christ Himself,  the “Apostle Judas” became a traitor? How could they not know a betrayer was in their midst. How could Judas go out and minister with them and see the same results and yet turn Jesus over in the hands of those who hated him?

 Some things we need to notice about Judas, he called Jesus teacher, he never called Jesus Lord or master as the other apostles did. This may be a hint how he saw Jesus. Jesus wanted to be known as Lord, not just teacher (Mk.12:37; Lk.20:42; Jn.9:36-38). While the other disciples wondered what kind of man Jesus was, a man that could calm the sea by a word, Judas accepted him only as Rabbi.

*One cannot be an official apostle without seeing Jesus’ resurrection, which Judas did not see because he hung himself beforehand.* The 12 were called apostles (chosen sent ones) prior but did not become the apostles of the Church until the resurrection, for the church was not officially born until the Holy Spirit was sent on Pentecost. It was then the apostles were put in their office  of teaching, planting churches and doing miracles in the power of the Holy  Spirit.
 Was Judas saved because he was a disciple and lost salvation? It is assumed he was saved because he traveled with the other disciples but it may be more prudent to take the position he was not*. 

Judas was hand picked like the other disciples* but his position was temporary (Jesus knew what was going on all along). He was given the job of treasury but he was secretly a thief. Jesus put Judas in charge of the very thing that would give either wings to his hearts corruption or for his repentance, money. Judas often heard Jesus speak on money but it did not change him. The possibility to reform him was always there but it did not occur because of his own heart not inclined to obey the words spoken by our Lord.
*It was Judas who showed what was in his heart when he complained about the oil was poured over Jesus preparing him for his burial.* 

John 12:2-8 “T_here they made Him a supper; and Martha served, but Lazarus was one of those who sat at the table with Him. Then Mary took a pound of very costly oil of spikenard, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil. Then one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, who would betray Him, said_, “_Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denari and given to the poor_?” This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it. But Jesus said, “_Let her alone; she has kept this for the day of My burial. “For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always._”


 Notice that in retrospect what they say of Judas. He was a thief in charge of the money given to the apostles.

 He looked at the oil as if to bring in a lot of money (John 12:5-8). Judas estimated the value of the oil at nearly sixty dollars (worth hundreds of dollars today). His apparent concern for the poor was to conceal his own covetousness. He had just missed a chance of stealing on a larger scale than usual. Evidently, no one kept track of what was going inside the box and going out except Judas and Jesus.


 Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, said, _“Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denari, and given to the poor people?” Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it_. Matt: 26: 8,_ But the disciples were indignant when they saw this, and said, “Why this waste?” For this perfume might have been sold for a higher price and the money given to the poor._”


 Mark 14: 4 records, “ _But some were indignantly remarked to one another, “Why has this perfume been wasted?_” Judas, who pretends to care for the poor, influenced the disciples to join with him in his rebellious spirit.


http://www.letusreason.org/doct48.htm

----------


## Terry1

> *The Betrayer JUDAS ISCARIOT*
>  To this day Judas being called with the other disciples is somewhat mysterious. Judas Iscariot is noted in history as the one who betrayed Him (Jesus). Yet Judas was first numbered among the Twelve apostles (Lk.6:13, 22:3; Acts 1:16-17 numbered with us), “chosen” by Christ Himself,  the “Apostle Judas” became a traitor? How could they not know a betrayer was in their midst. How could Judas go out and minister with them and see the same results and yet turn Jesus over in the hands of those who hated him?
> 
>  Some things we need to notice about Judas, he called Jesus teacher, he never called Jesus Lord or master as the other apostles did. This may be a hint how he saw Jesus. Jesus wanted to be known as Lord, not just teacher (Mk.12:37; Lk.20:42; Jn.9:36-38). While the other disciples wondered what kind of man Jesus was, a man that could calm the sea by a word, Judas accepted him only as Rabbi.
> 
> *One cannot be an official apostle without seeing Jesus’ resurrection, which Judas did not see because he hung himself beforehand.* The 12 were called apostles (chosen sent ones) prior but did not become the apostles of the Church until the resurrection, for the church was not officially born until the Holy Spirit was sent on Pentecost. It was then the apostles were put in their office  of teaching, planting churches and doing miracles in the power of the Holy  Spirit.
>  Was Judas saved because he was a disciple and lost salvation? It is assumed he was saved because he traveled with the other disciples but it may be more prudent to take the position he was not*. 
> 
> Judas was hand picked like the other disciples* but his position was temporary (Jesus knew what was going on all along). He was given the job of treasury but he was secretly a thief. Jesus put Judas in charge of the very thing that would give either wings to his hearts corruption or for his repentance, money. Judas often heard Jesus speak on money but it did not change him. The possibility to reform him was always there but it did not occur because of his own heart not inclined to obey the words spoken by our Lord.
> ...


Call me a prophet here.  I was just about to reply to RJB saying that I felt another desperate move to link to yet another rabid, rogue website on the way.

----------


## Kevin007

> Call me a prophet here.  I was just about to reply to RJB saying that I felt another desperate move to link to yet another rabid, rogue website on the way.


well I knew you were not going to try to refute any of the points- because they are true. Attack the source is all you guys do. Why not pick it apart if its untrue. Where is your proof Judas was saved? So facts are desperate now? Comment on the article. A twelve year old can point and say- oh look at his source! Prove it wrong. WHY do you disagree with what he says? What is "rabid" about it? lol. You are defending Judas? I have seen it all now.

----------


## jmdrake

Okay Lily.  I'll be quick.  On Balaam, he as a prophet of God.  He inquired of God and God answered him.  Please read.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...22&version=KJV
_8 And he said unto them, Lodge here this night, and I will bring you word again, as the Lord shall speak unto me: and the princes of Moab abode with Balaam.

9 And God came unto Balaam, and said, What men are these with thee?

10 And Balaam said unto God, Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, hath sent unto me, saying,

11 Behold, there is a people come out of Egypt, which covereth the face of the earth: come now, curse me them; peradventure I shall be able to overcome them, and drive them out.

12 And God said unto Balaam, Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people: for they are blessed.

13 And Balaam rose up in the morning, and said unto the princes of Balak, Get you into your land: for the Lord refuseth to give me leave to go with you.

14 And the princes of Moab rose up, and they went unto Balak, and said, Balaam refuseth to come with us.

15 And Balak sent yet again princes, more, and more honourable than they.

16 And they came to Balaam, and said to him, Thus saith Balak the son of Zippor, Let nothing, I pray thee, hinder thee from coming unto me:

17 For I will promote thee unto very great honour, and I will do whatsoever thou sayest unto me: come therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people.

18 And Balaam answered and said unto the servants of Balak, If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God, to do less or more.

19 Now therefore, I pray you, tarry ye also here this night, that I may know what the Lord will say unto me more.

20 And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call thee, rise up, and go with them; but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do._

Now whether or not you believe Balaam was ever saved, he clearly believed in God and inquired of God.  This is different from your fortune teller example who believes in God.  That is a person who believes in God, but seeks answers from sources other than God.  And God could have struck him down on the way to curse Israel.  Instead God mercifully had the angel bar the way.  It's interesting that you took *one* scripture out of Joshua and extrapolated from it in a way that nullified, to you anyway, what is plainly written in scripture.  That's a problem I see a lot on RPF.  Someone has a verse that backs up their point of view, finds a seemingly contradictory verse, and then ignores the part that doesn't fit their view rather than attempting to harmonize both passages.  You realize, for instance, that Solomon both wrote inspired books of the Bible and practiced witchcraft at one point right?  When Balaam came up with the idea of enticing the children of Israel to sin in order to bring a curse down upon them *at that point* he was being a soothsayer.  

Now as for your answer to the point about the sower and the seed?  You're talking about the sanctification process.  (People not doing what they used to do).  That's not an event.  More importantly, the person that you described as being lost is (or was) a believer.  So you've moved salvation from being about belief to being belief++.  Okay.  But realize that's what you've done.  Anyway, I hope you will take the time to study sprouting seeds.  I have some tomato seeds I'm sprouting now.  Jesus used the same example of a seed in John 12:24 when He said "unless a seed falls in the ground and dies it remains alone.  But if it dies it produces much fruit."  Salvation is more that recognizing Jesus as savior.  It's interesting that, in a way, you recognize this, except you think that people that stop there were never born again.  But beyond the rebirth is the abiding.  

Anyhow, I'm sure you will continue to believe as you believe.  




> JM, the reason I asked you to state your point is because I didn't want to guess or wrongly assume what you were really saying.  So I'll just ask you.  Are you claiming that Balaam was saved?   Or that according to the OSAS view Balaam was saved?   
> 
> No, no, no.    As it states in Joshua 13:22, Balaam was a soothsayer.  Look at the meaning of the word *soothsayer*, it is someone who practices divination.     
> 
> I don't know if you have been a Christian all your life, but if in the past you were a non-Christian, have you ever visited a fortune teller?
> 
> There are fortune tellers who claim to believe in God.  Some of them might even have a picture of Jesus up on the wall.  But then they'll also have New Age or pagan paraphernalia there too.   God's word is clear on divination and messing with the Occult.  (Or mixing the Occult with Christianity)... It is an abomination to God.  
> 
> But I don't think I have to tell you all this.  I'm sure you know that.  
> ...

----------


## Kevin007

> Okay Lily.  I'll be quick.  On Balaam, he as a prophet of God.  He inquired of God and God answered him.  Please read.
> 
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...22&version=KJV
> _8 And he said unto them, Lodge here this night, and I will bring you word again, as the Lord shall speak unto me: and the princes of Moab abode with Balaam.
> 
> 9 And God came unto Balaam, and said, What men are these with thee?
> 
> 10 And Balaam said unto God, Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, hath sent unto me, saying,
> 
> ...


as I'm sure you will to.

----------


## Terry1

> well I knew you were not going to try to refute any of the points- because they are true. Attack the source is all you guys do. *Why not pick it apart if its untrue.* Where is your proof Judas was saved? So facts are desperate now? Comment on the article. A twelve year old can point and say- oh look at his source! Prove it wrong. WHY do you disagree with what he says? What is "rabid" about it? lol. You are defending Judas? I have seen it all now.


Judas transgressed and fell.  You can't fall from something you never had.  You can't transgress from something that never was.  It also says that Judas betrayed and was a traitor.  In order to betray something or someone or be a traitor, you had to have once been faithful and loyal to them at some point.  Common sense logic--  This scripture also says that Judas was an "apostle of Christ" and was part of the ministry".  He transgressed and fell by betrayal--How else do people walk away and abandon Christ?  The only way is to betray Him--transgress and fall.  

