# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  The Luther "sin boldly" quote.

## jmdrake

I saw this posted in the "no man can snatch them out of my hand" thread and decided to start a new thread because 1) the purpose of that thread was not to criticize anyone else or anyone else's beliefs and 2) I thought this deserved it's own thread.

Anyway, no reference was given, but Google showed the quote to (apparently) be a collection of quotes from Martin Luther.  

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quot....Martin_Luther

Here's one:

_Be a sinner and sin﻿﻿ boldly,﻿ but believe and﻿﻿ rejoice in Christ even more boldly._ 

Here's another part.

_"Whenever the devil harasses you, seek the company of men or drink more, or joke and talk nonsense, or do some other merry thing. Sometimes we must drink more, sport, recreate ourselves, and even sin a little to spite the devil, so that we leave him no place for troubling our consciences with trifles. We are conquered if we try too conscientiously not to sin at all. So when the devil says to you: do not drink, answer him: I will drink, and right freely, just because you tell me not to."_ 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think Catholics or Eastern Orthodox Christians believed alcohol per se to be sinful?  The communion wine is real wine right?  And monks are known to run wineries and make beer.  I don't know of a version of Christianity where joking is considered sinful or "some other merry thing."  Note I didn't see where Luther said "Go ahead and take God's name as a curse word a few times" or "sleep with another man's wife occasionally" or "just steal a little" or "make up lies about people every once in a while or "covet a little bit" or "disrespect your parents occasionally" or any of the other 10 commandments.  All I see is him talking about things that some people *think* are sins, but aren't universally condemned as sins.  Certainly Luther knew that most people don't think joking is sinful.  So perhaps the quote is more tongue in cheek.  If you want something to feel guilty about someone will always oblige you.

Best Luther quote from the link?

_So when the devil throws your sins in your face and declares that you deserve death and hell, tell him this: "I admit that I deserve death and hell, what of it? For I know One who suffered and made satisfaction on my behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, Son of God, and where He is there I shall be also!_

----------


## phill4paul

Interesting stuff there jm. I belonged to a Lutheran church scout troop. I remember the pastor, no he was called "father", would order whole boxes of wine bottles. I was too young to participate but I do remember him telling another member "wine on Weds." Seems he would consecrate the wine for Sunday service. Then on the following Weds. the "laymen" would gather and polish off a coupla bottles so the "consecration" would not go to waste. Ha!

  I'm with Luther on this one. We are human. I don't think one can truly define sin unless one has experienced it and feels remorse and repentance. It's one thing to sit in high judgement having never experienced sin and quite another to have experienced it and ascended. 

  I dunno. I just know every now and then I need to raise a little hell to feel human and mortal. Because at 50 after a night of raising hell I feel extremely mortal the next day.

----------


## jmdrake

Hmmmm....I think some sins I will learn about from the experience of others.  It's kinda hard to recover from the "suicide" sin.   That said, I don't think God wants us to sit around and worry about "God's going to be mad if I do this or I don't do that."  Rather I think God wants us to think "You know?  I'll probably be happier in the long run if I follow what God's laid out for me.  He loves me and wouldn't keep me from anything really good for me or make me do anything that was really bad for me."

----------


## phill4paul

> Hmmmm....I think some sins I will learn about from the experience of others.  It's kinda hard to recover from the "suicide" sin.   That said, I don't think God wants us to sit around and worry about "God's going to be mad if I do this or I don't do that."  Rather I think God wants us to think "You know?  I'll probably be happier in the long run if I follow what God's laid out for me.  He loves me and wouldn't keep me from anything really good for me or make me do anything that was really bad for me."


  Well, I've $#@!ed up many times on my path. I've been into some dark places. By _somethings_ grace I was able to overcome my, well, "suicidal" is a good word for it, tendencies. All here know that I am not a Christian. I avoid this forum like the plague. However, having "been there, done that" has made me who I am and has allowed me to guide my nephews and nieces when they thought they were so far gone that they couldn't face their parents. 
  I'm not trying to glamorize it. I do believe life was meant to be _lived_. It's not always pretty. But, wisdom comes at a price. Wisdom is rooted in experience.

----------


## RJB

I have a good friend who is a Lutheran pastor*** who wears a shirt that says that.  We we're talking about starting a church softball league before I moved to another town and joked about only inviting drinking churches to join.  That was off topic but I thought it was funny. 

Drinking isn't considered a sin unless done to the point where there is a loss of control, such as where it might lead to something else like adultery or it damages your means to support your family or relate to others.

That said "sin boldly," always made me uncomfortable.  I get the sentiment, but I've found in the past, committing major sins affects my prayer life a lot.  Granted he wasn't referring to adultery and the like, but still...

As to the thread you mentioned, I stayed away from that because I find too often one side accuses the other of being antinomians--  which isn't true, and the other side accuses their opponents of believing that we are on our own without God's help-- which isn't true either.  I do think it's possible to lose one's salvation-- based on those verses, however I do trust God to keep me safe from such things that would do just that-- just saying.

***BTW just so you don't think I'm the type of Catholic who says-- some of my best friends are Protestants (Like the raceist who says some of his best friends are black.)  Our wives were best friends.  And him being a pastor in a small town found it easier to relax around someone who wasn't in his congregation, and I was a physician in the same small town and had somewhat the same issue.  So we share quite a few beers and got along great.  Usually we saved religious discussions for when he was drinking whiskey.

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, I've $#@!ed up many times on my path. I've been into some dark places. By _somethings_ grace I was able to overcome my, well, "suicidal" is a good word for it, tendencies. All here know that I am not a Christian. I avoid this forum like the plague. However, having "been there, done that" has made me who I am and has allowed me to guide my nephews and nieces when they thought they were so far gone that they couldn't face their parents. 
>   I'm not trying to glamorize it. I do believe life was meant to be _lived_. It's not always pretty. But, wisdom comes at a price. Wisdom is rooted in experience.


Oh I totally agree!  There's nothing like someone who's "been there/done that/survived by God's grace to tell the tell" to help someone else along.  I think one disservice many do to the next generation is not being honest about where we've come from.  I hope my boys don't make the same mistakes I have.  (One's already picked up on the "I'm smart enough to slack my way though school" habit much to my chagrin.)  But if/when they do I won't condemn them for it.  I'll just try to help them pick up the pieces.  But I *hope* they won't have too.  Some of these life experiences have been mighty rough on their old man.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -Ben Franklin    I've never heard my Orthodox priest say that alcohol ought not not be consumed.  Gluttony is generally considered sinful, and temperance/moderation virtuous.   Caveat-certain fast days require specific types of fasting.  IDR, but I believe some of them include alcohol.  That's offset by teh feast days, though.

----------


## specsaregood

> "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -Ben Franklin    I've never heard my Orthodox priest say that alcohol ought not not be consumed.


At the catholic university I attended there was a priest that lived in the dorms.  If an R.A. caught you with alcohol you would get written up, fined and they would contact your parents.  If the priest caught you, he would make you sit there while he drank a beer or shots then send you on your unhappy way as he returned to his room with the rest.

----------


## phill4paul

> As to the thread you mentioned, I stayed away from that because I find too often one side accuses the other of being antinomians--  which isn't true, and the other side accuses their opponents of believing that we are on our own without God's help-- which isn't true either.


  I just learned a new word. Antinomian.  Thank you. As far as "truth." Well, who the hell knows? I don't. The trouble that I have with most is that they have a belief that they label as "truth." Truth to one is not the same as truth to another. That is the human condition. The human condition is what we live in in this particular existence. If I'm not mistaken, from a creationist stand point, that was the whole point. Living the human condition. And seeking to ascend. Even those that found solace in the wilderness first experienced the destructive Behavior which seems to be an exclusively human condition.

----------


## phill4paul

> I hope my boys don't make the same mistakes I have.  (One's already picked up on the "I'm smart enough to slack my way though school" habit much to my chagrin.)


  Nip that in the bud if able. Tell him that he is not there to meet their low expectation but that he is in a position to exceed them and meet his own expectations. Emphasize that he is better than even their best expectations. I never had anyone tell me that. I could have done better.
  I went to a private school in 8th and 9th grade. When the school was folding I transferred to a public school. I was able to skate based on what I did during my two years at private school. Recycled everything I had already done. What a waste! 
  work on that my friend. It's a cliche but "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."

----------


## Terry1

I'm certainly not against a cocktail once in a while, but Luther's exact quotes were these regarding OSAS.

*""No sin will separate us from the lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day."* 

I don't mean to be a party pooper here, but hey---whatever. 

My great grandfather on my Dad's side was a Lutheran Pastor--a judge and he owned the entire town they lived in, but--I never knew the man behind the pulpit and could explain all of those old whiskey bottles we found hidden in a trunk in the attic when he died along with the pantaloons.  They could've been great grandma's, but then--we'll never know.

There's a lot of sites out there listing Luther's quotes that will raise the hair on the heads of those who read them.  Luther was clearly an apostate in my mind who believed very much in "boldly sinning all the more" and believed murder was justified.  I'll let you all go hunting for them.  I won't post them and spoil the party.

----------


## Terry1

> I just learned a new word. Antinomian.  Thank you. As far as "truth." Well, who the hell knows? I don't. The trouble that I have with most is that they have a belief that they label as "truth." Truth to one is not the same as truth to another. That is the human condition. The human condition is what we live in in this particular existence. If I'm not mistaken, from a creationist stand point, that was the whole point. Living the human condition. And seeking to ascend. Even those that found solace in the wilderness first experienced the destructive Behavior which seems to be an exclusively human condition.


This is why God gave us His word and His truth.  Why only some come to see it and others don't--only God knows this too.  I think it has a lot to do with our priorities in life and what has become the most meaningful to anyone in theirs and why.

Some people are satisfied to believe there's nothing beyond this life and all this life adds up to is a dirt nap and becoming fertilizer.  Some people don't need to worry about anything in this life because they've been given everything they'll ever want or need too.  I find it sad that some will never seek to understand or know what lays ahead of them beyond this life.  Then again--it's always their choice in the end and the end could very well be today for any one of us--we have no control over that.  Life is frail in this world--uncertainty of it is a fact.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Oh I totally agree!  There's nothing like someone who's "been there/done that/survived by God's grace to tell the tell" to help someone else along.  I think one disservice many do to the next generation is not being honest about where we've come from.  I hope my boys don't make the same mistakes I have.  (One's already picked up on the "I'm smart enough to slack my way though school" habit much to my chagrin.)  But if/when they do I won't condemn them for it.  I'll just try to help them pick up the pieces.  But I *hope* they won't have too.  Some of these life experiences have been mighty rough on their old man.


I'm hoping my super smart Kindergartner doesn't pick up that habit as well.  I came in the top 10% of my class with minimal effort.  If I paid attention in class it was enough for me to get Bs and above. :/  I could have been valedictorian if I had gave a $hit.

I also made plenty of mistakes and have considered the conundrum of a child growing up in a devout Christian family vs the part-time Catholic family I grew up in.  I am EXTREMELY thankful for the grace and forgiveness of my Savior - BECAUSE - of my past.  Does a child baptized at 8 that never strays far really have the depth of knowledge with regards to that love?   Would they be more legalistic than loving because they can't empathize with people?

----------


## fisharmor

> It's a cliche but "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."


Well let me get the off-topic out of the way to start with... your boy isn't going to get better.  Odds are there are one or two classes that he actually has to put a modicum of work into, and five or six more filler classes.
My plan for my daughter is to get her going to community college as quickly as possible.  No employer cares about high school.  When she's ready to do 6-8 credits per semester I'm starting her on stuff that counts.  If she starts at 14 and takes it at a total snail's pace, she could have an associate's degree by 18.  I'm not going to let anyone waster her time.






> I'm certainly not against a cocktail once in a while, but Luther's exact quotes were these regarding OSAS.


Well, be fair here.  It's possible to pick out things a person said that are valid, while decrying other things.  We certainly do it with Augustine.  
The doctrinal documents of Lutheranism clearly decry OSAS.




> III. The Righteousness of Faith Before God.
> ....
> Therefore we reject and condemn all the following errors:
> ....
> 5. That faith is such a trust in the obedience of Christ as can exist and remain in a man even when he has no genuine repentance, in whom also no love follows, but who persists in sins against his conscience.