That doesn't mean the gift wasn't theirs to begin with or that God took it back or that they were never saved--it simply means that they walked away and abandoned Christ.  Yes--they lost their salvation--just like Judas did.  There's a reason you can't see the truth and it's your own fault.
*
Acts 1:25

That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.*

----------


## Deborah K

> Judas transgressed and fell.  You can't fall from something you never had.  You can't transgress from something that never was.  It also says that Judas betrayed and was a traitor.  In order to betray something or someone or be a traitor, you had to have once been faithful and loyal to them at some point.  Common sense logic--  This scripture also says that Judas was an "apostle of Christ" and was part of the ministry".  He transgressed and fell by betrayal--How else do people walk away and abandon Christ?  The only way is to betray Him--transgress and fall.  
> 
> That doesn't mean the gift wasn't theirs to begin with or that God took it back or that they were never saved--it simply means that they walked away and abandoned Christ.  Yes--they lost their salvation--just like Judas did.  There's a reason you can't see the truth and it's your own fault.
> *
> Acts 1:25
> 
> That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.*


This

----------


## lilymc

Judas was never saved, and TBH, I'm amazed that anyone thinks he was.  

First, in John 6:64, Jesus makes it clear that not all of the disciples were true believers.


But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 

John 6:64

Of course, later, all the disciples came to a genuine belief in Jesus - except for one.    Jesus knew that all along. We can see that in verse 70.


Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon:for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

John 6:70

So if Judas never truly believed that Jesus was who He claimed to be, *then he wasn't saved*.  To be saved, one must believe!    Not simply believe that Jesus exists, but that Jesus is who He claims to be, and that He is the only way!  We must rely and trust in Him, that He paid the price for us.  If we think that what Jesus did was not enough, and that we can lose our salvation (once we truly have it) then we are showing that we are not looking to Jesus for salvation, but to ourselves, and only partially (or nominally) to Jesus.


Another verse that shows Judas was never truly saved was John 13:10-11.


Jesus said to him, “He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, *but not all of you.*”

*For He knew who would betray Him; therefore He said, “You are not all clean.”*

John 13:10-11


When a person truly puts their faith in Christ, they are made clean.  If Jesus clearly stated that one of them was not clean, what does that tell you? 


If that's not enough to convince you, I can post numerous other scriptures that show Judas was NEVER truly one of God's own.  

The bible makes it clear that there are false teachers, false prophets, wolves in sheep's clothing.  Counterfeit Christians.  

So, in light of that, I'm genuinely amazed that some people here act as if there is no such thing.

Balaam is another example of a false prophet.  But I need to get back and reply to that post.  So JM, I'll try to do that later tonight.

----------


## Kevin007

Amen Lily- it amazes me some here think he was saved. This is the twilight zone.

----------


## Kevin007

Judas was suspicious of his own spiritual condition - it says he even asked Jesus if he was the one who would betray him:
Mat 26: "Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said."

----------


## Terry1

> Judas was never saved, and TBH, I'm amazed that anyone thinks he was.  
> 
> First, in John 6:64, Jesus makes it clear that not all of the disciples were true believers.
> 
> 
> But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 
> 
> John 6:64
> 
> ...


Judas didn't start out that way in the beginning if you read the story.  Jesus trusted Judas and honored him almost as much as He did Peter in the beginning.  Jesus had healed Judas's mother and father both of the palsy and leprosy.  Judas's weakness was greed and covetousness.  He was faithful to Jesus in the beginning, but satan needed someone close to Jesus that could betray him.

Satan didn't enter Judas until right before the last supper, (Luke 22).   All of the disciples were fearing for their lives even Peter who denied Christ three times.  They weren't just seeking to kill Jesus, but his followers as well.  When Jesus said "one of you is the devil"--Judas had no idea it was himself.

It's clear the perpetrators of this crime didn't need Judas. The fact is, they despised him. They used him and then quickly pushed him aside. When he repented suddenly of his traitorous deed, flinging the money to the ground and crying, "I have betrayed the innocent blood" (Matthew 27:4), the Jewish leaders merely laughed at him. 

They said, "What is that to us? See thou to that" (verse 4), meaning, "That's your problem -- take care of it yourself. We have no need of you or your tears!" 

Judas wasn't needed for Jesus' trial or crucifixion, either. In fact, he wasn't around for either one. By the time Christ went to the Cross, Judas was already dead, having committed suicide within twenty-four hours of his betrayal.

The fact is that Judas transgressed and fell--just as the scripture says.  Jesus may have known that Judas would be one to eventually betray Him, but Jesus also knew that Judas was once faithful in service and apostleship, but allowed his fear, greed and covetousness as a door that allowed satan to enter and use him against Jesus in the end.  Judas obviously was grief stricken by what he'd done to the point of hanging himself.  Flinging the money to the ground and crying, "I have betrayed the innocent blood" (Matthew 27:4).  A man doesn't throw his money away-- cry and hang himself because he has no remorse.

Judas fell from salvation just as the scripture says.   Act 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

----------


## Kevin007

> *Judas was suspicious of his own spiritual condition* - it says he even asked Jesus if he was the one who would betray him:
> Mat 26: "Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said."


.......

----------


## Miss Annie

For the record, Jesus knew Judas heart all along.  Judas was  a devil before even Satan entered him........ says Jesus himself.  

Joh 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
Joh 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
Joh 6:70 *Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?*
Joh 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

----------


## Terry1

> For the record, Jesus knew Judas heart all along.  Judas was  a devil before even Satan entered him........ says Jesus himself.  
> 
> Joh 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
> Joh 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
> Joh 6:70 *Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?*
> Joh 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.


Then explain what Judas fell from then.  If you believe that he was the devil to begin with--then what could Judas have possibly fallen from?

----------


## Miss Annie

> Then explain what Judas fell from then.  If you believe that he was the devil to begin with--then what could Judas have possibly fallen from?


It's not what I believe, it's what the word says.  We either believe the word, or we don't.

----------


## lilymc

> Then explain what Judas fell from then.  If you believe that he was the devil to begin with--then what could Judas have possibly fallen from?


Are you talking about Acts 1:25?

"That he may take part of this *ministry and apostleship*, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place."
It seems to me the answer to your question is right there, before "from which." Other translations put it this way:

"to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”

It doesn't say he fell from salvation, but the ministry and apostleship he had.  Sadly, he wasn't the first false worker, and he won't be the last.

----------


## navy-vet

Sometimes I think we simply misinterpret the exact meaning of a particular word or passage but still get the intended message, which is the important thing. I have always felt that Judas probably, willingly complied with the Lords request to fulfill his role. To me that makes more sense than his being a drone or a demon, or forced to do something against his will. Although, I believe there are demons disguised as people among us playing out their pre-determined roles, perhaps to test us or to influence us in other ways. At least that's one of my theories.
And, if I'm not mistaken, the original teachings were first in Aramaic and then translated to Hebrew and then into old English and then new. I personally prefer the NRSV version for study.

----------


## navy-vet

now after reading lilymc's post I feel like a fool
She has obviously far above me in understanding these works. I am humbled

----------


## jmdrake

> For the record, Jesus knew Judas heart all along.  Judas was  a devil before even Satan entered him........ says Jesus himself.  
> 
> Joh 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
> Joh 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
> Joh 6:70 *Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?*
> Joh 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.


Judas was a believer who refused sanctification.  The sin that Judas clung to more dearly than Jesus was covetousness.  

_John 12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein._

In Luke Jesus talked about those who "put their hands to the plow an look back".

_Luke 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God._

For someone to "look back" he has to at some point be looking forward.

----------


## Terry1

> Are you talking about Acts 1:25?
> 
> "That he may take part of this *ministry and apostleship*, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place."
> It seems to me the answer to your question is right there, before "from which." Other translations put it this way:
> 
> "to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”
> 
> It doesn't say he fell from salvation, but the ministry and apostleship he had.  Sadly, he wasn't the first false worker, and he won't be the last.


What are the qualifications for the ministry and apostleship?  Do you think Jesus recruited Judas in the beginning simply because he knew he was the devil that would betray him eventually?  Have you read the actual story of the relationship between Judas and Jesus and how long they were together?  

 Does the devil have remorse?  Would the devil repent and cry--toss his money away and then hang himself because he betrayed someone that he loved out of fear and greed?



Matthew 27: 3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. 5And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. 


Then there are some that believe it's possible that Judas could have been forgiven after repenting.  I understand that after someone falls they're beyond the ability to return to God.  When a believer falls from grace and faith--they have already spent whatever "space" and time God gave them to repent of their sin and been turned over to their own lusts and delusions.  I believe by the time that Judas repented--it was already too late because Judas had fulfilled the prophecy.

----------


## erowe1

> Judas was a believer who refused sanctification.  The sin that Judas clung to more dearly than Jesus was covetousness.  
> 
> _John 12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein._
> 
> In Luke Jesus talked about those who "put their hands to the plow an look back".
> 
> _Luke 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God._
> 
> For someone to "look back" he has to at some point be looking forward.


Judas was not a true believer. God had never enabled him to believe.

John 6:64-65: "64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”"

That he was unsaved is also indicated by Jesus saying it would be better for him if he had never been born in Mark 14:21 and Matthew 26:24.

----------


## erowe1

> LOL.  This is getting funnier by the post.  Okay.  Before I respond to what you wrote I will ask you one more question and give you a chance the clear this up.  You, erowe1, have the personal assurance that you are not one of those people who have deceived yourself into believing that you are a true believer in Christ who has "saving faith" that will persevere until death or the end of time whichever comes first because.....?


I just answered that. My assurance is not communicable to you. It is between God and me. Just because assurance isn't communicable doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Which part of my post do you disagree with? Do you disagree that there are people who lack saving faith but who deceive themselves and think they have it? Do you disagree that there are people who have saving faith and rightfully know that they do?

----------


## erowe1

> So, to me, it's meaningless to argue over whether salvation comes from good works, or faith, since when you truly have faith, good works follow.


It's not meaningless when you're evangelizing. It makes a difference if you tell someone, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." versus, "Measure up to the following legal standards and you will be saved."

----------


## Terry1

> Judas was a believer who refused sanctification.  The sin that Judas clung to more dearly than Jesus was covetousness.  
> 
> _John 12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein._
> 
> In Luke Jesus talked about those who "put their hands to the plow an look back".
> 
> _Luke 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God._
> 
> For someone to "look back" he has to at some point be looking forward.


You bring up some good points, but there is a complete story of the relationship between Judas and Jesus.  They were basically "family" and had come from the same tribe and region.   They had known each other for a very long time.  Jesus loved and trusted Judas at some point.

The questions to ask here are:

Did Judas believe in Jesus--confess him and trust Him?  I believe he did because Jesus had already healed Judas's mother and father both.  Jesus and Judas were friends.

Did Judas love Jesus?  I also believe that he did, but he loved money more.

Did Judas have remorse and sorrow for what he'd done?  Yes, but it was too late at that point for him.

Was Peter's denial of Jesus a betrayal as well fearing for his own life if he confessed him to the Jewish priests?  Yes, I believe so, but Peter had always been faithful to Jesus unlike Judas who's love and weakness for money caused him to fall away long before he betrayed Jesus and then hung himself in sorrow and repentance.

----------


## Deborah K

> Then explain what Judas fell from then.  If you believe that he was the devil to begin with--then what could Judas have possibly fallen from?


And why did he commit suicide out of grief for what he had done?

----------


## moostraks

> It's not meaningless when you're evangelizing. It makes a difference if you tell someone, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." versus, "Measure up to the following legal standards and you will be saved."


Selling it in such a manner for the purpose of evangelizing for numbers is what causes some of the folks to be pissed about not being told the fine print. In order to have said saving faith they need to accept the works must follow but some who evangelize preach the emotional transformation and not the dark night of the soul that so many of us will experience. It is like promising a cure without warning of side effects. If you dodge the issue by acting like it isn't there you are responsible for the consequences of the souls that are turned cold in the end which is why not everyone is fit for the purpose of evangelizing.(IMO and according to my own experience)

----------


## Deborah K

> It's not what I believe, it's what the word says.  We either believe the word, or we don't.


Followers of Christ can believe in the word yet see it differently.  There are those who believe, and yet still fall away.  The Bible is filled with examples of that.

----------


## Deborah K

> It's not meaningless when you're evangelizing. It makes a difference if you tell someone, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." versus, "Measure up to the following legal standards and you will be saved."


Evangelizing to whom?  The faithless?  Other followers?

----------


## erowe1

> Selling it in such a manner for the purpose of evangelizing for numbers is what causes some of the folks to be pissed about not being told the fine print. In order to have said saving faith they need to accept the works must follow but some who evangelize preach the emotional transformation and not the dark night of the soul that so many of us will experience. It is like promising a cure without warning of side effects. If you dodge the issue by acting like it isn't there you are responsible for the consequences of the souls that are turned cold in the end which is why not everyone is fit for the purpose of evangelizing.(IMO and according to my own experience)


I didn't say anything about numbers. In evangelizing, it's important that we present the true Gospel in such a way not only that the elect will accept it but also that the nonelect will reject it. I absolutely agree that people going for numbers are prone to corrupt the message. And very often in churches I've seen this does involve working people into some kind of euphoria so that they can perform some act, like coming forward in an altar call or something like that, which is then used as a means of giving them false assurance of salvation.

----------


## erowe1

> Evangelizing to whom?  The faithless?  Other followers?


Anyone.

----------


## erowe1

> And why did he commit suicide out of grief for what he had done?


Anybody in the world can feel guilty for bad things they've done. Christians aren't the only people who do that.

----------


## erowe1

> You bring up some good points, but there is a complete story of the relationship between Judas and Jesus.  They were basically "family" and had come from the same tribe and region.   They had known each other for a very long time.  Jesus loved and trusted Judas at some point.
> 
> The questions to ask here are:
> 
> Did Judas believe in Jesus--confess him and trust Him?  I believe he did because Jesus had already healed Judas's mother and father both.  Jesus and Judas were friends.
> 
> Did Judas love Jesus?  I also believe that he did, but he loved money more.


What's your source for all this?

----------


## moostraks

> I didn't say anything about numbers. In evangelizing, it's important that we present the true Gospel in such a way not only that the elect will accept it but also that the nonelect will reject it. I absolutely agree that people going for numbers are prone to corrupt the message. And very often in churches I've seen this does involve working people into some kind of euphoria so that they can perform some act, like coming forward in an altar call or something like that, which is then used as a means of giving them false assurance of salvation.


So you don't think the elect can hear the whole truth and will accept it? To me it is deceptive not telling the whole story, and since I believe in free will, you will condemn souls who turn cold due to your lack of being straight forward with the fine print when they experience a dark night of the soul. Now if one doesn't believe in free will, seems as if the elect will believe it as they are activated in their faith by the hearing of the Word and not by the skill of the person evangelizing. So telling the whole truth is the way to go either way since there is indeed harm caused by not being forthright about what is necessary for saving faith, unless one is concerned about the numbers and then, and only then, should the soft sell be employed.

----------


## jmdrake

> I just answered that. My assurance is not communicable to you. It is between God and me. Just because assurance isn't communicable doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Just because you think it exists doesn't mean that it does.  Like you already pointed out, some people are self deceived.  One of those people might very well be you.




> Which part of my post do you disagree with? Do you disagree that there are people who lack saving faith but who deceive themselves and think they have it? Do you disagree that there are people who have saving faith and rightfully know that they do?


There are some people who rightfully believe they have a winning lottery ticket but only to the extent that they might actually have a winning lottery ticket.  That doesn't mean their "assurance" is any "more right" than someone who only thinks his lottery ticket is real.  Your "assurance" sounds suspiciously like just happening to have (or not have) a winning lottery ticket.

----------


## erowe1

> So you don't think the elect can hear the whole truth and will accept it?


I'm saying the exact opposite.

----------


## erowe1

> Just because you think it exists doesn't mean that it does.  Like you already pointed out, some people are self deceived.  One of those people might very well be you.


Some people are deceived into thinking they're saved when they are not. Other people rightly know they are saved. The existence of the former doesn't detract from the latter. Do you not agree with this?





> There are some people who rightfully believe they have a winning lottery ticket but only to the extent that they might actually have a winning lottery ticket.  That doesn't mean their "assurance" is any "more right" than someone who only thinks his lottery ticket is real.  Your "assurance" sounds suspiciously like just happening to have (or not have) a winning lottery ticket.


They don't just happen to have it. They have it and know they have it.

But in the case of a lottery ticket it's not just something between them and God. In the case of salvation this assurance is not communicable to someone else. I can know I'm saved. But I can't give you assurance that you are saved or tell you something about how I know I'm saved that an unbeliever might not also think they can say about themselves. The difference is, the true believer is being truthful about it and the unbeliever isn't.

There could be a person who hears something that they think is a lion's roar when it isn't. But this doesn't mean that when somebody else does hear a real lion's roar and knows that what they heard was a real lion's roar somehow doesn't really know that.

Which part of this do you disagree with?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I'm saying the exact opposite.


So you do think the elect can't hear the whole truth and will not accept it?

I think I can follow that.

----------


## Deborah K

> Amen Lily- it amazes me some here think he was saved. This is the twilight zone.


Help me out and show where in the Bible it states that once you are saved, you can never fall away, no matter what you do?  It seems paradoxical.

----------


## Deborah K

> Anybody in the world can feel guilty for bad things they've done. Christians aren't the only people who do that.


Where do you think that guilt came from with regard to Judas, if he was inherently supposedly evil?

----------


## moostraks

> I'm saying the exact opposite.


Then there is no point in speaking in half truths which is what it comes across, to me anyways, when one says when envangelizing one should say this but not this...one must know that to have saving faith it will cost them.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Help me out and show where in the Bible it states that once you are saved, you can never fall away, no matter what you do? It seems paradoxical.


 Probably the explanation for fearless pedophile priests.

----------


## Deborah K

> So you do think the elect can't hear the whole truth and will not accept it?
> 
> I think I can follow that.


Mark 13: 22  - Jesus talks about even the elect being deceived.

----------


## Deborah K

> Probably the explanation for fearless pedophile priests.


Okay, but can you answer the question as I posed it?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Okay, but can you answer the question as I posed it?


 Well I CAN, but not really able to guarantee it's truth or accuracy, especially if Paul was involved.


https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...54.GKfHc5ARj_g

----------


## Deborah K

> Well I CAN, but not really able to guarantee it's truth or accuracy, especially if Paul was involved.


You don't trust Paul as a representative of God's word??

----------


## jmdrake

Hello Lily.  I guess I'll take a page from Erowe1's playbook where he talks about how the Bible is "vague" in some places.  In John 6:64 Jesus made a general claim about multiple non believers.  Keyword here is "some".  And there were people right there who expressed doubt in what Jesus was saying the He was the bread of life.  (Incidentally, this is the passage of scripture Catholics and EOs used to support their Eucharist doctrine).  The phrase "Jesus knew who would believe and who would betray Him" does not necessarily mean the betrayer was not a believer.  It certainly doesn't mean the betrayer was never a believer.  Jesus "breathed" the Holy Spirit on Judas just like He did the other 11.  Maybe in your world someone can never "believe" and still receive the Holy Spirit.  Anyway, we have personal testimony from CrashLand that he went from being a believer to being a non believer.  You may not believe him, I do.  As for Balaam, I've already shown that he got his messages (at least the ones recorded in the Bible) from God.  Why would Balaam talk directly to a God that he didn't believe in?  Why would God directly answer someone that didn't believe in Him?  Remember, when Balaam was asked to curse Israel his first action was *to inquire of the Lord*!  Sorry, but no matter how you try to fix it up, that's not the action of a non believer.




> Judas was never saved, and TBH, I'm amazed that anyone thinks he was.  
> 
> First, in John 6:64, Jesus makes it clear that not all of the disciples were true believers.
> 
> 
> But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 
> 
> John 6:64
> 
> ...

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You don't trust Paul as a representative of God's word??


 No, should I?

Paul and the Origins of Christianity

Here's one for you.  What in the universe can stand against the will of GOD?

----------


## Deborah K

> No, should I?
> 
> Paul and the Origins of Christianity
> 
> Here's one for you.  What in the universe can stand against the will of GOD?


That looks like interesting reading.  Some of it, I already knew.  But, you mentioned that you can cite references in the Bible that proclaim 'once saved, always saved'.  Putting your incredulity for Paul's letters aside, would you cite them?  I see a true paradox and would like to read the opinions of others on the matter.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> That looks like interesting reading. Some of it, I already knew. But, you mentioned that you can cite references in the Bible that proclaim 'once saved, always saved'. Putting your incredulity for Paul's letters aside, would you cite them? I see a true paradox and would like to read the opinions of others on the matter.


 post #213.

----------


## Deborah K

> post #213.


I didn't see where you had edited it.  But that was rather lazy of you.  I could have done that. If the topic bores you, just say so. But, I find it fascinating that there are those who believe that people who fall from their faith were never saved in the first place.  I'd like to know why they believe that.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I didn't see where you had edited it. But that was rather lazy of you. I could have done that. If the topic bores you, just say so. But, I find it fascinating that there are those who believe that people who fall from their faith were never saved in the first place. I'd like to know why they believe that.


  Work smarter, not harder.  How many points do I lose for lazy?  If you could have done that, I have some difficulty understanding why you didn't. To each their own, I guess. <shrug>

----------


## Terry1

> Judas was not a true believer. God had never enabled him to believe.
> 
> John 6:64-65: "64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”"
> 
> That he was unsaved is also indicated by Jesus saying it would be better for him if he had never been born in Mark 14:21 and Matthew 26:24.


Jesus *chose* Judas and made him an apostle to the ministry.  Who are we to argue with whom Jesus chose or why?  Judas *transgressed and fell* through his own willingness to serve satan.  Which is just another example telling you that OSAS or Predestination doctrines can not be true.