> 22] But when we teach that through the operation of the Holy Ghost we are born anew and justified, the sense is not that after regeneration no unrighteousness clings any more to the justified and regenerate in their being and life, but that Christ covers all their sins which nevertheless in this life still inhere in nature with His complete obedience. But irrespective of this they are declared and regarded godly and righteous by faith and for the sake of Christ's obedience (which Christ rendered the Father for us from His birth to His most ignominious death upon the cross), although, on account of their corrupt nature, they still are and remain sinners to the grave [while they bear about this mortal body]. Nor, on the other hand, is this the meaning, that without repentance, conversion, and renewal we might or should yield to sins, and remain and continue in them.
> 
> 23] For true [and not feigned] contrition must precede; and to those who, in the manner stated, out of pure grace, for the sake of the only Mediator, Christ, without any works and merit, are righteous before God, that is, are received into grace, the Holy Ghost is also given, who renews and sanctifies them, and works in them love to God and to their neighbor. But since the incipient renewal is imperfect in this life, and sin still dwells in the flesh, even in the regenerate, the righteousness of faith before God consists in the gracious imputation of the righteousness of Christ, without the addition of our works, so that our sins are forgiven us and covered, and are not imputed, Rom. 4:6ff
> 
> 
> 24] But here very good attention must be given with especial diligence, if the article of justification is to remain pure, lest that which precedes faith, and that which follows after it, be mingled together or inserted into the article of justification as necessary and belonging to it, because it is not one or the same thing to speak of conversion and of justification.
> 
> 
> 25] For not everything that belongs to conversion belongs likewise to the article of justification, in and to which belong and are necessary only the grace of God, the merit of Christ, and faith, which receives this in the promise of the Gospel, whereby the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, whence we receive and have forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, sonship, and heirship of eternal life.
> ...


Luther's point in those quotes wasn't to spread OSAS.  It was to _reassure_ those listening, that even though they continue to sin, Christ still saves them (provided they are still contrite).

Likewise with the "sin boldly" quote.  Here's more of it.



> "If you are a preacher of Grace, then preach a true, not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly.


His point in that quote isn't to tell people to sin.  It's to reinforce that they *are* sinning, and sinning boldly... but must believe in Christ even more boldly.


I think a lot of what Luther said gets taken out of context.  None of this is why I left Lutheranism.  I didn't even leave over the "lock the jews in their homes and burn them to the ground" quote.

I left for these reasons, in this order.
1) As I just showed, some of what Luther said has to be balanced with other things he said.  Melanchthon is even more tricky: large segments of actual doctrinal documents he wrote have to be tossed out in order to get his writings to jive with traditional Lutheranism.

2) This amounts to nothing more than a "holy tradition" of Lutheranism.  

3) Therefore, Lutherans believe in the concept of holy tradition.  Not one of them admits it: those that do, leave.  They as a group suffer from cognitive dissonance on this issue.

4) But they are vehemently against the T word, and they're preprogrammed to attack anyone who appeals to tradition in a theological argument.  Thus the situation today: great numbers of cradle Lutherans have no idea that the documents I quoted above even exist, let alone what's in them.  Individual Lutheran congregations make no examination of their members' beliefs; people openly believing OSAS are just as welcome at the communion rail as those who know and adhere to actual Lutheran doctrine.

5) So a modern compromise has been struck: as long as members believe in basically two doctrines (justification by faith, and the actual presence of Christ at communion, which oftentimes isn't even attributed to presence in the elements) then members are free to stay, free to commune, free to teach the congregation's children, free even to serve as elders and be in spiritual charge of the rest of the members _and, in most cases, also the pastor_.


I still subscribe to much of the actual Lutheran doctrine, because a lot of what they are _supposed_ to believe is actually not at odds with Orthodoxy.  Once I realized that, and after I realized the extent of the abject mess in Lutheranism, and when I realized that by joining Orthodoxy I would be sharing a faith with others _who probably believed more of Lutheran doctrine than Lutherans do in practice_, the choice was pretty easy.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm certainly not against a cocktail once in a while, but Luther's exact quotes were these regarding OSAS.
> 
> *""No sin will separate us from the lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day."* 
> 
> I don't mean to be a party pooper here, but hey---whatever. 
> 
> My great grandfather on my Dad's side was a Lutheran Pastor--a judge and he owned the entire town they lived in, but--I never knew the man behind the pulpit and could explain all of those old whiskey bottles we found hidden in a trunk in the attic when he died along with the pantaloons.  They could've been great grandma's, but then--we'll never know.
> 
> There's a lot of sites out there listing Luther's quotes that will raise the hair on the heads of those who read them.  Luther was clearly an apostate in my mind who believed very much in "boldly sinning all the more" and believed murder was justified.  I'll let you all go hunting for them.  I won't post them and spoil the party.


Link please?  Because so far you haven't provided any.  I had to look up what I found on my own and it wasn't easy.

Edit: Never mind.  I found the quote myself.

http://tquid.sharpens.org/sin_boldly.htm

_“If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious﻿﻿ sinners. Be a sinner and sin﻿﻿ boldly,﻿ ﻿ but believe and﻿﻿ rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world]﻿ ﻿ we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness,﻿ ﻿ but, as Peter says,﻿ ﻿ we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness﻿﻿ dwells. It is enough that by﻿﻿ the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world.﻿ ﻿ No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins﻿﻿ by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.﻿”[23]_

Hmmmmm....if I committed 1,000 cold blooded murders in a day would that put me beyond the atonement of Jesus?  I think not.  Is Luther advocating Antinomianism here?  (Thanks RJB for bringing that word into the discussion.  It's new to me to.)  Let's see Luther's views on the subject.

Cliff notes version from Wikipedia:
_Early in 1537, Johannes Agricola (1494–1566) – serving at the time as pastor in Luther's birthplace, Eisleben – preached a sermon in which he claimed that God's gospel, not God's moral law (the Ten Commandments), revealed God's wrath to Christians. Based on this sermon and others by Agricola, Luther suspected that Agricola was behind certain anonymous antinomian theses circulating in Wittenberg. These theses asserted that the law is no longer to be taught to Christians but belonged only to city hall.[181] Luther responded to these theses with six series of theses against Agricola and the antinomians, four of which became the basis for disputations between 1538 and 1540.[182] He also responded to these assertions in other writings, such as his 1539 open letter to C. Güttel Against the Antinomians,[183] and his book On the Councils and the Church from the same year.[184]

In his theses and disputations against the antinomians, Luther reviews and reaffirms, on the one hand, what has been called the "second use of the law," that is, the law as the Holy Spirit's tool to work sorrow over sin in man's heart, thus preparing him for Christ's fulfillment of the law offered in the gospel.[185] Luther states that everything that is used to work sorrow over sin is called the law, even if it is Christ's life, Christ's death for sin, or God's goodness experienced in creation.[186] Simply refusing to preach the Ten Commandments among Christians – thereby, as it were, removing the three letters l-a-w from the church – does not eliminate the accusing law.[187] Claiming that the law – in any form – should not be preached to Christians anymore would be tantamount to asserting that Christians are no longer sinners in themselves and that the church consists only of essentially holy people.[188]

On the other hand, Luther also points out that the Ten Commandments – when considered not as God's condemning judgment but as an expression of his eternal will, that is, of the natural law – also positively teach how the Christian ought to live.[189] This has traditionally been called the "third use of the law."[190] For Luther, also Christ's life, when understood as an example, is nothing more than an illustration of the Ten Commandments, which a Christian should follow in his or her vocations on a daily basis.[191]

The Ten Commandments, and the beginnings of the renewed life of Christians accorded to them by the sacrament of baptism, are a present foreshadowing of the believers' future angel-like life in heaven in the midst of this life.[192] Luther's teaching of the Ten Commandments, therefore, has clear eschatological overtones, which, characteristically for Luther, do not encourage world-flight but direct the Christian to service to the neighbor in the common, daily vocations of this perishing world._

And the reference: http://www.lutheranpress.com/docs/ODE-prev-Ch1.pdf

----------


## Terry1

> Link please?  Because so far you haven't provided any.  I had to look up what I found on my own and it wasn't easy.
> 
> Edit: Never mind.  I found the quote myself.
> 
> http://tquid.sharpens.org/sin_boldly.htm
> 
> _“If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious﻿﻿ sinners. Be a sinner and sin﻿﻿ boldly,﻿ ﻿ but believe and﻿﻿ rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world]﻿ ﻿ we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness,﻿ ﻿ but, as Peter says,﻿ ﻿ we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness﻿﻿ dwells. It is enough that by﻿﻿ the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world.﻿ ﻿ No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins﻿﻿ by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.﻿”[23]_
> 
> Hmmmmm....if I committed 1,000 cold blooded murders in a day would that put me beyond the atonement of Jesus?  I think not.  Is Luther advocating Antinomianism here?  (Thanks RJB for bringing that word into the discussion.  It's new to me to.)  Let's see Luther's views on the subject.
> ...


This statement here is rather disturbing jmd:

*"Hmmmmm....if I committed 1,000 cold blooded murders in a day would that put me beyond the atonement of Jesus? I think not. Is Luther advocating Antinomianism here? (Thanks RJB for bringing that word into the discussion. It's new to me to.) Let's see Luther's views on the subject."
*

Respectfully here--I actually don't know how many ways one can read that who follows the Gospel of Christ and not see a glaring error there.  What were the two greatest commandments upon which hang all the Law and the Prophets?

So I take it then that you don't believe anyone can lose their salvation in this life?  How long do you think one can live in a murderous and adulterous state while still believing they're saved no matter what?  Maybe I should ask--how long do you think God will allow someone who's already confessed belief in Christ to live this way before He gives up on them?

----------


## jmdrake

> This statement here is rather disturbing jmd:
> 
> *"Hmmmmm....if I committed 1,000 cold blooded murders in a day would that put me beyond the atonement of Jesus? I think not. Is Luther advocating Antinomianism here? (Thanks RJB for bringing that word into the discussion. It's new to me to.) Let's see Luther's views on the subject."
> *
> 
> Respectfully here--I actually don't know how many ways one can read that who follows the Gospel of Christ and not see a glaring error there.  What were the two greatest commandments upon which hang all the Law and the Prophets?
> 
> So I take it then that you don't believe anyone can lose their salvation in this life?  How long do you think one can live in a murderous and adulterous state while still believing they're saved no matter what?  Maybe I should ask--how long do you think God will allow someone who's already confessed belief in Christ to live this way before He gives up on them?


Why is it disturbing?  If you had lived in Germany right after WW II and a Nazi who ran the gas chambers asked you if he was beyond salvation would you tell him "Why yes!  You killed a thousand people in a day!"  I wouldn't.




> So I take it then that you don't believe anyone can lose their salvation in this life? How long do you think one can live in a murderous and adulterous state while still believing they're saved no matter what? Maybe I should ask--how long do you think God will allow someone who's already confessed belief in Christ to live this way before He gives up on them?


No.  With all due respect that's an odd question considering I posted the thread saying that someone could chose to leave Jesus and be lost.  I'm saying that there is no set amount of sin that is beyond Jesus' power to forgive.  How many Christians did Saul kill before he became Paul?  If he didn't kill 1,000 in a day it was not for lack of trying.  That doesn't mean "Go out and kill 1,000 people because murder doesn't matter."  Of course it does.  Even if you are forgiven, as David was for murdering Uriah, there is still a price to pay.  And if you don't repent, that price includes hell.  God initiates your desire to repent, but (I believe anyway) He still allows you the free will to resist His promptings for you to repent.  Any other questions?

----------


## Terry1

> Why is it disturbing?  If you had lived in Germany right after WW II and a Nazi who ran the gas chambers asked you if he was beyond salvation would you tell him "Why yes!  You killed a thousand people in a day!"  I wouldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  With all due respect that's an odd question considering I posted the thread saying that someone could chose to leave Jesus and be lost.  I'm saying that there is no set amount of sin that is beyond Jesus' power to forgive.  How many Christians did Saul kill before he became Paul?  If he didn't kill 1,000 in a day it was not for lack of trying.  That doesn't mean "Go out and kill 1,000 people because murder doesn't matter."  Of course it does.  Even if you are forgiven, as David was for murdering Uriah, there is still a price to pay.  And if you don't repent, that price includes hell.  God initiates your desire to repent, but (I believe anyway) He still allows you the free will to resist His promptings for you to repent.  Any other questions?


Wasn't Luther advocating an unrepentant life of "boldly sinning" ie--adultery and murder though after confession of belief?  Luther's philosophy was one of 


“Be a sinner and sin﻿﻿ boldly,﻿ but believe and﻿﻿ rejoice in Christ even more boldly.” 

meaning that he was basically teaching the Total Depravity doctrine and that to "boldly sin all the more" is simply our nature to sin--so it's okay to sin all the more without repentance because then he teaches to believe that the blood of Christ will keep us covered no matter what we do or how long we continue to do it after we confess belief in Christ.  Yes--as RJB said--this is antinomianism.  These people believed that Gods grace and the resurrection of Christ gave them a license to "boldly sin all the more" without the need for repentance.

Generally people who believe this doctrine fully have no moral compass to stop them from doing anything to anyone no matter how evil or hateful it is.  Surely this is not a life being lived walking in the Spirit of the Lord.

This is just one of Luther's famous quotes on "beggars"--I haven't even posted the ones he wrote about the Jews.

*“To kill a pea**sant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!” – “If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs”[Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294].*

Now wouldn't that be something to envision--Christians running around slitting the throats of the homeless and then claiming that Jesus endorsed it.