----------


## Deborah K

> Work smarter, not harder.  How many points do I lose for lazy?  If you could have done that, I have some difficulty understanding why you didn't. To each their own, I guess. <shrug>


I was looking for your opinion backed by verses.  No points lost.  LOL.  Ronin, what are your beliefs?  I know you post a lot in the religious forum but I don't follow your writings and posts closely enough to know where you stand, and we haven't had very many exchanges.  Are you agnostic?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I was looking for your opinion backed by verses. No points lost. LOL. Ronin, what are your beliefs? I know you post a lot in the religious forum but I don't follow your writings and posts closely enough to know where you stand, and we haven't had very many exchanges. Are you agnostic?


  My opinion on those matters doesn't really amount to much.  Hence my providing tons of opinions of folks more knowledgeable on the subject than I am.  

I really like Jesus, so therefore I'm NOT a Christian.  I'm not smart enough to be an atheist, so I'm not one.  I find truth and wisdom in the writings of all of the world's major religions.  "This Earth is not my home. I'm just passing through."

I think we recently began a brief chat about Sumer and the Anunnaki, as I recall.

----------


## Miss Annie

Please explain this further?  Because the scripture clearly says that he was a devil.  
Now clearly, the devils (demons) "believe" as well, is this the context that you are referring to?  

Lu 4:41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.

Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.




> Judas was a believer who refused sanctification.  The sin that Judas clung to more dearly than Jesus was covetousness.  
> 
> _John 12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein._
> 
> In Luke Jesus talked about those who "put their hands to the plow an look back".
> 
> _Luke 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God._
> 
> For someone to "look back" he has to at some point be looking forward.

----------


## jmdrake

> Please explain this further?  Because the scripture clearly says that he was a devil.  
> Now clearly, the devils (demons) "believe" as well, is this the context that you are referring to?  
> 
> Lu 4:41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.
> 
> Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.


I think someone also pointed out that Jesus once called Peter "Satan".  Question.  Can a demon and the Holy Spirit inhabit the same person at the same time?  Jesus made it clear that demons inhabit empty people.

Matthew 12
_43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.

44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.

45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation._

----------


## Miss Annie

> I think someone also pointed out that Jesus once called Peter "Satan".  Question.  Can a demon and the Holy Spirit inhabit the same person at the same time?  Jesus made it clear that demons inhabit empty people.
> 
> Matthew 12
> _43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
> 
> 44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
> 
> 45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation._


With the Peter incident, it is my understanding that Satan was trying to work through Peter - just as he can do through any saved person - by trying to influence our thinking patterns.  Hence the scripture where we are told : 
2Co 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
2Co 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds
2Co 10:5 *Casting down imaginations*, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity *every thought* to the obedience of Christ;

Demons may not possess a saved person - But...... they may choose to ignore the warning signs and allow themselves to be influenced by demons.

----------


## Deborah K

> Please explain this further?  Because the scripture clearly says that he was a devil.  
> Now clearly, the devils (demons) "believe" as well, is this the context that you are referring to?  
> 
> Lu 4:41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.
> 
> Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.


I asked this of Erowe, and I'll ask you too: If Judas was inherently evil (a demon), then why did he grieve over what he had done to Christ, and kill himself over it?  To an Arminian like myself, who sees over and over in the Bible, scores of believers who lose their faith, it makes sense that he fell away. And Jesus chose Judas because he already knew Judas would make that choice and fulfill the prophecy.  I just can't help but believe that the Lord knows our choices before we do, but _sometimes_ he allows us to make them even if they're wrong.  Faith is a journey.  In my humanity, it is difficult for me to believe that faith, once accepted, is set into stone, and can never to be cast away.

----------


## Deborah K

> With the Peter incident, it is my understanding that Satan was trying to work through Peter - just as he can do through any saved person - by trying to influence our thinking patterns.  Hence the scripture where we are told : 
> 2Co 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
> 2Co 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds
> 2Co 10:5 *Casting down imaginations*, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity *every thought* to the obedience of Christ;
> 
> *Demons may not possess a saved person - But...... they may choose to ignore the warning signs and allow themselves to be influenced by demons*.


So, couldn't this be the case with Judas?

----------


## Terry1

> With the Peter incident, it is my understanding that Satan was trying to work through Peter - just as he can do through any saved person - by trying to influence our thinking patterns.  Hence the scripture where we are told : 
> 2Co 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
> 2Co 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds
> 2Co 10:5 *Casting down imaginations*, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity *every thought* to the obedience of Christ;
> 
> Demons may not possess a saved person - But...... they may choose to ignore the warning signs and allow themselves to be influenced by demons.


I think that we can safely say that by the time satan entered Judas--that Judas was already in a fallen state of belief.  He was no longer a true believer at this point.  I'm sure when Jesus performed miracles on Judas's Mother and Father by healing them of the palsy and leprosy Judas believed--he simply didn't remain for the love of money more.

----------


## Kevin007

100 scriptures PROVING OSAS (LOL) oops wrong thread

----------


## lilymc

> That looks like interesting reading.  Some of it, I already knew.  But, you mentioned that you can cite references in the Bible that proclaim 'once saved, always saved'.  Putting your incredulity for Paul's letters aside, would you cite them?  I see a true paradox and would like to read the opinions of others on the matter.


Hi Deborah.  We've been discussing the whole topic of salvation and whether or not it can be lost for the past few weeks, on other threads.   So there's a TON of posts on this topic on those threads...We've gone over it extensively.   Maybe you weren't around during that time, or maybe you were just posting on other threads. 

But anyway, later tonight I'll try to find the links to some posts for you to read.  (I have to get to work right now).

For now, here is a *video*, please check it out... it's kind of long, but I think it's good, especially how he explains the misunderstanding between justification and sanctification.

----------


## Miss Annie

> I asked this of Erowe, and I'll ask you too: If Judas was inherently evil (a demon), then why did he grieve over what he had done to Christ, and kill himself over it?  To an Arminian like myself, who sees over and over in the Bible, scores of believers who lose their faith, it makes sense that he fell away. And Jesus chose Judas because he already knew Judas would make that choice and fulfill the prophecy.  I just can't help but believe that the Lord knows our choices before we do, but _sometimes_ he allows us to make them even if they're wrong.  Faith is a journey.  In my humanity, it is difficult for me to believe that faith, once accepted, is set into stone, and can never to be cast away.





> So, couldn't this be the case with Judas?





> I think that we can safely say that by the time satan entered Judas--that Judas was already in a fallen state of belief.  He was no longer a true believer at this point.  I'm sure when Jesus performed miracles on Judas's Mother and Father by healing them of the palsy and leprosy Judas believed--he simply didn't remain for the love of money more.


Question: Did Judas truly repent of betraying Jesus just like Peter repented after he denied him three times?

Answer: Judas Iscariot was one of history's most unfortunate figures, having become a pawn in Satan's evil game to totally destroy the Son of God. Satan's plans, however, to kill Jesus FOREVER totally failed as was predicted in the very FIRST prophecy of the Bible (Genesis 3:14 - 15).

What kind of man was Judas Iscariot? There is an old tradition that says from childhood he and Jesus had been friends and that Christ continually had to pull him out of trouble. Although this tradition may not be quite true, it is logical to conclude that the two were more than mere acquaintances.

Brief Biblical highlights of Judas' life and personality including the following.
   * He was one of the twelve apostles (Mark 3:14, 19; Matthew 10:4) whose surname Iscariot is believed by some to mean 'man of Kerioth.'

   * He was in charge of the group's money (John 13:29) and was a thief who regularly stole from it (John 12:6).

   * He was a liar (John 12:3-6) who was also deceitful and greedy (Matthew 26:14-15)

   * He was called a traitor (Luke 6:16) and was identified as a betrayer during the last Passover (John 13:21-26)

   * He was willing to pretend to honor someone for his own selfish purposes (Mark 14:44-45, Matthew 26:49).   

* Jesus referred to him as a devil (John 6:70) and a son of perdition (John 17:12) who it would have been better if he were never born (Matthew 26:24). It is interesting to note that Jesus not only knew he would be betrayed, he hand-picked the betrayer (John 6:70 - 71)!

 * He was possessed personally by Satan the devil during the last Passover (John 13:27).

   * He betrayed the Lord for money (Matthew 26:15) to those who HATED him and want him dead (Matthew 26:3-4)

   * He felt so bad after betraying someone who was innocent that he tried to return the bribe money paid him (Matthew 27:3). His self-hate grew to a point where, even after trying to return the bribe, it led him to commit suicide (Matthew 27:5).

You asked if Judas repented just like Peter. To repent means in Greek, "to think differently". If one thinks differently, one acts differently. Godly sorrow leads to true repentance but the sorrow of the world (i.e. of human nature apart from God) leads to death as way stated by the Apostle Paul (2Corinthians 7:10).

We know that Judas felt remorse for his actions (Matthew 27:3) and knew he sinned. His sorrow, however, did not lead to true repentance and a change of heart and behavior. Like him, Peter was also very sorrowful for what he did, which was to deny he even knew Jesus three times (Luke 22:55-62, see also Matthew 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; John 18:17, 25-27).

Note that although Peter wept bitterly over what he did (especially since Jesus looked directly at him after the third denial!) he did not take his own life. His godly sorrow lead him to repent when then lead to a complete change of heart (see Acts 2). Peter had the kind of sorrow we all must ultimately have if we are to live forever. Judas and Peter did not have the same kind of sorrow and repentance since what was produced was significantly different.

----------


## Deborah K

> Hi Deborah.  We've been discussing the whole topic of salvation and whether or not it can be lost for the past few weeks, on other threads.   So there's a TON of posts on this topic on those threads...We've gone over it extensively.   Maybe you weren't around during that time, or maybe you were just posting on other threads. 
> 
> But anyway, later tonight I'll try to find the links to some posts for you to read.  (I have to get to work right now).
> 
> For now, here is a *video*, please check it out... it's kind of long, but I think it's good, especially how he explains the misunderstanding between justification and sanctification.


Okay, thank you.  If my question has been hashed out already, I'll peruse the forum and look for answers there.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Probably the explanation for fearless pedophile priests.


Huh?  I don't follow.  Roman Catholics don't believe in OSAS.   (At least, not according to any book I've read so far) Explain, plz.

----------


## RJB

> To an Arminian like myself.


Oh my gosh...  You're one of them that we've been warned about.

----------


## erowe1

> Where do you think that guilt came from with regard to Judas, if he was inherently supposedly evil?


His conscience.

----------


## erowe1

> Jesus *chose* Judas and made him an apostle to the ministry.  Who are we to argue with whom Jesus chose or why?  Judas *transgressed and fell* through his own willingness to serve satan.  Which is just another example telling you that OSAS or Predestination doctrines can not be true.


I'm not arguing with Jesus. He made him one of the original twelve apostles. But that doesn't mean he was a believer. Jesus said that God didn't enable Judas to believe.