----------


## jmdrake

Terry, I see you're still continuing the (slightly irritating) habit of posting quotes without links.  And every link I can find for the "Kill a peasant is not murder" quote is on an anti Luther website.  How is that different from Kevin posting stuff that you and others say is just from "anti Catholic" websites?  That's a rhetorical question.  Anyway, there is a reason I posted what I did about Luther's views on Antimonionism.  It doesn't look like you actually read what I took the trouble to post.  If you had then you would see why I don't think Luther was advocating what you believe he was advocating.  In "A modest proposal" Jonathan Swift seemingly advocated cannibalism.  Only he wasn't.




> Wasn't Luther advocating an unrepentant life of "boldly sinning" ie--adultery and murder though after confession of belief?  Luther's philosophy was one of 
> 
> 
> “Be a sinner and sin﻿﻿ boldly,﻿ but believe and﻿﻿ rejoice in Christ even more boldly.” 
> 
> meaning that he was basically teaching the Total Depravity doctrine and that to "boldly sin all the more" is simply our nature to sin--so it's okay to sin all the more without repentance because then he teaches to believe that the blood of Christ will keep us covered no matter what we do or how long we continue to do it after we confess belief in Christ.  Yes--as RJB said--this is antinomianism.  These people believed that Gods grace and the resurrection of Christ gave them a license to "boldly sin all the more" without the need for repentance.
> 
> Generally people who believe this doctrine fully have no moral compass to stop them from doing anything to anyone no matter how evil or hateful it is.  Surely this is not a life being lived walking in the Spirit of the Lord.
> 
> ...

----------


## Terry1

> Terry, I see you're still continuing the (slightly irritating) habit of posting quotes without links.  And every link I can find for the "Kill a peasant is not murder" quote is on an anti Luther website.  How is that different from Kevin posting stuff that you and others say is just from "anti Catholic" websites?  That's a rhetorical question.  Anyway, there is a reason I posted what I did about Luther's views on Antimonionism.  It doesn't look like you actually read what I took the trouble to post.  If you had then you would see why I don't think Luther was advocating what you believe he was advocating.  In "A modest proposal" Jonathan Swift seemingly advocated cannibalism.  Only he wasn't.



I can understand why it wouldn't be on a *pro-Luther* site.  Would you believe Wikipedia then with sources?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against...es_of_Peasants

----------


## Terry1

If you read that wiki link with all of the sources, it's basically saying the same thing that the anti-Luther sites are saying as well--only with less regard to Luther's brutal murderous nature.

In this quote here:

*Peasants' Revolt stemmed from Martin Luthers doctrine of spiritual freedom and the application of his ideas as religious justification for social and political upheaval. It is true that Luther offered useful tools to the peasants, his focus on Sola Scriptura put emphasis upon the priesthood of all believers*

Luther had basically inspired the peasants to rise up against TPTB believing the doctrine of depravity that he taught.  Then when Luther had to choose sides--he chose royalty and the princes instead of the peasants.  Now justifying the acts of murder against the peasants by the more royal and affluent of society and condemning the peasants for their uprising against them.  He basically betrayed the very people he first inspired to rise up against authority in the first place.

I didn't think I could have a lower opinion of this guy than I already had.   This wasn't so once upon a time when I was not as well informed as I am now.

For a guy who used to be a Catholic Priest and still retained many Catholic beliefs as well--calling him a "reformationist" is a far cry from the murdering despot he became not only regarding the peasants but the Jews as well.  

IMO--Luther not only tossed God off His throne and decided to punish those who didn't follow his doctrine of depravity lock step, but also was the Adolf Hitler of his own time regarding the Jewish people.  Then he finished the work of satan by rewriting the Gospel of Jesus to resemble something written by satan himself claiming that "sinning boldly and all the more" was simply being what and who we were created to be and that Jesus understands our nature--giving mankind the license and freedom by God's own Grace to live as ungodly and perverted and murderous as they want and still retain the kingdom heaven.  *shudder--quake--faint*

----------


## jmdrake

//

----------


## jmdrake

> If you read that wiki link with all of the sources, it's basically saying the same thing that the anti-Luther sites are saying as well--only with less regard to Luther's brutal murderous nature.


That put it in context. The Wikipedia page makes it sound like he's talking about killing peasants who in active revolt and are killing other people. In which case that is murder because......? 




> In this quote here:
> 
> *Peasants' Revolt stemmed from Martin Luther’s doctrine of spiritual freedom and the application of his ideas as religious justification for social and political upheaval. It is true that Luther offered useful tools to the peasants, his focus on Sola Scriptura put emphasis upon the priesthood of all believers*
> 
> Luther had basically inspired the peasants to rise up against TPTB believing the doctrine of depravity that he taught.  Then when Luther had to choose sides--he chose royalty and the princes instead of the peasants.  Now justifying the acts of murder against the peasants by the more royal and affluent of society and condemning the peasants for their uprising against them.  He basically betrayed the very people he first inspired to rise up against authority in the first place.


I believe in a priesthood of believers.  I think that's the correct interpretation of Peter's admonition that we are a "royal priesthood".  So if someone reads my writings and decides to go full retard that's my fault?  Read my links.  I think it's quite likely that our government was behind 9/11.  If someone reads my writings and goes full retard that's my fault?  If I see people rioting in my name and I come out hard against them and say "If the police shoot someone who is shooting at them and kills them it's not murder" then I'm a bad guy?




> I didn't think I could have a lower opinion of this guy than I already had.   This wasn't so once upon a time when I was not as well informed as I am now.


Perhaps.  But your wiki quote doesn't justify your animosity IMO.




> For a guy who used to be a Catholic Priest and still retained many Catholic beliefs as well--calling him a "reformationist" is a far cry from the murdering despot he became not only regarding the peasants but the Jews as well.


Again....peasants revolting...killing someone who is in the middle of an armed revolt is murder because.....?  I note that from the Wiki page it doesn't seem that Catholics were too upset about the "kill the murdering peasants" pamphlet.  Could it be because the Catholic church of the time didn't disagree?




> IMO--Luther not only tossed God off His throne and decided to punish those who didn't follow his doctrine of depravity lock step, but also was the Adolf Hitler of his own time regarding the Jewish people.  Then he finished the work of satan by rewriting the Gospel of Jesus to resemble something written by satan himself claiming that "sinning boldly and all the more" was simply being what and who we were created to be and that Jesus understands our nature--giving mankind the license and freedom by God's own Grace to live as ungodly and perverted and murderous as they want and still retain the kingdom heaven.  *shudder--quake--faint*


Ummmmmmm....okay.

----------


## Terry1

> That put it in context. The Wikipedia page makes it sound like he's talking about killing peasants who in active revolt and are killing other people. In which case that is murder because......? 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in a priesthood of believers.  I think that's the correct interpretation of Peter's admonition that we are a "royal priesthood".  So if someone reads my writings and decides to go full retard that's my fault?  Read my links.  I think it's quite likely that our government was behind 9/11.  If someone reads my writings and goes full retard that's my fault?  If I see people rioting in my name and I come out hard against them and say "If the police shoot someone who is shooting at them and kills them it's not murder" then I'm a bad guy?
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps.  But your wiki quote doesn't justify your animosity IMO.
> ...



Sorry--that last paragraph of mine read back to me like a rant.     Are you still SDA or have you converted to Lutheranism?  Just wondering here.

There was a day when I defended Luther--but then I'd only read parts and there were some parts that didn't seem so outrageous to me then--even then understanding that Luther called the book a James "A right strawy epistle".  Luther didn't agree with James--obviously most theological students already know this.  Calvin didn't like it either and most the reformers because they all followed Luther and Calvin mostly.  They just couldn't get the book of James to reconcile with the books of Romans and Galatians through their own "strawy" pitiful interpretations of them.  Luther even added words to his German translation in the book of James--I guess he was pretty desperate seeing it was the only way he could reconcile his interpretation.  And this is why the Bible is not "inerrant".

Luther and Calvin the way I see it--they just didn't want a change of the guard with regard to the Catholic church--they wanted to totally reinterpret the Gospel of Christ the way the Catholics taught it and they managed to do that too.

The way I see it--Luther, Calvin and the other reformers that hopped on board with them didn't stop at just fighting the Papacy of Rome and their traditions--the reformers went straight for the heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ too.  That's where they went too far IMO.  The Catholics had/have the Gospel right.

Now we've got a lot of Protestants to this very day running around contending that they have no need of repentance and that they're saved no matter what they do and how they live.  This is what Luther and Calvin did to the body of Christ and they certainly won that battle didn't they--although the war for souls still rages on in this world.   In heaven--it's already been fought and won.

I believe that God has a number in mind and when we reach that number and level of depravity in this world--God is going to start naming names out of both books.

----------


## lilymc

> Sorry--that last paragraph of mine read back to me like a rant.     Are you still SDA or have you converted to Lutheranism?  Just wondering here.
> 
> There was a day when I defended Luther--but then I'd only read parts and there were some parts that didn't seem so outrageous to me then--even then understanding that Luther called the book a James "A right strawy epistle".  Luther didn't agree with James--obviously most theological students already know this.  Calvin didn't like it either and most the reformers because they all followed Luther and Calvin mostly.  They just couldn't get the book of James to reconcile with the books of Romans and Galatians through their own "strawy" pitiful interpretations of them.  Luther even added words to his German translation in the book of James--I guess he was pretty desperate seeing it was the only way he could reconcile his interpretation.  And this is why the Bible is not "inerrant".
> 
> Luther and Calvin the way I see it--they just didn't want a change of the guard with regard to the Catholic church--they wanted to totally reinterpret the Gospel of Christ the way the Catholics taught it and they managed to do that too.
> 
> The way I see it--Luther, Calvin and the other reformers that hopped on board with them didn't stop at just fighting the Papacy of Rome and their traditions--the reformers went straight for the heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ too.  That's where they went too far IMO.  The Catholics had/have the Gospel right.
> 
> Now we've got a lot of Protestants to this very day running around contending that they have no need of repentance and that they're saved no matter what they do and how they live.  This is what Luther and Calvin did to the body of Christ and they certainly won that battle didn't they--although the war for souls still rages on in this world.   In heaven--it's already been fought and won.
> ...


One doesn't have to agree with Luther or Calvin to disagree with your entire view of the Gospel.   The Catholic church is wrong on numerous doctrines, and they completely mislead people, by not teaching the need to be born again and by teachings tons of things that are blatantly unbiblical.  And this is coming from someone who was brought up going to Catholic church.

You can continue to support an organization like the Catholic church, while promoting false doctrines and misinterpreting the scriptures, but to me that says so much about your discernment.

----------


## lilymc

Btw, I made a video a few days ago, that was in part inspired by some of the discussions on this site. 

Here it is, for anyone who would like to check it out.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Btw, I made a video a few days ago, that was in part inspired by some of the discussions on this site. 
> 
> Here it is, for anyone who would like to check it out.


Nice video.

----------


## fisharmor

Terry, you're misrepresenting Luther's views on sin and salvation.  As I pointed out above, those quotes about sinning boldly, and a thousand murders in a day not being able to separate one from Christ, are neither supporting OSAS nor are they supporting some kind of "can't help it, so f*#^ it, go ahead and sin" theology.

Luther was an unabashed statist, yes.
Luther called for the execution of revolting peasants, yes.
Luther wrote some despicable things about Jews, yes.

But he did not believe in OSAS, and he did not believe that we are free to live perverted or unGodly lives.  The letters and talks you're quoting to support that idea are not primary sources of his theology.  The primary sources are what are still used by conservative Lutherans, and they say the exact opposite of what you're claiming.

The man's epistemology is nonsense, and what good there is in what he believed is in shambles in Lutheran circles as a result.  There's plenty to knock the man on otherwise.

----------


## lilymc

> Nice video.


Thanks!

----------


## Kevin007

> I'm certainly not against a cocktail once in a while, but Luther's exact quotes were these regarding OSAS.
> 
> *""No sin will separate us from the lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day."* 
> 
> I don't mean to be a party pooper here, but hey---whatever. 
> 
> My great grandfather on my Dad's side was a Lutheran Pastor--a judge and he owned the entire town they lived in, but--I never knew the man behind the pulpit and could explain all of those old whiskey bottles we found hidden in a trunk in the attic when he died along with the pantaloons.  They could've been great grandma's, but then--we'll never know.
> 
> There's a lot of sites out there listing Luther's quotes that will raise the hair on the heads of those who read them.  Luther was clearly an apostate in my mind who believed very much in "boldly sinning all the more" and believed murder was justified.  I'll let you all go hunting for them.  I won't post them and spoil the party.


murder isn't just the physical as you know. I have killed many people in my mind through anger- I believe many Christians commit murder every single day.

----------


## jmdrake

> Sorry--that last paragraph of mine read back to me like a rant.     Are you still SDA or have you converted to Lutheranism?  Just wondering here.