In betraying Jesus, Judas performed an important role in bringing about the crucifixion, which was what Jesus came to do. That wasn't some contingency plan that resulted from Judas making the wrong choice. It was plan A all along, and Judas's unbelief was a part of it.

----------


## jmdrake

> With the Peter incident, it is my understanding that Satan was trying to work through Peter - just as he can do through any saved person - by trying to influence our thinking patterns.  Hence the scripture where we are told : 
> 2Co 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
> 2Co 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds
> 2Co 10:5 *Casting down imaginations*, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity *every thought* to the obedience of Christ;
> 
> Demons may not possess a saved person - But...... they may choose to ignore the warning signs and allow themselves to be influenced by demons.


But can demons possess someone when he is filled with the Holy Spirit *like Judas Iscariot was on at least one occasion?*  Sorry if I was unclear, but I shifted gears mid thought from Peter to Judas.

Mark 6
_7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;

8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:

9 But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.

10 And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place.

11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

13 And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them._

Judas was with the other 11 disciples in casting out demons, healing the sick etc.  He was given the same power as the rest.  And we know that power was the Holy Spirit.

----------


## Miss Annie

> But can demons possess someone when he is filled with the Holy Spirit *like Judas Iscariot was on at least one occasion?*  Sorry if I was unclear, but I shifted gears mid thought from Peter to Judas.
> 
> Mark 6
> _7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
> 
> 8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:
> 
> 9 But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.
> 
> ...


Well I am not sure that I agree with your assumption that Judas was Holy Spirit filled.... and that he performed miracles and cast out demons.  
Here is why I have serious doubts about that.  
First of all, Jesus said :  
Joh 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and *one of you is a devil*?
Joh 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Would a devil have cast out demons? I understand this is about casting them out in Beelzebub's name - but the principle is the same.  He was a devil, according to Jesus. 
Lu 11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.
Lu 11:18 If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.

Judas' behavor does not indicate that he was filled with the Spirit prior to being possessed.   
Joh 12:4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,
Joh 12:5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
Joh 12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; *but because he was a thief*, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
Joh 12:7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.
Joh 12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

This incident also happened PRIOR to the possession -  As the possession happened during the Passover meal and this was prior to that. 
*Mt 26:14 ¶ Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests,
Mt 26:15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.
Mt 26:16 And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.*
Mt 26:17 ¶ Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
Mt 26:18 And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.

The possession happened at the Passover meal.  His behavior was consistent with Jesus' description as a devil even prior to the meal. 
Joh 13:24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
Joh 13:25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
Joh 13:26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
Joh 13:27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
Joh 13:28 Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.

So you see, I am not sure that I believe he was EVER spirit filled.

----------


## Deborah K

> His conscience.


Since when do inherently evil people have a conscience?  Psychopaths don't have one.  I don't think most sociopaths do either.

----------


## Kevin007

> But can demons possess someone when he is filled with the Holy Spirit *like Judas Iscariot was on at least one occasion?*  Sorry if I was unclear, but I shifted gears mid thought from Peter to Judas.
> 
> Mark 6
> _7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
> 
> 8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:
> 
> 9 But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.
> 
> ...


Judas didn't have the Holy Spirit- none of them did- Jesus hadn't died and risen yet.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Huh?  I don't follow. Roman Catholics don't believe in OSAS. (At least, not according to any book I've read so far) Explain, plz.


I guess the RC folks just need to read the Bible (or Google). Ooops sorry, I forgot. Maybe a priest will explain it to them.

https://www.google.com/search?q=once...gbv=2&oq=&gs_l=

----------


## Kevin007

> *Judas was a believer who refused sanctification*.  The sin that Judas clung to more dearly than Jesus was covetousness.  
> 
> _John 12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein._
> 
> In Luke Jesus talked about those who "put their hands to the plow an look back".
> 
> _Luke 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God._
> 
> For someone to "look back" he has to at some point be looking forward.


if he "refused" sanctification- what does that mean? He wasn't saved at all. He only called Jesus teacher, never Messiah- He didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah. He stole, he gave Jesus over to the Romans, he lied, cheated, stole. Jesus knew His heart. Judas was never saved and his actions proved it. Whatever happened to you guys who say if you are truly saved that you will bear fruit? Lol- he bore fruit all right- ALL BAD, ROTTEN FRUIT.

----------


## Kevin007

> Jesus *chose* Judas and made him an apostle to the ministry.  Who are we to argue with whom Jesus chose or why?  Judas *transgressed and fell* through his own willingness to serve satan.  Which is just another example telling you that OSAS or Predestination doctrines can not be true.


BULL. Judas was never saved. It doesn;t matter if Jesus chose him. He had a bigger purpose in mind- to be turned over to the Romans and be crucified. Judas was a useful tool. Judas entire life that we know has no- I mean NO evidence he was saved, nothing. Lily already explained to you what transgressed meant in the context.

----------


## Kevin007

> I think someone also pointed out that Jesus once called Peter "Satan".  Question.  Can a demon and the Holy Spirit inhabit the same person at the same time?  Jesus made it clear that demons inhabit empty people.
> 
> Matthew 12
> _43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
> 
> 44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
> 
> 45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation._



Jesus Himself said of Judas, The Son of  Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who  betrays the Son of Man! *It would be better for him if he had not been  born* (Matthew 26:24).

----------


## Kevin007

True believers may fall at times but their faith does not fail because Jesus intercedes for us. This happens probably on a daily basis for most Christians. We still live in the flesh.  Romans 7:19 - For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing.

----------


## lilymc

> Judas was a believer


Not according to Jesus:

"But there are some of you *who do not believe.*" For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 

John 6:64




> who refused sanctification.


A true believer and one who is walking with Jesus has SOME evidence of sanctification.  You can't truly believe in Jesus and not be changed.    Judas wasn't a true believer.  Jesus said that, and He knew it all along, and Judas' actions prove that.




> The sin that Judas clung to more dearly than Jesus was covetousness.  
> 
> _John 12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein._
> 
> In Luke Jesus talked about those who "put their hands to the plow an look back".
> 
> _Luke 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God._
> 
> For someone to "look back" he has to at some point be looking forward.


You're trying to make the Luke verse about "losing salvation" but that's not the point of it.   It's about the cost of discipleship or following Jesus.  It's a commitment, we can't have a divided heart.   

He's basically saying, "If you want to serve me and be a disciple, you can't look back to your old (worldly, sinful) life. If that's what you want to do, then you're not fit for serving God."

There are some people who go through the motions (like Judas) but look back.   As 1 John 2:19 says, those who do go back show that they were never actually one of God's people:

  They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

----------


## jmdrake

> Judas didn't have the Holy Spirit- none of them did- Jesus hadn't died and risen yet.


Did John the Baptist have the Holy Spirit?  The Bible says he did.  He died before Jesus died.  How about Sampson?  The Bible said He did.  He died before Jesus was born.  Need I go on?  What power did the disciples use to cast out demons before Jesus died?  Their own power?

----------


## jmdrake

> Not according to Jesus:
> 
> "But there are some of you *who do not believe.*" For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 
> 
> John 6:64


Using large fonts doesn't make your statement any stronger.  I already covered this.  You are shoehorning onto the verse the idea that the betrayer was a subset of people who didn't believe and that the betrayer never believed.  You can't actually get that directly from the verse.




> A true believer and one who is walking with Jesus has SOME evidence of sanctification.  You can't truly believe in Jesus and not be changed.    Judas wasn't a true believer.  Jesus said that, and He knew it all along, and Judas' actions prove that.


And you know that Judas didn't have *some* evidence of sanctification because.....?  Yes Judas never gave up his greed.  That doesn't mean he never changed at all.  Even leaving your home and following a roaming preacher is *some* change.  So I guess the believer that's still struggling with some besetting sin, like Judas was struggling with greed, should know they've never been saved?




> You're trying to make the Luke verse about "losing salvation" but that's not the point of it.   It's about the cost of discipleship or following Jesus.  It's a commitment, we can't have a divided heart.


Ah.  So you believe that a believer with a divided heart has never been saved?  Interesting.  Unbibical but interesting.




> He's basically saying, "If you want to serve me and be a disciple, you can't look back to your old (worldly, sinful) life. If that's what you want to do, then you're not fit for serving God."


And yet believers do.  So is your definition of saved someone who doesn't want to go back to their old life?  Because I personally know drug addicts who have given their hearts to Christ, and I believe they were sincere, and relapsed anyway.  You would say they were saved because they didn't want to relapse?  I'm not being snarky.  I'm trying to understand your position.




> There are some people who go through the motions (like Judas) but look back.   As 1 John 2:19 says, those who do go back show that they were never actually one of God's people:


And those motions include being given the power of the Holy Spirit to cast out demons?  (I know Kevin doesn't believe the disciples had the power of the Holy Spirit before Jesus died and rose, but he has no other explanation for how the disciples cast out demons prior to that.)

----------


## erowe1

> Since when do inherently evil people have a conscience?  Psychopaths don't have one.  I don't think most sociopaths do either.


Apparently Judas wasn't a psychopath or a sociopath. That doesn't mean that he had saving faith. Most people do have consciences.

----------


## Deborah K

> Apparently Judas wasn't a psychopath or a sociopath. That doesn't mean that he had saving faith. Most people do have consciences.


It doesn't mean he didn't have saving faith either.  He killed himself out of remorse for having betrayed Jesus.  I believe it is conceivable to have saving grace and make decisions that cause you fall away and doom you.

----------


## erowe1

> It doesn't mean he didn't have saving faith either.  He killed himself out of remorse for having betrayed Jesus.  I believe it is conceivable to have saving grace and make decisions that cause you fall away and doom you.


Right. The fact that he committed suicide doesn't prove that he did have saving faith, and it doesn't prove that he didn't. The remorse that he felt could have been felt by either an unsaved person or a saved person.

But since Jesus said that Judas didn't have faith and that God didn't enable him to have faith, I don't know why we should look to his suicide as evidence of anything. We already have a clear and direct answer to the question.

----------


## Deborah K

> Right. The fact that he committed suicide doesn't prove that he did have saving faith, and it doesn't prove that he didn't. The remorse that he felt could have been felt by either an unsaved person or a saved person.
> 
> But since Jesus said that Judas didn't have faith and that God didn't enable him to have faith, I don't know why we should look to his suicide as evidence of anything. We already have a clear and direct answer to the question.


erowe, you originally stated Judas was evil.  I do not believe an inherently evil person feels remorse.

----------


## erowe1

> erowe, you originally stated Judas was evil.  I do not believe an inherently evil person feels remorse.


First of all, can you quote me saying that?

Second of all, why do you believe that inherently evil people never feel remorse? Almost everybody does sometimes.

Also, is committing suicide on account of a guilty conscience really a mark of good morality? I would think the opposite.

FWIW, I don't recall saying that about Judas, but I do believe that the natural state of each and every human being who has ever lived other than Jesus has been to be inherently sinful. Having a conscience doesn't change that.

----------


## erowe1

> Then there is no point in speaking in half truths which is what it comes across, to me anyways, when one says when envangelizing one should say this but not this...one must know that to have saving faith it will cost them.


I agree. At no point did I advocate telling anyone half truths.

----------


## RJB

I just saw the edit.  Note the quotations do not say one is damned for not receiving.





> Among other things it says both of the following:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				Further, that the all-pure Body Itself, and Blood of the Lord is imparted, and enters into the mouths and stomachs of the communicants, whether pious or impious. Nevertheless, they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins and life eternal; but to the impious and unworthy involve condemnation and eternal punishment.


This looks like a reference to:  1 Corinthians 11:27 *"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.... "   * They're talking about people who receive it unworthily.  The whole chapter is pretty powerful.




> Further, that this Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist can be performed by none other, except only by an Orthodox Priest, who has received his priesthood from an Orthodox and Canonical Bishop, in accordance with the teaching of the Eastern Church. 
> 			
> 		
> 
> What do you think about those statements?


  I said I "pretty much" agree with you, not 100% agree.  On this I definitely agree with the Church.  The Eucharist isn't something someone who picked up a bible yesterday can play with as explained in 1 Cor 11.  This is very serious.  Attend a Divine Liturgy and see for yourself.

There was a conversation with TER where he accused you of not believing in Jesus' presence in communion and you demanded an apology if he couldn't find the quotation where you stated it.  This happens a lot because you seemingly take a side but deny allegiance to it.  Can you describe your belief without mentioning how you believe others celebrate it?

----------


## erowe1

> This looks like a reference to:  1 Corinthians 11:27 *"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.... "   * They're talking about people who receive it unworthily.  The whole chapter is pretty powerful.


It may be an allusion to that. But what it says is very different than what Paul says. In 1 Corinthians eating and drinking unworthily means eating and drinking in an improper way, such as what Paul describes in vv. 17-22. It isn't talking about the people being unworthy to partake, but the manner of partaking being an unworthy one. And he doesn't say anything about receiving remission of sins through it or eternal punishment.




> I said I "pretty much" agree with you, not 100% agree.  On this I definitely agree with the Church.  The Eucharist isn't something someone who picked up a bible yesterday can play with as explained in 1 Cor 11.


But 1 Corinthians 11 doesn't say that, or anything like it. Most of those Corinthians Christians were illiterate and had never picked up a Bible in their lives. And there is no requirement for any Church leaders to be there whatsoever. No bishop, no priest, no anything. The requirement that people examine themselves is given to each and every individual Christian (v. 28). The major problem with those particular words of the Confession of Dositheus is precisely in how they contradict the apostolic practice described in 1 Corinthians 11, as well as other passages of the New Testament.




> Attend a Divine Liturgy and see for yourself.


I do every day.




> There was a conversation with TER where he accused you of not believing in Jesus' presence in communion and you demanded an apology if he couldn't find the quotation where you stated it.  This happens a lot because you seemingly take a side but deny allegiance to it.  Can you describe your belief without mentioning how you believe others celebrate it?


I believe that Jesus is present in communion in a special and significant way.

----------


## Terry1

> It may be an allusion to that. But what it says is very different than what Paul says. In 1 Corinthians eating and drinking unworthily means eating and drinking in an improper way, such as what Paul describes. It isn't talking about the people being unworthy to partake, but the manner of partaking being an unworthy one. *And he doesn't say anything about receiving remission of sins through it or eternal punishment*..


What would you call "damnation" then if one partakes "unworthily"--Holy Communion mistaken for a picnic of bread and wine?    





> But 1 Corinthians 11 doesn't say that, or anything like it. Most of those Corinthians Christians were illiterate and had never picked up a Bible in their lives. And there is no requirement for any Church leaders to be there whatsoever. No bishop, no priest, no anything. The requirement that people examine themselves is given to each and every individual Christian (v. 28). The major problem with those particular words of the Confession of Dositheus is precisely in how they contradict the apostolic practice described in 1 Corinthians 11, as well as other passages of the New Testament.
> 
> 
> I do every day.
> 
> 
> I believe that Jesus is present in communion in a special and significant way


.

Evidently the *way* you believe is not consistent with the *way* God's word teaches.

----------


## erowe1

> What would you call "damnation" then if one partakes "unworthily"--Holy Communion mistaken for a picnic of bread and wine?


Paul doesn't mention damnation.




> Evidently the *way* you believe is not consistent with the *way* God's word teaches.


I don't think God's Word says as much about the *way* in which Jesus is present in Communion as you probably think it does.

It seems significant to me that you are not satisfied with just believing that he is somehow present, and that it's necessary for someone to go further than that and to adopt some specific set of beliefs about the *way* that he is present. Why is it so important to do that?

----------


## RJB

> It may be an allusion to that. But what it says is very different than what Paul says. In 1 Corinthians eating and drinking unworthily means eating and drinking in an improper way, such as what Paul describes in vv. 17-22. It isn't talking about the people being unworthy to partake, but the manner of partaking being an unworthy one. And he doesn't say anything about receiving remission of sins through it or eternal punishment.   
> 
> But 1 Corinthians 11 doesn't say that, or anything like it. Most of those Corinthians Christians were illiterate and had never picked up a Bible in their lives. And there is no requirement for any Church leaders to be there whatsoever. No bishop, no priest, no anything. The requirement that people examine themselves is given to each and every individual Christian (v. 28).


 No offence, but I'll take the advice of "the pillar and foundation of the truth" over yours when it comes to this interpretation




> The major problem with those particular words of the Confession of Dositheus is precisely in how they contradict the apostolic practice described in 1 Corinthians 11, as well as other passages of the New Testament.


You seem to have issues with him.  Go have an arm wrestling match with him or something.



> I do every day.


As do I.



> I believe that Jesus is present in communion in a special and significant way.


As do I.  Do you do it yourself?

The half of the chapter in question.  I know you know it well, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.





> 17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have Gods approval. 20 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lords Supper you eat, 21 for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. 22 Dont you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!
> 
> 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me. 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lords death until he comes.
> 
> 27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.
> 
> 33 So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. 34 Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.
> 
> And when I come I will give further directions.

----------


## erowe1

> No offence, but I'll take the advice of "the pillar and foundation of the truth" over yours when it comes to this interpretation


Where can I read the interpretation that is endorsed by the pillar and foundation of the truth? That sounds like a great resource.

But also, if you disagree with my interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11, do you have any reasons that actually come from that passage? I mean, it's not like it's hidden from us.




> You seem to have issues with him.  Go have an arm wrestling match with him or something.


I guess that's essentially what I'm doing here.

----------


## RJB

> Where can I read the interpretation that is endorsed by the pillar and foundation of the truth?


Are you the pillar and foundation of the truth?

----------


## erowe1

> Are you the pillar and foundation of the truth?


The Church is, and I'm part of it, along with everyone else who believes in Jesus. But as far as I know, the Church doesn't have any spokesperson who can speak on its behalf and say, "Here is how the Church interprets this passage of the Bible." Do you know of such a thing?

----------


## lilymc

> Ah.  So you believe that a believer with a divided heart has never been saved?  Interesting.  Unbibical but interesting.


No, that's not what I said.     When I said, "we can't have a divided heart"  I was making the point that if we want to serve God and follow Jesus,  He wants our whole hearts, He doesn't want us to be double-minded, or have one foot in His kingdom and one foot still in our old, worldly sinful life.

I specifically said that verse is not about salvation, so you are putting words in my mouth by implying that I stated a believer with a divided heart has never been saved.

I know that's not true, because I have my own experience to point to.  When I first became a Christian, I truly believed and I was saved, but for the first few years, I still did things that I shouldn't have been doing, because I hadn't yet realized that God wanted me to surrender everything, and be fully obedient, not partially obedient.  So, in a sense, I had a divided heart, yet I was saved.

----------


## lilymc

> And yet believers do.  So is your definition of saved someone who doesn't want to go back to their old life?  Because I personally know drug addicts who have given their hearts to Christ, and I believe they were sincere, and relapsed anyway.  You would say they were saved because they didn't want to relapse?  I'm not being snarky.  I'm trying to understand your position.


There you go again.   You're making assumptions and subtly putting words in my mouth.  That is not what I said.

The passage is about the cost of discipleship, the cost of following Jesus.     Jesus is stating what HE wants, what HE is looking for.   If we want to serve God, HE wants people  who are whole-hearted and not still looking back to their old life.    Do you see how you took my words and changed it into "a saved person never looks back at their old life" when that is not what I said?  Are you a lawyer? 

Again, as I said in my previous post, yes, of course it's possible to be saved yet be backslidden or acting in ways that are worldly.    But that's besides the point.  My main point was that that verse is not about "losing salvation", it's about serving God and that God wants us to be fully devoted, not partially.  




> And those motions include being given the power of the Holy Spirit to cast out demons?  (I know Kevin doesn't believe the disciples had the power of the Holy Spirit before Jesus died and rose, but he has no other explanation for how the disciples cast out demons prior to that.)


Judas did not have the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit didn't even come until later, as recorded in the book of Acts (which was after Judas' death.)

I'm pretty sure that the power to cast out demons was given to them by Jesus.       But even that does not - in any way - prove that Judas was saved.

As I stated before, about Balaam, God can temporarily use anyone He wants to use, for His purposes.  A rock, a bush, a donkey or an unsaved person.

Just because someone might temporarily do some acts that appear miraculous,   does not mean they are saved.  Matthew 7:22-23 shows that.


 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

----------


## RJB

> *No bishop, no priest, no anything.* The requirement that people examine themselves is given to each and every individual Christian (v. 28). The major problem with those particular words of the *Confession of Dositheus* is precisely in how they contradict the apostolic practice described in 1 Corinthians 11, as well as other passages of the New Testament.


 In  good number of your posts about Christian living you have to add "No bishop, no priest." Even when I specifically asked if you could give a description without mentioning the beliefs of others.  I will say that you did mention at the bottom your personal feelings for it, but still it did not stand alone without referencing your mother Church.  Can you give a discussion of your faith without referencing Catholicism?

There are threads on the Eucharist and other aspect of Christian living by Catholics and Orthodox where we talk about it for pages and pages without the mention of bishops but rather our relation with God.  Somehow you can't.

 Which explains your visceral reaction when I answered your question about the reformers:



> My dialogue with you had nothing to do with Calvin or Luther. I don't know as much about them as you seem to know. Nor do I know or care what your beef with them is, nor was even really aware that you had one.


Thou doth protest protesting too much.



> I'm not a Protestant.


Then simply quit talking and thinking like you are one.

----------


## RJB

> The Church is, and I'm part of it, along with everyone else who believes in Jesus.


Is it the one that includes Unitarian Universalists to OTCers?  Is that the Pillar of Truth?