Are you serious or joking?  Seventh Day Adventists are *protestant* Christians which, by definition, means we aren't Luther haters.  I dated a Lutheran once.  She was surprised to find out from her father, who was a Lutheran pastor, that in some ways my church agreed with her religion more than she did.  That said, when I see what I feel are unfair attacks against any religion, I take the other side. Because of that I've been accused of being Catholic, Muslim etc.  So I'll take your comment as a compliment.  It means I'm being consistent.




> There was a day when I defended Luther--but then I'd only read parts and there were some parts that didn't seem so outrageous to me then--even then understanding that Luther called the book a James "A right strawy epistle".  Luther didn't agree with James--obviously most theological students already know this.  Calvin didn't like it either and most the reformers because they all followed Luther and Calvin mostly.  They just couldn't get the book of James to reconcile with the books of Romans and Galatians through their own "strawy" pitiful interpretations of them.  Luther even added words to his German translation in the book of James--I guess he was pretty desperate seeing it was the only way he could reconcile his interpretation.  And this is why the Bible is not "inerrant".


I disagree with Luther's opinion on James.  I disagree with Calvin on TULIP.  But there is a difference between having a theological disagreement with someone and going along with what I see as slander.  Luther as Adolf Hitler?  Sorry, but that's a bit much.  And Luther wasn't giving a blanket justification for murdering peasants.  I read your link and it just didn't support that argument.  If you thought my rejection of OSAS meant I would join into a Luther hate fest, sorry to disappoint.




> Luther and Calvin the way I see it--they just didn't want a change of the guard with regard to the Catholic church--they wanted to totally reinterpret the Gospel of Christ the way the Catholics taught it and they managed to do that too.
> 
> The way I see it--Luther, Calvin and the other reformers that hopped on board with them didn't stop at just fighting the Papacy of Rome and their traditions--the reformers went straight for the heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ too.  That's where they went too far IMO.  The Catholics had/have the Gospel right.


I don't believe that a gospel that puts a human mediator between God and man is "right".  I don't believe in salvation by sacraments.  So no.  The Catholics do not have the Gospel right.  And no Seventh Day Adventist would ever say that.  But Calvin didn't get it right either.  I think Luther got it less wrong then Calvin.  I believe Wesley got it right.  But I also believe that Calvin was a victim of his own success.  If you read his writings you will find him less TULIPy than those who use his name.




> Now we've got a lot of Protestants to this very day running around contending that they have no need of repentance and that they're saved no matter what they do and how they live.  This is what Luther and Calvin did to the body of Christ and they certainly won that battle didn't they--although the war for souls still rages on in this world.   In heaven--it's already been fought and won.
> 
> I believe that God has a number in mind and when we reach that number and level of depravity in this world--God is going to start naming names out of both books.


From Luther's first 3 theses.

_When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent", He called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.

The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.

Yet its meaning is not restricted to repentance in one's heart; for such repentance is null unless it produces outward signs in various mortifications of the flesh._

How someone could get from that "Repentance isn't necessary" is beyond me.  I believe repentance is necessary.  I don't believe that confession to a priest is necessary.

----------


## Kevin007

jm- you're an SDA?

----------


## lilymc

> murder isn't just the physical as you know. I have killed many people in my mind through anger- I believe many Christians commit murder every single day.


Very good point.  Thank you for bringing in Jesus' perspective.... most people see things in a very worldly, physical way.

----------


## jmdrake

> jm- you're an SDA?


Yep.

----------


## lilymc

> How someone could get from that "Repentance isn't necessary" is beyond me.  I believe repentance is necessary.  I don't believe that confession to a priest is necessary.


Same here.  I don't know any Christians who think repentance is unnecessary.  I also don't know any Christians who have the attitude of: "Let's go sin to our heart's content, because we're saved!"     

As I said to Terry on the other thread, that is a misrepresentation, therefore a big fat straw man argument.

----------


## jmdrake

> Btw, I made a video a few days ago, that was in part inspired by some of the discussions on this site. 
> 
> Here it is, for anyone who would like to check it out.


Very good video.  I'm subscribing to your channel.

----------


## lilymc

> Yep.


This is off topic, but are you familiar with iEmanuella, a SDA Christian Youtuber?  (she used to be on YouTube.)

----------


## lilymc

> Very good video.  I'm subscribing to your channel.


Awesome, thanks jmdrake!!!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Same here.  I don't know any Christians who think repentance is unnecessary.  I also don't know any Christians who have the attitude of: "Let's go sin to our heart's content, because we're saved!"     
> 
> As I said to Terry on the other thread, that is a misrepresentation, therefore a big fat straw man argument.


I've told Terry this around a million times.  She's beyond help.  

I don't think there's a Reformed Christian here who thinks anything of her intelligence.  Why would we?  We've explained this stuff to her a million times.  She just doesn't get it.

By "Get it" I don't even mean agree.  I just mean don't strawman.  I don't think there's a single person who I've explained anarcho-capitalism to as many times as I've explained Perseverance of the Saints to Terry, and yet I still get extremely aggravated when people make strawmen arguments about an-cap after they've had it presented to them.  Terry has had 10 times the opportunity for something that is far simpler to grasp.  She's either intellectually incapable or blatantly dishonest.  I don't debate with her anymore.

----------


## jmdrake

> This is off topic, but are you familiar with iEmanuella, a SDA Christian Youtuber?  (she used to be on YouTube.)


No.  I'm not very versed in the YouTube culture.  I keep meaning to make videos myself but never get around to it.  Part of the problem is I don't like how I sound recorded.  I'll look up her channel though.

----------


## jmdrake

> Same here.  I don't know any Christians who think repentance is unnecessary.  I also don't know any Christians who have the attitude of: "Let's go sin to our heart's content, because we're saved!"     
> 
> As I said to Terry on the other thread, that is a misrepresentation, therefore a big fat straw man argument.


Sola_Fide would sometimes say repentance is not necessary and would tell me I needed to repent for believing that repentance is a necessity.  Needless to say I found that confusing.

----------


## lilymc

> No.  I'm not very versed in the YouTube culture.  I keep meaning to make videos myself but never get around to it.  Part of the problem is I don't like how I sound recorded.  I'll look up her channel though.


Well, she was awesome.  VERY intelligent, articulate, kind-hearted person with a heart for God.

BUT, she made a video that was very controversial (all she did was defend that Duck Dynasty man's view that homosexuality is a sin)  and she got absolutely ATTACKED by an avalanche of Youtube atheists, who swarmed to her channel and just ripped her apart.

It was so ugly, some of us couldn't believe it.  She even got death threats, pretty much.

So she shut down both her channels.  Which is really a shame, because her channels were really good, and she was an up and coming Christian Youtuber.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Sola_Fide would sometimes say repentance is not necessary and would tell me I needed to repent for believing that repentance is a necessity.  Needless to say I found that confusing.


Can you quote him?  I 100% agree that there's a nuance in SF's argument that you are missing.

----------


## AmericasLastHope

"Go! Eat your food with pleasure, and drink your wine with a merry heart; - for God is well pleased by your doing so."

-Ecclesiastes 9:7

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, she was awesome.  VERY intelligent, articulate, kind-hearted person with a heart for God.
> 
> BUT, she made a video that was very controversial (all she did was defend that Duck Dynasty man's view that homosexuality is a sin)  and she got absolutely ATTACKED by an avalanche of Youtube atheists, who swarmed to her channel and just ripped her apart.
> 
> It was so ugly, some of us couldn't believe it.  She even got death threats, pretty much.
> 
> So she shut down both her channels.  Which is really a shame, because her channels were really good, and she was an up and coming Christian Youtuber.


Oh.  I remember that.  Were you the one that asked people to comment in her defense?  I did.  I didn't know she shut down her channels but I can understand why.  Faceless cowards on the internet can be vicious.

----------


## lilymc

> Oh.  I remember that.  Were you the one that asked people to comment in her defense?  I did.  I didn't know she shut down her channels but I can understand why.  Faceless cowards on the internet can be vicious.


Ha, yeah, now that I think about it, I did post a thread here asking for people to help her.   It was brutal.

Hopefully at some point she'll come back to Youtube.

----------


## jmdrake

> Can you quote him?  I 100% agree that there's a nuance in SF's argument that you are missing.


I don't think I missed it.  SF is an idiot.  My proof?  I quoted an author he admires (or admired) on repentance and didn't give the reference.  He immediately attacked the author's writings as heresy.  See for yourself.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...light=Spurgeon

----------


## Christian Liberty

I only read the first couple of posts, but it is accurate to say that repentance is "necessary" for salvation without being a "condition" of salvation.  So, I agree with both Spurgeon quotes.  Repentance is necessary for salvation.  There is no saved person who does not repent.  But repentance is not a condition for being saved.  Rather, repentance is something that every person who God saves does at the moment of conversion.

Mind you, you could argue that I'm splitting hairs a little bit.  I don't always nitpick every little detail.  But, its not a contradiction.  The distinction is important.

----------


## acptulsa

If something is necessary for something else to happen, then something is a condition for something else to happen.

Surely there are better ways to constantly harp on the opinion that God micromanages everything than butchering the English language over it.

It's not only a vision of socialism as utopia, they've invented their own Newspeak to support it...

----------


## lilymc

> I only read the first couple of posts, but it is accurate to say that repentance is "necessary" for salvation without being a "condition" of salvation.  So, I agree with both Spurgeon quotes.  Repentance is necessary for salvation.  There is no saved person who does not repent.  But repentance is not a condition for being saved.  Rather, repentance is something that every person who God saves does at the moment of conversion.
> 
> Mind you, you could argue that I'm splitting hairs a little bit.  I don't always nitpick every little detail.  But, its not a contradiction.  The distinction is important.


I understand what you're saying.

Repentance actually means a change of mind.  http://biblehub.com/greek/3341.htm

I think that when a person truly understands who Jesus is  and that we have sinned and are in need of forgiveness, repentance goes along with a true, saving faith.

As this link says, it can be understood as two sides of the same coin:  http://www.gotquestions.org/repentance.html

----------


## jmdrake

> I only read the first couple of posts, but it is accurate to say that repentance is "necessary" for salvation without being a "condition" of salvation.  So, I agree with both Spurgeon quotes.  Repentance is necessary for salvation.  There is no saved person who does not repent.  But repentance is not a condition for being saved.  Rather, repentance is something that every person who God saves does at the moment of conversion.
> 
> Mind you, you could argue that I'm splitting hairs a little bit.  I don't always nitpick every little detail.  But, its not a contradiction.  The distinction is important.


That's doublespeak.  Do you believe that Jesus dying on the cross is not a condition for salvation?  Condition != something you do by yourself or even for yourself.  The problem with TULIP is that English has to be reinvented for it to work.  And even then it doesn't.

----------


## Kevin007

> That's doublespeak.  Do you believe that Jesus dying on the cross is not a condition for salvation?  Condition != something you do by yourself or even for yourself.  The problem with TULIP is that English has to be reinvented for it to work.  And even then it doesn't.


thats funny coming from someone who believes that Jesus is the Archangel Micheal.

----------


## jmdrake

> thats funny coming from someone who believes that Jesus is the Archangel Micheal.


That was once a common protestant belief.  Funny how far you've strayed from protestantism.  When Calvin wrote about Daniels vision he said Micheal was at least a representation of Jesus being the "Prince of your people".  And when Jesus descends with the "voice of the archangel" what exactly do you think that refers to?

Regardless, you reject the command of Jesus.  "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross DAILY and follow me."

----------


## Kevin007

Jesus being an angel was never ever my, or my church's belief or ANYONE I know. Please show me where in the Bible that Jesus is an angel?

----------


## Kevin007

> That was once a common protestant belief.  Funny how far you've strayed from protestantism.  When Calvin wrote about Daniels vision he said Micheal was at least a representation of Jesus being the "Prince of your people".  And when Jesus descends with the "voice of the archangel" what exactly do you think that refers to?
> 
> Regardless, you reject the command of Jesus.  "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross DAILY and follow me."


I don't reject it. I take up my cross everyday. The freedom I have is limitless because I am a child of God. I don't ever have to worry if I am good enough or if I fail or sin because Jesus covers it all- actually REMOVES my sins as far as from the east to the west.

----------


## jmdrake

> Jesus being an angel was never ever my, or my church's belief or ANYONE I know. Please show me where in the Bible that Jesus is an angel?


Did Jacob wrestle God or an angel?

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't reject it. I take up my cross everyday. The freedom I have is limitless because I am a child of God. I don't ever have to worry if I am good enough or if I fail or sin because Jesus covers it all- actually REMOVES my sins as far as from the east to the west.


That's nice.  Except following Jesus command, and it is a command not a suggestion, to take up your cross daily is not about being "good enough".  It's about realizing that you aren't good enough and without Him you can do nothing.  It's about continually abiding in Christ.  And no.  Your freedom is not "limitless".  Jesus made it clear that blaspheming the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven.  I'm not saying you've done that.  But I am saying that "limitless" freedom would imply no such restriction.

----------


## Kevin007

> Did Jacob wrestle God or an angel?


 Jacob wrestling was not a literal wrestling match- it was a spiritual one.

Heb.1:6 The Father tells all the angels to worship *the son*.

----------


## Kevin007

> That's nice.  Except following Jesus command, and it is a command not a suggestion, to take up your cross daily is not about being "good enough".  It's about realizing that you aren't good enough and without Him you can do nothing.  It's about continually abiding in Christ.  And no.  Your freedom is not "limitless".  Jesus made it clear that blaspheming the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven.  I'm not saying you've done that.  But I am saying that "limitless" freedom would imply no such restriction.



Taking up our cross daily isn't about salvation jm.

----------


## jmdrake

> Jacob wrestling was not a literal wrestling match- it was a spiritual one.


A) According to the Bible it was physical.  At the end of the match God dislocated Jacob's thigh.
B) Whether it was or not is irrelevant to my point.  The Bible both said Jacob wrestled God and that Jacob wrestled an angel.




> Heb.1:6 The Father tells all the angels to worship *the son*.


And your point is?  Actually you are making my point for me.  There are several places in the OT where angels are mentioned and they are worshiped.  For example Joshua worshiped the angel that appeared to him before the battle of Jericho.  That angel was referred to as the "captain of the Lord's host."  And yet the angel John saw in revelation strictly forbid John to worship him.  So why did the angel Joshua saw receive his worship?  Similarly it's generally wrong to worship men but fine to worship the man Jesus.

----------


## jmdrake

> Taking up our cross daily isn't about salvation jm.


Following Jesus is about salvation Kevin.  "If any man would come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily and FOLLOW Me."

----------


## Kevin007

> A) According to the Bible it was physical.  At the end of the match God dislocated Jacob's thigh.
> B) Whether it was or not is irrelevant to my point.  The Bible both said Jacob wrestled God and that Jacob wrestled an angel.
> 
> 
> 
> And your point is?  Actually you are making my point for me.  There are several places in the OT where angels are mentioned and they are worshiped.  For example Joshua worshiped the angel that appeared to him before the battle of Jericho.  That angel was referred to as the "captain of the Lord's host."  And yet the angel John saw in revelation strictly forbid John to worship him.  So why did the angel Joshua saw receive his worship?  Similarly it's generally wrong to worship men but fine to worship the man Jesus.


Angels are not to be worshiped, Only God.

----------


## Kevin007

> Following Jesus is about salvation Kevin.  "If any man would come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily and FOLLOW Me."


you are so wrong its sad. Jesus isn't talking about salvation. Because if we do this or do that to follow Him, that is about us and not Him. Jesus is talking about our WALK with Him. That is called SANCTIFICATION. Sanctification is a process (lifelong). Sanctification is partly under our control and something we do as we are obedient to the Spirit. Salvation is all of Jesus. If we could save ourselves or keep ourselves saved, why did Jesus die on the Cross? (already know the answer btw).

Nothing we do can save ourselves or keep us saved. How silly that is. How many sins before you are "unsaved"?

----------


## Kevin007

Salvation comes first, sanctification comes second. You already have a passing grade after salvation... buyt you just do not know what that PASSING grade is exactly until the J.S.O.C./Bema. But our final "marks" are all passing grades (salvation) to those who have accepted Jesus as their Savior. But Believers will have different amounts of Crowns they will lay at Jesus' feet, depending on their service. Service/Sanctification is only about rewards, not punishment; as Jesus bore all our punishment. A holy Father was FULLY SATISFIED and now we are truly made righteous through HIM.

----------


## jmdrake

> Salvation comes first, sanctification comes second.


When you ask Jesus to save you, that is the first step in *following* Jesus.  Jesus said if I be lifted up I will *draw all men unto Me*.  He was clearly talking about salvation.

----------


## jmdrake

> you are so wrong its sad. Jesus isn't talking about salvation. Because if we do this or do that to follow Him, that is about us and not Him.


Jesus: "If I be lifted up from the earth I will draw all men unto me."  When people are drawn to Jesus they are following Him.  He's the one that prompts us to follow Him, gives us the desire and the ability.  And frankly you are now contradicting yourself.  But I don't think you have the intelligence to figure that out.  You asked me if I asked Jesus to save me?  I did.  Key word there?  Did which is a form of the verb "to do".  You have stated before that you are not a Calvinist in that you believe that salvation requires a freewill choice.  Guess what?  That's *doing* something!  The Calvinists will at least be consistent in his error.  You are not.  The mistake you and the Calvinist make is this idea that somehow if I do something by the power of God then it's about "me" and not "Him".  That's nonsense.  But again, at least the Calvinist is consistent.

----------


## jmdrake

> Angels are not to be worshiped, Only God.


Right.  And men are not to be worshiped.  Only God.  Jesus received worship.  There are examples of angels in the Bible receiving worship.  I just gave you one.  God can take on any form He wants to.  If He takes on the form of an angel He is still God.  If He takes on the form of a man, and all Christians agree that He did, He is still God.

----------


## Terry1

> Same here.  I don't know any Christians who think repentance is unnecessary.  I also don't know any Christians who have the attitude of: "Let's go sin to our heart's content, because we're saved!"     
> 
> As I said to Terry on the other thread, that is a misrepresentation, therefore a big fat straw man argument.


What's this you're accusing me of again?  BTW--the Calvinists in here along with Kevin who just recently made this post #94 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-my-hand/page4  stating that there's no repentance needed after confession of belief.

Repentance is most certainly required and is a daily exercise in faith to the very end of our lives because it's the only way back to God when we stumble.  This has already been explained by me many times already.  And if you insist upon using the word "staw man" to describe my posts, I suggest you look up the term "bandwagon fallacy" regarding your own. 

I asked a simple question to the Protestants in the other thread "no man can snatch them out of my hands"--Louise was the only one who chose to take on that challenge and I respect her for it even though I didn't agree with her.  It was the question regarding this particular scripture here *1 Corinthians 9:27: I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified--*.

That question was asked of all of you and there were no takers other than Louise.

----------


## Terry1

> Are you serious or joking?  Seventh Day Adventists are *protestant* Christians which, by definition, means we aren't Luther haters.  I dated a Lutheran once.  She was surprised to find out from her father, who was a Lutheran pastor, that in some ways my church agreed with her religion more than she did.  That said, when I see what I feel are unfair attacks against any religion, I take the other side. Because of that I've been accused of being Catholic, Muslim etc.  So I'll take your comment as a compliment.  It means I'm being consistent..


"Luther haters"?  Yes, well sometimes the truth can be interpreted as "hate" when it's more often true than not regarding the murderous nature of someone who called himself a "reformer" instead.






> I disagree with Luther's opinion on James.  I disagree with Calvin on TULIP.  But there is a difference between having a theological disagreement with someone and going along with what I see as slander.  Luther as Adolf Hitler?  Sorry, but that's a bit much.  And Luther wasn't giving a blanket justification for murdering peasants.  I read your link and it just didn't support that argument.  If you thought my rejection of OSAS meant I would join into a Luther hate fest, sorry to disappoint.


Well, I guess it's time to post Luther's quotes on his opinion of the Jews now.  Although I know that the Jews are wrong in their rejection of Christ--still we are called to love them--not hate them.  Luther thought that he was God in his harsh judgment of them.  Whatever punishment God has for them belongs to God and God alone, but until then--we are called in love towards them--not hate.
*
In Mein Kampf, Hitler listed Martin Luther as one of the greatest reformers. And similar to Luther in the 1500s, Hitler spoke against the Jews. The Nazi plan to create a German Reich Church laid its bases on the "Spirit of Dr. Martin Luther." The first physical violence against the Jews came on November 9-10 on Kristallnacht (Crystal Night) where the Nazis killed Jews, shattered glass windows, and destroyed hundreds of synagogues, just as Luther had proposed. In Daniel Johah Goldhagen's book, Hitler's Willing Executioners, he writes:*

http://www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm






> I don't believe that a gospel that puts a human mediator between God and man is "right".  I don't believe in salvation by sacraments.  So no.  The Catholics do not have the Gospel right.  And no Seventh Day Adventist would ever say that.  But Calvin didn't get it right either.  I think Luther got it less wrong then Calvin.  I believe Wesley got it right.  But I also believe that Calvin was a victim of his own success.  If you read his writings you will find him less TULIPy than those who use his name.


I know exactly what Calvin taught and Luther both.  No need to explain that to me.





> From Luther's first 3 theses.
> 
> _When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent", He called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
> 
> The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
> 
> Yet its meaning is not restricted to repentance in one's heart; for such repentance is null unless it produces outward signs in various mortifications of the flesh._
> 
> How someone could get from that "Repentance isn't necessary" is beyond me.  I believe repentance is necessary.  I don't believe that confession to a priest is necessary.


Lutheranism teaches unconditional election--limited free will and is monergistic, the same as Calvin and that repentance beyond confession is not necessary.  There's very little light between these two doctrines.

----------


## jmdrake

> What's this you're accusing me of again?  BTW--the Calvinists in here along with Kevin who just recently made this post #94 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-my-hand/page4  stating that there's no repentance needed after confession of belief.


That is true.  *Some* protestant Christians will state repentance is not necessary for salvation and then split hairs over the words "necessary" and "condition".  Even protestants who believe in freewill, as Kevin (apparently) does, false into that trap.  The trap is "Well since God grants the grace to repent it's not a condition".  The "you don't have free will" Calvinists can kind of get away with that argument.  But those who believe in free will really cannot.  If your freewill response is a requirement to be saved, and if God doesn't force you to make that response, then it is indeed a condition.  Of course the Calvinists honestly can't get away with it either.  Even if a condition is one that God fulfilled by forcing you to repent, it's still a condition.  It's just one fulfilled by God.  People come to the erroneous "repentance is not necessary for salvation" or "is not a condition of salvation" out of a sincere but misguided desire to totally write man out of the salvation equation.  The idea is "Well if you to do anything you can boast."  Not really.  When Paul was talking about you are not saved by works he was specifically talking about works of the law, not works of faith.  There is no good I can do to make up for the bad that I did.  If I'm on the sea and I stupidly ran into an ice berg and another ship comes by and offers to rescue me, how can I "boast" about my "work" of allowing myself to be rescued?  My climbing over the side of my sinking ship and falling down to safety, while it required a choice, is not anything that has "merited" my salvation.  I can't "brag" and say "Look at me!  I rescued myself!"




> Repentance is most certainly required and is a daily exercise in faith to the very end of our lives because it's the only way back to God when we stumble.  This has already been explained by me many times already.  And if you insist upon using the word "staw man" to describe my posts, I suggest you look up the term "bandwagon fallacy" regarding your own. 
> 
> I asked a simple question to the Protestants in the other thread "no man can snatch them out of my hands"--Louise was the only one who chose to take on that challenge and I respect her for it even though I didn't agree with her.  It was the question regarding this particular scripture here *1 Corinthians 9:27: I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified--*.
> 
> That question was asked of all of you and there were no takers other than Louise.


I missed the challenge, but as the Protestant who started the thread I think it's obvious that not all protestants believe OSAS.  But I don't believe salvation by sacrament either.

----------


## jmdrake

> "Luther haters"?  Yes, well sometimes the truth can be interpreted as "hate" when it's more often true than not regarding the murderous nature of someone who called himself a "reformer" instead.


Whatever.





> Well, I guess it's time to post Luther's quotes on his opinion of the Jews now.


Why?  Because you've now been forced to retreat from your false accusations about Luther regarding peasants?   As for the Jews, yes Luther said some stuff I disagree with.  But tell me this.  Which church was it that killed and/or expelled all of the Jews from Jerusalem during the Crusades?  Which was it?  Were they Lutherins?  You want to attack Luther for what misguided people did in his name centuries later but absolve the Catholic church for what it's "holy soldiers" did under her command?  Oh, and you are Eastern Orhodox.  The Catholic pope wasn't exactly kind to the people of Constantinople either.

----------


## Terry1

> That is true.  *Some* protestant Christians will state repentance is not necessary for salvation and then split hairs over the words "necessary" and "condition".  Even protestants who believe in freewill, as Kevin (apparently) does, false into that trap.  The trap is "Well since God grants the grace to repent it's not a condition".  The "you don't have free will" Calvinists can kind of get away with that argument.  But those who believe in free will really cannot.  If your freewill response is a requirement to be saved, and if God doesn't force you to make that response, then it is indeed a condition.  Of course the Calvinists honestly can't get away with it either.  Even if a condition is one that God fulfilled by forcing you to repent, it's still a condition.  It's just one fulfilled by God.  People come to the erroneous "repentance is not necessary for salvation" or "is not a condition of salvation" out of a sincere but misguided desire to totally write man out of the salvation equation.  The idea is "Well if you to do anything you can boast."  Not really.  When Paul was talking about you are not saved by works he was specifically talking about works of the law, not works of faith.  There is no good I can do to make up for the bad that I did.  If I'm on the sea and I stupidly ran into an ice berg and another ship comes by and offers to rescue me, how can I "boast" about my "work" of allowing myself to be rescued?  My climbing over the side of my sinking ship and falling down to safety, while it required a choice, is not anything that has "merited" my salvation.  I can't "brag" and say "Look at me!  I rescued myself!"
> 
> 
> 
> I missed the challenge, but as the Protestant who started the thread I think it's obvious that not all protestants believe OSAS.  But I don't believe salvation by sacrament either.