> But as far as I know, the Church doesn't have any spokesperson who can speak on its behalf and say, "Here is how the Church interprets this passage of the Bible." Do you know of such a thing?


  Participate in the Divine Liturgy and see God's work.  Don't expect me a mere man to be able to show you anything.

----------


## jmdrake

> There you go again.   You're making assumptions and subtly putting words in my mouth.  That is not what I said.


How is asking a question putting words in your mouth?  If your belief system is unclear, and believe me it is, then asking questions for clarification is just that.  But making false accusations against someone that they are "subtly putting words in your mouth" is easier than just answering the question?




> The passage is about the cost of discipleship, the cost of following Jesus.     Jesus is stating what HE wants, what HE is looking for.   If we want to serve God, HE wants people  who are whole-hearted and not still looking back to their old life.    Do you see how you took my words and changed it into "a saved person never looks back at their old life" when that is not what I said?  Are you a lawyer?


Uh no.  I didn't change your words at all.  I asked you a question.  So a person who is "not worthy" (Jesus words) is still saved in your opinion despite having a divided heart?  What is the dividing line between the divided heart saved person and the divided heart unsaved person?




> Again, as I said in my previous post, yes, of course it's possible to be saved yet be backslidden or acting in ways that are worldly.    But that's besides the point.  My main point was that that verse is not about "losing salvation", it's about serving God and that God wants us to be fully devoted, not partially.


And someone who backslides to the point of rejecting belief in God at is what exactly?  Never saved in the first place?  Backslidden and acting wordly?




> Judas did not have the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit didn't even come until later, as recorded in the book of Acts (which was after Judas' death.)


Actually Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit on the disciples in the book of John.  You don't seem to know the Bible as well as you think you do.  But yes, that incident is after Jesus death.  But before Jesus death, or Judas death for that matter, Jesus gave the disciples the power to cast out demons.  What power was that exactly?  Jesus cast out demons through the power of the Holy Spirit.  Did He give the disciples some other power?  I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let you slide by that one without answering it.




> I'm pretty sure that the power to cast out demons was given to them by Jesus.       But even that does not - in any way - prove that Judas was saved.


But *what* power did Jesus give them?  Jesus said He cast out demons through the power of the Holy Spirit.  Did Jesus give the disciples some other power?  I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let you slide and not give a straight forward answer to this simple question.




> As I stated before, about Balaam, God can temporarily use anyone He wants to use, for His purposes.  A rock, a bush, a donkey or an unsaved person.


Yeah...but with Balaam it was an ongoing thing.  More importantly, when Balaam sought an answer about something the Bible doesn't record him consulting the stars or the tarot cards.  Balaam prayed to God for an answer and God answered him.  That's different than the rock, bush or donkey.  Someone who goes to God for answers and God answers him is, by definition, a prophet of God.  Question.  Do you believe Solomon was inspired of God?  He wrote several books of the Bible.  But he also worshiped false gods at one point included Molech, a god that demanded human sacrifice.  He caused the children of Israel to sin the same way Balaam did.  In fact, some question whether Solomon ultimately was saved.  Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.  My point is that your claim that someone can't be a prophet at one point and a soothsayer at another point is demonstrably false.




> Just because someone might temporarily do some acts that appear miraculous,   does not mean they are saved.  Matthew 7:22-23 shows that.


We're not talking about an act that "appeared miraculous".  We are talking about someone who could ask God for a message and receive a direct answer from God.  That, by definition, is a prophet.  I'm not saying Balaam was ultimately saved.  However the question is was Balaam *never* saved and more importantly was Balaam *never* a believer?  Actually Matthew 7 works against you because that is where Jesus is separating the sheep from the goats.  In that parable the dividing line between the two groups was that one group did random acts of charity without even realizing it and the other group did not.  The dividing line was not one group believed and the other didn't.

----------


## lilymc

JM, I'm truly amazed at your opinion about Balaam.  In fact, I'm blown away.  He is KNOWN for being a prototype of a false teacher, or false prophet.

That doesn't mean he didn't have a gift.  I never said he didn't have a gift.  But a gift can be abused, it can be used for selfish purposes instead of for God's purposes.

A few pages back you implied that I was basing my opinion on Balaam on one verse only.  That is simply untrue.  The whole bible tells the same story about him!

In 2 Peter 2, the chapter on false prophets, guess whose name is referenced?   Balaam.


"having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, *who loved the wages of unrighteousness*;"


He is also mentioned in a "what NOT to do" way in Jude 1:11


 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after *the error of Balaam for reward*, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.


And again he's mentioned in a very negative way in Revelation 2:14

But I have a few things against you:you have some there who *hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality*

And it's not just that.  The entire story of Balaam in Numbers shows that he was not a true man of faith, he sold his gift for whoever would pay the highest price, and he was WILLING to curse God's people, before God intervened.

Would a saved person want to curse God's people?  Would a true prophet want to cause God's people to stumble, and would a true prophet of God sell his gift to the highest bidder?

God used him, for His purposes.  As I said before, God can use anyone.  God speaking through Balaam is not that different than God speaking through a donkey.   Actually, the donkey seemed to be a better person, which even the angel implied. The donkey certainly had more spiritual sense than Balaam did, which is why I think it's no accident God chose a donkey for that story....to show us that this big-shot "prophet" had less spiritual sense than a donkey, because Balaam was not genuine, he cared about money and himself, not God.

Listen to *this commentary*, starting at around 23:00 minutes in.

----------


## erowe1

> In  good number of your posts about Christian living you have to add "No bishop, no priest." Even when I specifically asked if you could give a description without mentioning the beliefs of others.  I will say that you did mention at the bottom your personal feelings for it, but still it did not stand alone without referencing your mother Church.  Can you give a discussion of your faith without referencing Catholicism?


The answer I gave to that question about my own belief was word-for-word as follows:
"I believe that Jesus is present in communion in a special and significant way."

Do you really see a reference to someone else's faith there?

The other thing I said where I mentioned bishops and priests was in direct response to what you said about 1 Corinthians 11 and the Confession of Dositheus and was completely relevant to that discussion. I hope that your request that I present my own belief did not come with the additional rule that I was not allowed also to reply to the other things that you said in a discussion we were already in the middle of.

----------


## erowe1

> Is it the one that includes Unitarian Universalists to OTCers?  Is that the Pillar of Truth?


Possibly. If someone's faith is in Jesus, then they belong to His Church, and their membership in any human organization doesn't affect that.




> Participate in the Divine Liturgy and see God's work.  Don't expect me a mere man to be able to show you anything.


But you said that you knew of an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 that was endorsed by the pillar and foundation of the truth. Is this really true? Has the pillar and foundation of the truth ever put forth an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 and said that it is the right one? If it has, then being a mere man shouldn't prevent you from being able to say so. If it has not, then perhaps it is better not to pretend that it has, but rather to let Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, speak for himself.

----------


## RJB

> In  good number of your posts about Christian living you have to add "No bishop, no priest." Even when I specifically asked if you could give a description without mentioning the beliefs of others. * I will say that you did mention at the bottom your personal feelings for it,* but still it did not stand alone without referencing your mother Church.  Can you give a discussion of your faith without referencing Catholicism?





> The answer I gave to that question about my own belief was word-for-word as follows:
> "I believe that Jesus is present in communion in a special and significant way."


I acknowledged it.

----------


## erowe1

> I acknowledged it.


It looked like you were trying to mix that answer to that question with other answers to other things you said and to say that what I said in one answer somehow couldn't be separated from what I said in another.

----------


## lilymc

> How is asking a question putting words in your mouth?


Let me give you an example.

You, in an earlier post:

"Ah. So you believe that a believer with a divided heart has never been saved? Interesting. Unbibical but interesting."
Do you see what you did there?  A sincere question is one that waits for an answer. 

Even putting something in question form can be a way of making implications.  Not a huge deal though.




> If your belief system is unclear, and believe me it is, then asking questions for clarification is just that.  But making false accusations against someone that they are "subtly putting words in your mouth" is easier than just answering the question?


My belief system is not unclear.  You are just being very lawyer-like in your debating.   I said that Judas was not saved,  then later you kept taking other things I was saying, and applying that to Judas' salvation, when I was talking about something different.




> Uh no.  I didn't change your words at all.  I asked you a question.  So a person who is "not worthy" (Jesus words) is still saved in your opinion despite having a divided heart?  What is the dividing line between the divided heart saved person and the divided heart unsaved person?


It is possible for a saved person to be_ temporarily_ "divided."   There could be a variety of reasons for that. They might be spiritually immature and still doing worldly things... or maybe they are backslidden, or going through a temporary phase.  

But someone who is genuinely saved is always going to come back to God, because God makes sure of that...(going after His sheep.)  And a genuinely saved person is always growing and learning and slowly but surely moving toward holiness.  It doesn't happen at the same pace for everyone.  For some, it might take years before they learn important lessons.  For others, it might take a lot less time.

So, to answer your question, the difference would be one has the life of God inside them, and the other is still spiritually dead.




> And someone who backslides to the point of rejecting belief in God at is what exactly?  Never saved in the first place?  Backslidden and acting wordly?


A truly saved person always comes back to God, because God makes sure of it, and because they they are a new creation, sealed with the Spirit, and the scriptures are clear that once someone has passed from death to life, that's it. You can't go back and forth.




> Actually Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit on the disciples in the book of John.  You don't seem to know the Bible as well as you think you do.  But yes, that incident is after Jesus death.  But before Jesus death, or Judas death for that matter, Jesus gave the disciples the power to cast out demons.  What power was that exactly?  Jesus cast out demons through the power of the Holy Spirit.  Did He give the disciples some other power?  I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let you slide by that one without answering it.


Well, some people say that the breathing was not the actual indwelling yet but a symbolic act as a preview of what was to come... but either way, that was after Judas, as you stated. 

As for the power, the scriptures say that Jesus gave them authority over unclean spirits.  (Mark 6:7, Matt 10:1)  The scriptures don't say that much about it... so I'm not sure why you are asking me, as if I am omniscient.  I can only go by what the bible says.   Jesus gave them authority.  




> But *what* power did Jesus give them?  Jesus said He cast out demons through the power of the Holy Spirit.  Did Jesus give the disciples some other power?  I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let you slide and not give a straight forward answer to this simple question.


It doesn't say, as far as I've seen.  BUT even if it was the Holy Spirit, that's still irrelevant to the discussion we've been having about whether or not Judas was saved.

I think I've stated at least 3 or 4 times now that the Spirit of God can temporarily come upon unsaved people.   God can temporarily use whoever he wants.  How many times does that have to be said?

Keep this in mind:

Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?”   Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him. 

John 6:70-71  
In your insistence that Judas was saved at one time... despite ALL the evidence to the contrary... you really have to bend over backwards to try to make that work. 