Would you be so kind as to explain what *you mean in detail by "salvation by sacrament"?

----------


## Terry1

> Whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Because you've now been forced to retreat from your false accusations about Luther regarding peasants?   As for the Jews, yes Luther said some stuff I disagree with.  But tell me this.  Which church was it that killed and/or expelled all of the Jews from Jerusalem during the Crusades?  Which was it?  Were they Lutherins?  You want to attack Luther for what misguided people did in his name centuries later but absolve the Catholic church for what it's "holy soldiers" did under her command?  Oh, and you are Eastern Orhodox.  The Catholic pope wasn't exactly kind to the people of Constantinople either.


You haven't proved that anything I said was false yet.  Can you do that?  I've given you links with sources and references.  Are you saying that Luther didn't condone the murder of the peasants then when he made the statements "crush and kill them"?

I don't think it's wise to justify the despicable actions of someone because of the same by another either.

----------


## Terry1

> Very good point.  Thank you for bringing in Jesus' perspective.... most people see things in a very worldly, physical way.


Luther meant them in a "worldly, physical way"--or haven't you read him yet and just agreeing with Kevin again because you both agree on OSAS.

It's one thing to accuse someone of something because it's fact, but all together something else when you just toss out phrases and terms with regard to critical thinking to undermine the truth simply because you don't agree with it based upon someone else's opinion you happen to agree with.

----------


## jmdrake

Terry, I almost missed this part of your post.  And this is why ad hominem, such as the ones you've been leveling against Luther lately, are counter productive to discussion.  Just to be clear "ad hominem" means to attack the person.  You don't like the message but are having trouble refuting it?  Attack the person who gave it.  Sola_Fide used ad hominem as a debate tactic all the time.  Kevin uses it now.  You don't like either one of them doing it, but you are being an Eastern Orthodox version of them.  I gather that you are relatively new to the EO viewpoint.  Please get to know TER.  He's been an EO Christian much longer than you.  And while I disagree with him on doctrine, I do see the Spirit of Christ in him.  He doesn't make a habit of using such debate tactics and, IMO, he's more effective in presenting his viewpoint for it.

Now, as for Luther and his beliefs.  Yes I'm aware of his thoughts on monergism and freewill.  Sola_Fide and I discussed that years ago.  That wasn't my point.  Protestantism isn't based on Martin Luther.  But the 95 theses can justly be looked on as its founding document.  There were protestants before Martin Luther.  Many were sorely persecuted.  But it was Luther's 95 theses that shook the western world.  Some of what Luther wrote after that was dead on and some was not.  Now here is something interesting.  You say that Luther taught that repentance after confession is not necessary.  Guess what?  *THAT IS STILL SAYING THAT REPENTANCE IS NECESSARY!*  So by your own words, not mine, you have just declared that Luther affirmed the need to repent.  Thank you for proving my point for me.

That said, I'm going to have to take a forum break.  The tit for tats are taking up too much time.  I may do one more post today on repentance itself.  While I'm away I will work on one major post I need to make.  Fair warning.  It will probably anger you and others.  I sincerely doubt anyone will 100% agree.  But I will back up everything I say with the Bible and with history.  And no, this isn't directed at you or anything you've said.  It isn't directed at anyone really.




> I know exactly what Calvin taught and Luther both.  No need to explain that to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutheranism teaches unconditional election--limited free will and is monergistic, the same as Calvin and that repentance beyond confession is not necessary.  There's very little light between these two doctrines.

----------


## jmdrake

> You haven't proved that anything I said was false yet.  Can you do that?  I've given you links with sources and references.  Are you saying that Luther didn't condone the murder of the peasants then when he made the statements "crush and kill them"?
> 
> I don't think it's wise to justify the despicable actions of someone because of the same by another either.


I'm saying that killing people who are in open revolt is not murder.  It's self defense.  I didn't have to provide a source.  You did it for me.  Half truths are the worst lies and your initial post made it sound like Luther gave his general blessing to kill peasants.  From your own source, he did not.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry, I almost missed this part of your post.  And this is why ad hominem, such as the ones you've been leveling against Luther lately, are counter productive to discussion.  Just to be clear "ad hominem" means to attack the person.  You don't like the message but are having trouble refuting it?  Attack the person who gave it.  Sola_Fide used ad hominem as a debate tactic all the time.  Kevin uses it now.  You don't like either one of them doing it, but you are being an Eastern Orthodox version of them.  I gather that you are relatively new to the EO viewpoint.  Please get to know TER.  He's been an EO Christian much longer than you.  And while I disagree with him on doctrine, I do see the Spirit of Christ in him.  He doesn't make a habit of using such debate tactics and, IMO, he's more effective in presenting his viewpoint for it.
> 
> Now, as for Luther and his beliefs.  Yes I'm aware of his thoughts on monergism and freewill.  Sola_Fide and I discussed that years ago.  That wasn't my point.  Protestantism isn't based on Martin Luther.  But the 95 theses can justly be looked on as its founding document.  There were protestants before Martin Luther.  Many were sorely persecuted.  But it was Luther's 95 theses that shook the western world.  Some of what Luther wrote after that was dead on and some was not.  Now here is something interesting.  You say that Luther taught that repentance after confession is not necessary.  Guess what?  *THAT IS STILL SAYING THAT REPENTANCE IS NECESSARY!*  So by your own words, not mine, you have just declared that Luther affirmed the need to repent.  Thank you for proving my point for me.
> 
> That said, I'm going to have to take a forum break.  The tit for tats are taking up too much time.  I may do one more post today on repentance itself.  While I'm away I will work on one major post I need to make.  Fair warning.  It will probably anger you and others.  I sincerely doubt anyone will 100% agree.  But I will back up everything I say with the Bible and with history.  And no, this isn't directed at you or anything you've said.  It isn't directed at anyone really.


I've done nothing of the sort here.  I've given scripture, sources and facts to back up my own personal opinion of Luther.  On the other hand, you seem to be the one doing all of the accusing without any facts to back up your argument against me.  

Not only was Luther wrong biblically, doctrinally and morally with regard to his brutal murderous nature against the Jews and peasants, but he also was as arrogant to tell God He's wrong by attempting to add words to the book of James that simply didn't exist that completely changed the context of critical scripture.

The damage these reformers did to the Gospel and the body of Christ as a whole shouldn't have made them the hero's of scripture they are to their subscribers, but rather the murderers and apostates they were in the eyes of God.  Now that's simply my own personal opinion fwiw--  If you'd like to call that an "ad hom" attack on Luther--then so be it.  If the shoe fits as they say.   Which is far less critical than Gods own opinion of anyone who adds to or takes away from His word.

----------


## Terry1

> I'm saying that killing people who are in open revolt is not murder.  It's self defense.  I didn't have to provide a source.  You did it for me.  Half truths are the worst lies and your initial post made it sound like Luther gave his general blessing to kill peasants.  From your own source, he did not.


Do you understand what the peasant wars were about and why and what you're defending?  I seriously doubt that you do in light of your post here.  Do you even understand what classes of people were involved in Luther's bloody war he waged against them and why Luther did it?  Maybe you should read some more then.

Luther incited the wars by peasants with his own thesis and encouraged them--

 "When the time came for him to choose whether or not he would stand on the side of the peasants he clearly sided with the German elite. Why was he so worried about conscience in one case and not at all in the other? In light of the events that transpired after the Diet of Worms, apparently the reformer’s backstabbing of the peasants demonstrates that under certain circumstances forced Luther to become unfaithful to his own set of beliefs."

The Pope at the time called Luther a "drunken German" and if nothing else--I could certainly agree with the Pope on that point.  Luther's true mission was fame, power and greed and misguided by his own misinterpretation of the word of God--thinking himself to be God in his quest to crush and kill anything or anyone that got in his way--even to the extent of adding to the word of God to make it fit his own false belief.

----------


## jmdrake

> I've done nothing of the sort here.


You must not know what an ad hominem fallacy is.  I will explain it again to you, this time by example.  Ron Paul says "The Iraq war is bad."  Someone counters with "Ron Paul agrees with David Duke about the Civil Rights Act."  Bringing up David Duke is meant to distract from the discussion about the Iraq war being bad.  Even if the discussion was "Ron Paul says big government is bad", which is at least tangentially related to the Civil Rights Act, still making the David Duke reference is an inflamatory ad hominem attack.  That you would attack Luther in a thread that had nothing to do with Luther and did it to try to "prove" there was something wrong with the theology attributed to him is an ad hominem attack whether you realize it or not or whether you are willing to admit it or not.  That you backed up your attacks against Luther with some truth and some *half* truth doesn't change it from being an ad hominem attack.  Even if it was 100% true it's still an ad hominem attack.  It's 100% true that Ron Paul opposes the civil rights act and so does David Duke.  Most people believe David Duke to be a racist.  That doesn't mean that big government or the Iraq war is good.  For the record, David Duke came out against the Iraq war as well.  That you used biblical references to support your view doesn't change anything.  In a debate against Ron Paul, an opponent could come out with a lot of Keynesian "documentation" to "prove" that government intervention in the economy is a good thing.  That's proper debate form even if you and I may disagree with the sources and/or how they are being used.  But the minute such a person brought David Duke into the picture, or the Ron Paul newsletters or *anything* other than the topic being discussed?  That is an ad hominem.  You have repeatedly engaged in ad hominem.  Don't take my word for it.  PM TER ask him to look over your posts and see if he agrees with you or me on the ad hominem part.  I'm betting he would agree with me.

----------


## Working Poor

A long time ago I used to drink my ass off. Something in me made me want to quit. I went six months without drinking and then either the devil or God (I am not sure which)  told me to go down  to the liquor store and buy me a half pint of cheap tequilia.

The hang over was so bad that I did not touch a drop for 10 years. Who evrr it was that told me to drink had a good laugh on me. I learned something though and that was I did not have time to be a drunk.

Now when the devil or God tells me to drink I buy myself a mini bottle and drink one and I am over it. But if I know I am dying I want a case of good tequilia just in case.

----------


## jmdrake

> Do you understand what the peasant wars were about and why and what you're defending?  I seriously doubt that you do in light of your post here.  Do you even understand what classes of people were involved in Luther's bloody war he waged against them and why Luther did it?  Maybe you should read some more then.


Let me guess.  They were peasants?    Umm....what difference does that make?  That's a rhetorical question.  It makes none.  I'm not a supporter of "liberation theology" where, in it's extreme view, any uprising by the "oppressed class" is justified.




> Luther incited the wars by peasants with his own thesis and encouraged them--


Again, I believe much of the same theses Luther nailed to the church door.  If someone reads my writings and goes out and starts killing people, that's not my fault.  I explained to you the fallacy of your "logic" here already.  Unless you present documentation where Luther said to the peasants "Take up arms and start killing the ruling class" then you really don't have anything.  Nothing but a brazen assault on free speech.  Some people would have me arrested for my views on 9/11.  Really, it's not far fetched that someone could read what I wrote, decide "If our government had the intelligence needed to stop 9/11 and didn't but is now starting wars and taking away our liberties, we need to revolt".  I don't accept responsibility for that.  No just court would convict me for that.  To convict someone of incitement you have to provide evidence of a specific call for violence.  None of your sources gave that.  Nobody should be expected not to present what he or she believes to be true just because someone *might* take it and do something that was not advocated.




> "When the time came for him to choose whether or not he would stand on the side of the peasants he clearly sided with the German elite. Why was he so worried about conscience in one case and not at all in the other? In light of the events that transpired after the Diet of Worms, apparently the reformer’s backstabbing of the peasants demonstrates that under certain circumstances forced Luther to become unfaithful to his own set of beliefs."


And the reference where Luther said to the peasants "Rise up and slay your masters" is where exactly?




> The Pope at the time called Luther a "drunken German" and if nothing else--I could certainly agree with the Pope on that point.


Ah yes.  The Pope said it.  It must be true.  What about the Pope that ordered the sacking of Constantinople?  When are you going to address that?  I mean if you're so concerned about incitement to murder there is *solid* evidence that a Catholic Pope incited "Christians" to massacre your spiritual forefathers.

----------


## Terry1

> Let me guess.  They were peasants?    Umm....what difference does that make?  That's a rhetorical question.  It makes none.  I'm not a supporter of "liberation theology" where, in it's extreme view, any uprising by the "oppressed class" is justified..


The "peasant war" was a war of the classes because of the oppression by the German elite and royalty.  These same classes today would include also the middle to upper middle class citizens.  Luther chose the side of the elites after encouraging the lower classes to go to war with them.  Yes--Luther stated to crush and kill them all and over because they fought for their freedom against the oppressive laws of the land which included keeping them as nothing more than slaves unable to own land and taxing their small wages to enormous degrees.  

  Luther's thesis is what encouraged the violence as well as Luther himself, because that is what this particular doctrine is designed in nature to do with teaching people that there's nothing they can do to lose their salvation--save murder, violence, adultery--that teaches nothing can separate them from God or the kingdom of heaven after confession.  This is the doctrine of "unconditional election" and the "perseverance of the saints" as in the likes of OSAS and Predestination.  These doctrines breed sin and violence.





> Again, I believe much of the same theses Luther nailed to the church door.  If someone reads my writings and goes out and starts killing people, that's not my fault.  I explained to you the fallacy of your "logic" here already.  Unless you present documentation where Luther said to the peasants "Take up arms and start killing the ruling class" then you really don't have anything.  Nothing but a brazen assault on free speech.  Some people would have me arrested for my views on 9/11.  Really, it's not far fetched that someone could read what I wrote, decide "If our government had the intelligence needed to stop 9/11 and didn't but is now starting wars and taking away our liberties, we need to revolt".  I don't accept responsibility for that.  No just court would convict me for that.  To convict someone of incitement you have to provide evidence of a specific call for violence.  None of your sources gave that.  Nobody should be expected not to present what he or she believes to be true just because someone *might* take it and do something that was not advocated.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> And the reference where Luther said to the peasants "Rise up and slay your masters" is where exactly?
> 
> 
> ...


At this point, I believe that it is futile to continue this discussion with you.  I have presented the facts, scripture and sources that you continually choose to deny and distort with your own version to support what it is that you choose to believe.

----------


## Terry1

> A long time ago I used to drink my ass off. Something in me made me want to quit. I went six months without drinking and then either the devil or God (I am not sure which)  told me to go down  to the liquor store and buy me a half pint of cheap tequilia.
> 
> The hang over was so bad that I did not touch a drop for 10 years. Who evrr it was that told me to drink had a good laugh on me. I learned something though and that was I did not have time to be a drunk.
> 
> Now when the devil or God tells me to drink I buy myself a mini bottle and drink one and I am over it. But if I know I am dying I want a case of good tequilia just in case.



What a breath of fresh air!  Finally a post that makes sense.

----------


## Terry1

> You must not know what an ad hominem fallacy is.  I will explain it again to you, this time by example.  Ron Paul says "The Iraq war is bad."  Someone counters with "Ron Paul agrees with David Duke about the Civil Rights Act."  Bringing up David Duke is meant to distract from the discussion about the Iraq war being bad.  Even if the discussion was "Ron Paul says big government is bad", which is at least tangentially related to the Civil Rights Act, still making the David Duke reference is an inflamatory ad hominem attack.  That you would attack Luther in a thread that had nothing to do with Luther and did it to try to "prove" there was something wrong with the theology attributed to him is an ad hominem attack whether you realize it or not or whether you are willing to admit it or not.  That you backed up your attacks against Luther with some truth and some *half* truth doesn't change it from being an ad hominem attack.  Even if it was 100% true it's still an ad hominem attack.  It's 100% true that Ron Paul opposes the civil rights act and so does David Duke.  Most people believe David Duke to be a racist.  That doesn't mean that big government or the Iraq war is good.  For the record, David Duke came out against the Iraq war as well.  That you used biblical references to support your view doesn't change anything.  In a debate against Ron Paul, an opponent could come out with a lot of Keynesian "documentation" to "prove" that government intervention in the economy is a good thing.  That's proper debate form even if you and I may disagree with the sources and/or how they are being used.  But the minute such a person brought David Duke into the picture, or the Ron Paul newsletters or *anything* other than the topic being discussed?  That is an ad hominem.  You have repeatedly engaged in ad hominem.  Don't take my word for it.  PM TER ask him to look over your posts and see if he agrees with you or me on the ad hominem part.  I'm betting he would agree with me.


You're so worried about my character assassination of Luther with the facts to back that up, but not in the least worried about you're own against myself and others that you've perpetrated just since yesterday.  I find that rather amusing and sad all at the same time.  

BTW--paragraphs are useful.

----------


## lilymc

> Luther meant them in a "worldly, physical way"--or haven't you read him yet and just agreeing with Kevin again because you both agree on OSAS.
> 
> It's one thing to accuse someone of something because it's fact, but all together something else when you just toss out phrases and terms with regard to critical thinking to undermine the truth simply because you don't agree with it based upon someone else's opinion you happen to agree with.


I wasn't talking about Luther.  What I stated was undeniable.  Many people DO see things in a very worldly, physical way.     Including murder, which - as Kevin accurately stated -  is not only a physical thing but something people do in their heart.

----------


## Southron

To fully appreciate what Luther is saying, you need to understand where he came from.

Earlier in his life he was a monk.  He spent much time denying himself many of the simple pleasures of life that Christians take for granted.  On top of that, apparently he was obsessive-compulsive when it came to confession to the point of being told to stop confessing such trivial things.  

This is the backdrop when he is now celebrating his liberty in Christ.

----------


## lilymc

> What's this you're accusing me of again?  BTW--the Calvinists in here along with Kevin who just recently made this post #94 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-my-hand/page4  stating that there's no repentance needed after confession of belief.
> 
> Repentance is most certainly required and is a daily exercise in faith to the very end of our lives because it's the only way back to God when we stumble.  This has already been explained by me many times already.  And if you insist upon using the word "staw man" to describe my posts, I suggest you look up the term "bandwagon fallacy" regarding your own.


Did you not read my post?  Why are you arguing with me about something that I clearly stated I believe?   Of course repentance is necessary.  That is part of changing our mind about who Jesus is and understanding we are sinners in need of salvation.

The thing you and I disagree on is that you have this ridiculous idea that we have to repent pretty much every 5 minutes or go to hell, completely destroying the entire idea of salvation.  There is no salvation in your view.    There is a continual striving through our own works and the belief that if we don't do enough good deeds or if we sin one too many times and don't repent every 5 minutes we will be cast into hell.    Sorry, but that is both absurd and completely unbiblical.

Now don't get me wrong.

Of course we should always repent if we fall into sin, because that is the right thing to do, and we always should be in a right relationship with God.  It is what true Christians always do anyway, because we love God and we truly feel repentant if we sin.   So it's something that naturally happens for a true child of God, it is not something we must strive to do every 5 minutes to avoid hell or "lose our salvation."   




> I asked a simple question to the Protestants in the other thread "no man can snatch them out of my hands"--Louise was the only one who chose to take on that challenge and I respect her for it even though I didn't agree with her.  It was the question regarding this particular scripture here *1 Corinthians 9:27: I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified--*.
> 
> That question was asked of all of you and there were no takers other than Louise.


First of all, I didn't see you ask this question on the other thread.  But about 1 Corinthians 9:27, once again you are taking a verse that is not about salvation and making it about salvation.   It is about discipline, controlling our body, so we can serve God and be successful in serving God and expanding God's kingdom.

We can see that Paul's heart is to win people for Christ when he says, "I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them"  in verse 19.

The word "disqualified" is not about our eternal salvation.   That's not something we can lose.   What we _can_ lose is the privilege of being used by God and future rewards.   We can be 'disqualified' in the same way that a preacher who is carnal or sinful is not going to be effective for God's kingdom... (and probably will do more harm than good.)

Obviously Paul wants to serve God and be used by God.   

But God can choose to not use certain people, if we are not self-disciplined or if we are in sin.

So Paul is comparing the life of a Christian to the life of an athlete.  An athlete who does not train and does not exercise self-control is not going to be successful, and will not win any prizes.     

I think you really should get over this strange obsession with making every scripture about salvation.  The scriptures you bring up are almost always about *sanctification* and rewards in heaven that we DO get.

As Kevin put it, once we are saved, we all have a passing grade. (that is justification.)    However, our works are still judged, NOT to determine salvation but rewards in heaven. Some people will have more than others.     That is why everything we do DOES matter, but that has nothing to do with salvation.   Salvation is by God's grace, through faith.

----------


## jmdrake

> You're so worried about my character assassination of Luther with the facts to back that up, but not in the least worried about you're own against myself and others that you've perpetrated just since yesterday.  I find that rather amusing and sad all at the same time.  
> 
> BTW--paragraphs are useful.


Fine.  Here are the paragraphs.  As for character assassination against you....I haven't done that.  Pointing out that you originally didn't give the "kill the peasants quote" in context isn't character assassination.  And frankly I could care less if you attack Luther's character.  The problem is that doing so in the context of trying to disprove a theological point made by someone else is an ad hominem.

_You must not know what an ad hominem fallacy is. I will explain it again to you, this time by example. Ron Paul says "The Iraq war is bad." Someone counters with "Ron Paul agrees with David Duke about the Civil Rights Act." Bringing up David Duke is meant to distract from the discussion about the Iraq war being bad. Even if the discussion was "Ron Paul says big government is bad", which is at least tangentially related to the Civil Rights Act, still making the David Duke reference is an inflamatory ad hominem attack. That you would attack Luther in a thread that had nothing to do with Luther and did it to try to "prove" there was something wrong with the theology attributed to him is an ad hominem attack whether you realize it or not or whether you are willing to admit it or not. That you backed up your attacks against Luther with some truth and some half truth doesn't change it from being an ad hominem attack. 

Even if it was 100% true it's still an ad hominem attack. It's 100% true that Ron Paul opposes the civil rights act and so does David Duke. Most people believe David Duke to be a racist. That doesn't mean that big government or the Iraq war is good. For the record, David Duke came out against the Iraq war as well. That you used biblical references to support your view doesn't change anything. In a debate against Ron Paul, an opponent could come out with a lot of Keynesian "documentation" to "prove" that government intervention in the economy is a good thing. 

That's proper debate form even if you and I may disagree with the sources and/or how they are being used. But the minute such a person brought David Duke into the picture, or the Ron Paul newsletters or anything other than the topic being discussed? That is an ad hominem. You have repeatedly engaged in ad hominem. Don't take my word for it. PM TER ask him to look over your posts and see if he agrees with you or me on the ad hominem part. I'm betting he would agree with me._

----------


## Terry1

> Fine.  Here are the paragraphs.  As for character assassination against you....I haven't done that.  Pointing out that you originally didn't give the "kill the peasants quote" in context isn't character assassination.  And frankly I could care less if you attack Luther's character.  The problem is that doing so in the context of trying to disprove a theological point made by someone else is an ad hominem.]


It is rather annoying that you keep implying that I'm being deceptive in some way by nothing more than posting facts about the *man* Luther, his character and the reasons behind why he condoned murder of any kind--being a *so-called* man of God and "reformer" of some sorts who based his theology upon his misguided view of scripture.  Why not just say that we disagree instead of insisting that I'm using ad hom attacks?




> _You must not know what an ad hominem fallacy is. I will explain it again to you, this time by example. Ron Paul says "The Iraq war is bad." Someone counters with "Ron Paul agrees with David Duke about the Civil Rights Act." Bringing up David Duke is meant to distract from the discussion about the Iraq war being bad. Even if the discussion was "Ron Paul says big government is bad", which is at least tangentially related to the Civil Rights Act, still making the David Duke reference is an inflamatory ad hominem attack. That you would attack Luther in a thread that had nothing to do with Luther and did it to try to "prove" there was something wrong with the theology attributed to him is an ad hominem attack whether you realize it or not or whether you are willing to admit it or not. That you backed up your attacks against Luther with some truth and some half truth doesn't change it from being an ad hominem attack._


_ 

Bla-bla-yadda-yadda--





			
				Even if it was 100% true it's still an ad hominem attack. It's 100% true that Ron Paul opposes the civil rights act and so does David Duke. Most people believe David Duke to be a racist. That doesn't mean that big government or the Iraq war is good. For the record, David Duke came out against the Iraq war as well. That you used biblical references to support your view doesn't change anything. In a debate against Ron Paul, an opponent could come out with a lot of Keynesian "documentation" to "prove" that government intervention in the economy is a good thing. 

That's proper debate form even if you and I may disagree with the sources and/or how they are being used. But the minute such a person brought David Duke into the picture, or the Ron Paul newsletters or anything other than the topic being discussed? That is an ad hominem. You have repeatedly engaged in ad hominem. Don't take my word for it. PM TER ask him to look over your posts and see if he agrees with you or me on the ad hominem part. I'm betting he would agree with me.
			