> Yeah...but with Balaam it was an ongoing thing.  More importantly, when Balaam sought an answer about something the Bible doesn't record him consulting the stars or the tarot cards.  Balaam prayed to God for an answer and God answered him.  That's different than the rock, bush or donkey.  Someone who goes to God for answers and God answers him is, by definition, a prophet of God.  Question.  Do you believe Solomon was inspired of God?  He wrote several books of the Bible.  But he also worshiped false gods at one point included Molech, a god that demanded human sacrifice.  He caused the children of Israel to sin the same way Balaam did.  In fact, some question whether Solomon ultimately was saved.  Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.  My point is that your claim that someone can't be a prophet at one point and a soothsayer at another point is demonstrably false.


I replied to you about Balaam on the previous page,  *here*, just in case you missed it.




> We're not talking about an act that "appeared miraculous".  We are talking about someone who could ask God for a message and receive a direct answer from God.  That, by definition, is a prophet.  I'm not saying Balaam was ultimately saved.  However the question is was Balaam *never* saved and more importantly was Balaam *never* a believer?  Actually Matthew 7 works against you because that is where Jesus is separating the sheep from the goats.  In that parable the dividing line between the two groups was that one group did random acts of charity without even realizing it and the other group did not.  The dividing line was not one group believed and the other didn't.


You're still not getting that simply communicating with God, being used by God temporarily does not make someone a true man of God.  On my post about Balaam, I linked to a commentary on Numbers 22, in audio form.  If you are genuinely interested (which I'm not so sure you are, or if you just want to argue about this)  then please listen to the commentary.  He goes into the whole story in-depth, and shows how Balaam is a perfect example of someone who has a gift that he misused, "selling it" to whoever... and even though if you read the chapters quickly at first glance he might appear to be the real deal.... when you dig a little deeper, you'll see that he's not.   

I realize you're not saying he was ultimately saved, but only saved before.  My point still stands.

As for the Matthew verse,  it shows that people can "serve" God and do things in His name, without actually belonging to Him.    That is why I brought it up.

----------


## Terry1

> Let me give you an example.
> 
> You, in an earlier post:
> 
> "Ah. So you believe that a believer with a divided heart has never been saved? Interesting. Unbibical but interesting."
> Do you see what you did there?  A sincere question is one that waits for an answer. 
> 
> Even putting something in question form can be a way of making implications.  Not a huge deal though.
> 
> ...


That's called "stumbling" because they're weak in faith, which requires repentance to return back to God in any case of "stumbling".  




> But someone who is genuinely saved is always going to come back to God, because God makes sure of that...(going after His sheep.)  And a genuinely saved person is always growing and learning and slowly but surely moving toward holiness.  It doesn't happen at the same pace for everyone.  For some, it might take years before they learn important lessons.  For others, it might take a lot less time.


Only God knows when someone will not return.  This is not for you to say or to judge in any case because we do not know the heart of anyone--only God does.  You're denying that it's possible for a "saved" or "elect" person to lose that state of being "saved or "elect" when Jesus and the Apostles all tell you "if your remain"--"if you endure to the end"--"if you continue to abide in me" you are "saved" and "elect", but that is not permanent in this life unless the believer chooses to remain in the "state of elect or salvation".  It's only made permanent after this life when you've been perfected and glorified.





> So, to answer your question, the difference would be one has the life of God inside them, and the other is still spiritually dead.







> A truly saved person always comes back to God, because God makes sure of it, and because they they are a new creation, sealed with the Spirit, and the scriptures are clear that once someone has passed from death to life, that's it. You can't go back and forth..


We're only "sealed" as long as we *choose* to remain in Christ and no--God does not make sure that you return, God said* "return unto Me and I will return unto you"--*because it's always our choice in this life to serve whomever we choose.  Not everyone returns to God.  It doesn't mean that they weren't once in the state of elect and saved.  It means they abandoned the Spirit of the Lord. 

  You're trying to say that God forces us to return to Him--that's not biblical.  We are told as long as "WE ENDURE".  Enduring is not God making us return to Him.  All through the Bible God says--return unto Me and I will return unto you.   He will not "make us return unto Him".  He could if He wanted to, but that's not how God designed our salvation.  He gave us a choice for a reason.  Some do not return--"return" being the Key word here--they were once "saved" and because they did not return to God--He did not return to them.  Same as being "renewed to repentance"--they were once able to repent being saved and now they're become lost back into unbelief.  A belief is nothing without doing something in response to that same belief--as in works of faith in that same belief.






> Well, some people say that the breathing was not the actual indwelling yet but a symbolic act as a preview of what was to come... but either way, that was after Judas, as you stated. 
> 
> As for the power, the scriptures say that Jesus gave them authority over unclean spirits.  (Mark 6:7, Matt 10:1)  The scriptures don't say that much about it... so I'm not sure why you are asking me, as if I am omniscient.  I can only go by what the bible says.   Jesus gave them authority.  
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say, as far as I've seen.  BUT even if it was the Holy Spirit, that's still irrelevant to the discussion we've been having about whether or not Judas was saved.


Jesus made Judas an apostle of the ministry--Jesus chose Judas in the beginning.  Judas confessed belief and walked with Jesus for three years.  The word tells you that Judas transgressed and fell.  You can't *assume* anything other than what the scripture tells you.  Just the same as you *assumed* and added the words "faith alone justifies"--when that phrase does not exist in the Bible.  The only time "faith alone" appears in the Bible is when you're being told that "faith alone is dead without works".  We are justified by faith only because our good works are the evidence of our faith and belief in Christ. 




> I think I've stated at least 3 or 4 times now that the Spirit of God can temporarily come upon unsaved people.   God can temporarily use whoever he wants.  How many times does that have to be said?


Find the scripture to back that up.  You say a lot of things that you can't back up with scripture and the scriptures you post don't apply to what you think they do.




> Keep this in mind:
> 
> Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?”   Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.




God foreknows who will remain with Him and who won't, but doesn't mean that that God chooses for us or that they were never saved at some point and fell.  Same with Judas--Jesus foreknew Judas would betray Him in the end.  Still, in the beginning Jesus chose Judas as an apostle to the ministry.  The devil entered Judas long enough to betray Jesus, but in the end--the Bible tells us that Judas repented, cried in grief for what he'd done, tossed the money away and then hung himself in remorse.  The devil has no remorse for innocent blood.




> John 6:70-71





> In your insistence that Judas was saved at one time... despite ALL the evidence to the contrary... you really have to bend over backwards to try to make that work.


No--spiritual common sense tells you that Judas was indeed saved at one point--transgressed and fell.  Judas chose his own path because of greed.  That's the only way the devil could enter Judas is by Judas allowing it.






> I replied to you about Balaam on the previous page,  *here*, just in case you missed it.
> 
> 
> 
> You're still not getting that simply communicating with God, being used by God temporarily does not make someone a true man of God.  On my post about Balaam, I linked to a commentary on Numbers 22, in audio form.  If you are genuinely interested (which I'm not so sure you are, or if you just want to argue about this)  then please listen to the commentary.  He goes into the whole story in-depth, and shows how Balaam is a perfect example of someone who has a gift that he misused, "selling it" to whoever... and even though if you read the chapters quickly at first glance he might appear to be the real deal.... when you dig a little deeper, you'll see that he's not.



It's amazing what you add to scripture to support your belief in OSAS.  You're simply in denial of the fact that people can choose to walk away from God and not return.  God said "return unto Me and I will return unto you".  What is that saying to you?  

Jeremiah 4:1

If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the Lord, *return unto me: and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then shalt thou not remove.

*Malachi 3:7

Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. *Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts.
*
Amos 4: 11 I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: *yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the Lord.
*



> I realize you're not saying he was ultimately saved, but only saved before.  My point still stands.
> 
> As for the Matthew verse,  it shows that people can "serve" God and do things in His name, without actually belonging to Him.    That is why I brought it up.


That is because God chooses to reveal Himself to unbelievers when He wants to-- even if the person doing something for them in the name of Jesus doesn't actually have the spirit of the Lord in them.  Hence when they said that they'd done works and wonders in the name of Jesus--Jesus said--go away I never knew you.  


You're only "saved" or "elect" as long as you walk in the Spirit of the Lord and to the very end of this life.  You're either in the spirit or you're not.  Why do you think all through the NT you're told as long as you *endure* to the "end"---you're saved.  

Matthew 10:22

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: *but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

*1 Peter 1:13

Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, *and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ

*Romans 1:11

For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, *to the end ye may be established*;

*Revelation 3:5

5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
*

What has a once saved always saved person have to overcome in this life?  Jesus isn't talking about "overcoming" up to the point of confession and belief.  Jesus is talking about overcoming to the end of this life *after* confession of belief.

----------


## Deborah K

> That's called "stumbling" because they're weak in faith, which requires repentance to return back to God in any case of "stumbling".  
> 
> 
> 
> Only God knows when someone will not return.  This is not for you to say or to judge in any case because we do not know the heart of anyone--only God does.  You're denying that it's possible for a "saved" or "elect" person to lose that state of being "saved or "elect" when Jesus and the Apostles all tell you "if your remain"--"if you endure to the end"--"if you continue to abide in me" you are "saved" and "elect", but that is not permanent in this life unless the believer chooses to remain in the "state of elect or salvation".  It's only made permanent after this life when you've been perfected and glorified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And, I'd like to add:

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds.
Matthew 16:27

----------


## Terry1

> And, I'd like to add:
> 
> For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds.
> Matthew 16:27


That is true Deb.  Because our works/deeds are what give evidence as to whom we follow and believed in--whether they were dead works of the old Mosaic law or good works of faith in Christ.  Our "deeds" "works" or "good works" are the only way God will judge us.  Our faith is our good works and what we're called to do to the very end of our lives.  This isn't "earing our salvation--this is answering our calling in Christ and doing what the Lord has commanded us to do by loving others the same as we love God and ourselves.  Jesus tells us that they're our light and the only way to glorify the Father in heaven.  

The OSAS people do not understand the difference between the two major covenants or why St. Paul talks about two polar opposite set of works that are not to be done and to be done.  It becomes frustrating at a point because something that I see so clearly and others as well is not apparent to those who've been literally indoctrinated by this false teaching.  It makes one want to just say--hey--wake up! 

I realize that I may have sounded a bit hard to Lily, but Lily has been a bit of a pill to me lately--as everyone has seen between her and Kevin.  She's basically been living in my rep box nep repping me for posts that weren't even directed towards anyone, but only my opinion.  The insults have flown about amidst the threads. 

I think I'm going to be taking a break from all of this for a while.  I haven't really got the time to spend like I have been and I'm neglecting other things that need to be done instead.

I apologize to anyone that I have offended if I did at all.  I also realize that if my witness lacks the love of Christ it isn't much good to anyone.   So I think it's time for me to take a little break from the group for a while.  It's hard to stay away, but sometimes needed to reflect on my own short fallings.  God bless everyone and may blind eyes be opened to the truth.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*James vs Paul

*Only about 375,000,000 results? Slackers. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=Jame...gbv=2&oq=&gs_l=

----------