		

_All this amounts to is that you disagree with me.  You're trying to turn this into something in your own mind that simply doesn't exist.  You can't prove that Luther's "sin boldly" quote is biblical with scripture, so now it's me who's posting etiquette has replaced your OP.  And what does TER have to do with any of this?  He's as wore out as I am with attempting to be civil and getting the same treatment that I'm receiving as well by you Kevin, Lily and FF.  I see it all for what it is and this is why I'm bowing out for a while.  Maybe you, Kevin, FF and Lily can go back to attacking and calling each other nasty names instead of me now--LOL  I'll leave you all to God and let Him sort you out.  He's got a bigger hammer than I do.

Thanks for the lovely discussion.

----------


## jmdrake

> It is rather annoying that you keep implying that I'm being deceptive in some way by nothing more than posting facts about the *man* Luther, his character and the reasons behind why he condoned murder of any kind--being a *so-called* man of God and "reformer" of some sorts who based his theology upon his misguided view of scripture.  Why not just say that we disagree instead of insisting that I'm using ad hom attacks?


The first time you posted your facts you left out the fact that there was an armed rebellion going on.  But to be fair perhaps you didn't know that fact or you didn't realize you hadn't posted what you did in context.  So my apologies if I misjudged you.  However, I think you're still not understanding what an ad hominem is.  I'm sorry that I've failed to explain that to you.  Again, the discussion was about someone's belief.  You injected your "facts" about Luther into a discussion that didn't involve Luther in order to attack the belief.  That, by definition, is an ad hominem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
_An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.[2] Fallacious Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely as a genetic fallacy,[6] a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.[7] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact._

What Luther did or didn't say or do with regards to the peasant revolt is irrelevant to the question of whether or not sola fide is correct or once saved always saved is correct or anything else that was being discussed  I sincerely hope this helps.

----------


## Terry1

> The first time you posted your facts you left out the fact that there was an armed rebellion going on.  But to be fair you didn't know.  However, I think you're still not understanding what an ad hominem is.  I'm sorry that I've failed to explain that to you.  Again, the discussion was about someone's belief.  You injected your "facts" about Luther into a discussion that didn't involve Luther in order to attack the belief.  That, by definition, is an ad hominem.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
> _An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.[2] Fallacious Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely as a genetic fallacy,[6] a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.[7] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact._
> 
> What Luther did or didn't say or do with regards to the peasant revolt is irrelevant to the question of whether or not sola fide is correct or once saved always saved is correct or anything else that was being discussed  I sincerely hope this helps.


I know what a friggin ad hom attack is for cryin out loud.   All you did with all of this was try to bury the fact that you couldn't biblically justify a quote that you said you agreed with.  That's what this is all about and you know it too.  You must be a lawyer--I've hired enough of them to know.

----------


## jmdrake

> I know what a friggin ad hom attack is for cryin out loud.   All you did with all of this was try to bury the fact that you couldn't biblically justify a quote that you said you agreed with.  That's what this is all about and you know it too.  You must be a lawyer--I've hired enough of them to know.


Ummmm.....huh?  You were the one that injected Luther into a discussion that had nothing to do with him.  What particular fact are you claiming that I'm trying to bury?  Are you now disagreeing with my position that once saved always saved is incorrect?

----------


## Terry1

> Ummmm.....huh?  You were the one that injected Luther into a discussion that had nothing to do with him.  What particular fact are you claiming that I'm trying to bury?  Are you now disagreeing with my position that once saved always saved is incorrect?


Well excuse me then--I thought you were supporting Luther and his "sin boldly" quote along with his murderous methodology regarding the Jews and peasants.  This is news!

----------


## RJB

> I still subscribe to much of the actual Lutheran doctrine, because a lot of what they are _supposed_ to believe is actually not at odds with Orthodoxy.  Once I realized that, and after I realized the extent of the abject mess in Lutheranism, and *when I realized that by joining Orthodoxy I would be sharing a faith with others who probably believed more of Lutheran doctrine than Lutherans do in practice, the choice was pretty easy*.


That's how I feel as a former Roman Catholic and it's funny, the converts of various faiths that I've met at our Orthodox Church say pretty much the same as well.



> I just learned a new word. Antinomian.  Thank you.


I have to credit Sola_Fide.  Despite our differences on opinion, I will admit, he's a walking dictionary on beliefs and heresies.

----------


## jmdrake

> Well excuse me then--I thought you were supporting Luther and his "sin boldly" quote along with his murderous methodology regarding the Jews and peasants.  This is news!


Okay.  Let me clear this up.  I don't think Luther meant by "sin boldly" what you think he meant.  But that's a disagreement on Luther and not a position on the Bible.  I don't think that if the peasants took his 95 theses as a license to revolt that he somehow incited them to riot.  And I don't think that saying killing people who are killing other people is murder.  I disagree with Luther's position on the Jews just like I disagree with the Catholic crusades against Jerusalem which ended in the slaughter of Jews.  But I don't think any of that is relevant to once saved always saved even though I disagree with once saved always saved.  I hope I've made my position clear now.

----------


## Terry1

> Okay.  Let me clear this up.  I don't think Luther meant by "sin boldly" what you think he meant.  But that's a disagreement on Luther and not a position on the Bible.  I don't think that if the peasants took his 95 theses as a license to revolt that he somehow incited them to riot.  And I don't think that saying killing people who are killing other people is murder. .


Well I'm sorry that you don't believe that because there's enough commentary out there and not just from anti-Luther sites to confirm just what Luther did endorse by his own beliefs that seemed to justify his actions.  





> I disagree with Luther's position on the Jews just like I disagree with the Catholic crusades against Jerusalem which ended in the slaughter of Jews.  But I don't think any of that is relevant to once saved always saved even though I disagree with once saved always saved.  I hope I've made my position clear now.


Yes, I believe you have.  May I also suggest if you still believe Luther to be the innocent victim of my "ad hom attacks", that you also read what Luther signed his own name to with regard to the peaceful Anabaptists who did not believe in fighting in wars choosing to follow their own peaceful beliefs.  Not only did Luther sign his name to documents promoting the slaughter of the lower classes, but the Jews and the Anabaptists as well and anyone who didn't walk lock-step to Luther's doctrinal beliefs.

Now it was never my intention to criticize anyone's personal convictions or beliefs, but rather for them to examine the root origin, author and source of that same belief and to question it for themselves and make up their own minds as to the validity of them.  Believe it or not--there are a lot of people following belief systems with little understanding of what's contained in them and their history.  

Discussions regarding the authors of these beliefs is not a bad thing--as long as the facts and sources are noted and that belief reconciles with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  

It seemed to me that you were taking something personal here by the way you were carrying on about my posting etiquette with little regard for your own, I'm talking about the discussion between you and Kevin.  Mote/beam/eye thing ya know?

----------


## Kevin007

hey jm, did you do any research from the links I put up? If so, what do you disagree with? If not, why not? I obv. don't expect you to look at every one, but at least one or two.

----------


## jmdrake

> hey jm, did you do any research from the links I put up? If so, what do you disagree with? If not, why not? I obv. don't expect you to look at every one, but at least one or two.


Kevin.  You think I'm a Mormon.  You are mentally unstable.  Get some help.

----------


## Terry1

> Did you not read my post?  Why are you arguing with me about something that I clearly stated I believe?   Of course repentance is necessary.  That is part of changing our mind about who Jesus is and understanding we are sinners in need of salvation.
> 
> The thing you and I disagree on is that you have this ridiculous idea that we have to repent pretty much every 5 minutes or go to hell, completely destroying the entire idea of salvation.  There is no salvation in your view.    There is a continual striving through our own works and the belief that if we don't do enough good deeds or if we sin one too many times and don't repent every 5 minutes we will be cast into hell.    Sorry, but that is both absurd and completely unbiblical..


Really--my "ridiculous idea"?  Well then just how ridiculous can one be not to understand that there's a reason why Jesus said "repent and be forgiven".  And also--confessing our sins to one another in repentance for forgiveness.  Is it really such a chore for you to say after you know you've done something wrong---"please Lord--forgive me for being so disrespectful to Terry" while repenting of that at the same time?  Do you carry on and sin that much that you'd have to spend all day naming things, repenting of them and asking forgiveness for them?  

Anyone with the mind of Christ and His nature dwelling in them as the Holy Spirit will be convicted by their own conscience when they know they've done something not in accordance with how our Lord has told us to live and treat one another.  They will immediately change their minds and seek forgiveness for it too.  This is what "repentance" or "changing one's mind is all about Lily.




> Now don't get me wrong.


LOL--seriously?




> Of course we should always repent if we fall into sin, because that is the right thing to do, and we always should be in a right relationship with God.  It is what true Christians always do anyway, because we love God and we truly feel repentant if we sin.   So it's something that naturally happens for a true child of God, it is not something we must strive to do every 5 minutes to avoid hell or "lose our salvation."



The only time a believer needs to worry about going to hell is if they stop feeling guilty about what they're doing and stop seeking repentance/changing their minds.  When a believer is no longer responsive to what the Holy Spirit is trying to say to them--this is when they begin to harden their hearts and eventually to the point of grieving the Holy Spirit.  If they remain in that state of mind for too long--God only knowing their hearts and that they won't return by repentance--then as Hebrews 6:4 tells you--they are cut off and unable to be "renewed to repentance".  At this point--they're lost forever and turned over to their own delusions that they chose for themselves.





> First of all, I didn't see you ask this question on the other thread.  But about 1 Corinthians 9:27, once again you are taking a verse that is not about salvation and making it about salvation.   It is about discipline, controlling our body, so we can serve God and be successful in serving God and expanding God's kingdom.


Paul is absolutely talking about his own salvation with regard to him stating that he feared that even he/himself could be castaway or disqualified--not knowing his own heart as God does and that he hadn't finished this life and course yet.  The context of that same scripture Paul refers to his crown and being in fear that it was possible for even him to be castaway because Paul knew that mankind can be tested by the devil to the point of no return to God.  Great men of God have fallen to temptation when no one or themselves thought it possible.  This is why we can not presume upon God as to whom He chooses and who He doesn't choose.  It's not our place in this life to judge even ourselves either way, let alone anyone else.




> We can see that Paul's heart is to win people for Christ when he says, "I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them"  in verse 19.
> 
> The word "disqualified" is not about our eternal salvation.   That's not something we can lose.   What we _can_ lose is the privilege of being used by God and future rewards.   We can be 'disqualified' in the same way that a preacher who is carnal or sinful is not going to be effective for God's kingdom... (and probably will do more harm than good.)
> 
> Obviously Paul wants to serve God and be used by God.   
> 
> But God can choose to not use certain people, if we are not self-disciplined or if we are in sin.
> 
> So Paul is comparing the life of a Christian to the life of an athlete.  An athlete who does not train and does not exercise self-control is not going to be successful, and will not win any prizes.





> I think you really should get over this strange obsession with making every scripture about salvation.  The scriptures you bring up are almost always about *sanctification* and rewards in heaven that we DO get.
> 
> As Kevin put it, once we are saved, we all have a passing grade. (that is justification.)    However, our works are still judged, NOT to determine salvation but rewards in heaven. Some people will have more than others.     That is why everything we do DOES matter, but that has nothing to do with salvation.   Salvation is by God's grace, through faith.


 Now it's my "obsession"?  Did you ever once think maybe it's not my "obsession", but rather your constant inability to understand clear scripture?
Reread the entire context of that scripture--Paul refers to his crown of salvation and glory when he makes the statement that he fears that even Paul himself after preaching to everyone else--might be "castaway" (KJV) or "disqualified (NIV)  Just what "crown" do you believe Paul is referring to there?  Certainly not a crown of rewards.  We only get one "crown"--not two-three or four depending on whatever your frame of reference is there or may be aside from the truth.

I actually had to wait a day before replying to your post because I knew if I'd replied to it when I first read it--I would have been repenting and asking the Lord for forgiveness myself for what I was actually thinking about saying to you then.

----------


## lilymc

> Really--my "ridiculous idea"?  Well then just how ridiculous can one be not to understand that there's a reason why Jesus said "repent and be forgiven".  And also--confessing our sins to one another in repentance for forgiveness.  Is it really such a chore for you to say after you know you've done something wrong---"please Lord--forgive me for being so disrespectful to Terry" while repenting of that at the same time?  Do you carry on and sin that much that you'd have to spend all day naming things, repenting of them and asking forgiveness for them?  
> 
> Anyone with the mind of Christ and His nature dwelling in them as the Holy Spirit will be convicted by their own conscience when they know they've done something not in accordance with how our Lord has told us to live and treat one another.  They will immediately change their minds and seek forgiveness for it too.  This is what "repentance" or "changing one's mind is all about Lily.
> 
> LOL--seriously?


Terry, you keep doing the same thing over and over.  You keep arguing something that I never claimed.   

Please post a quote where I stated that repentance is unnecessary.    I've said this 3 or 4 times, but apparently I need to say it again: I believe that once a person is truly saved, having a repentant heart after one sins is something that inevitably happens, it happens naturally because we love God and because we WANT to be in a right relationship with God.   

But if a person forgets to repent for a sin, or goes for a period of time without repenting, that does not mean they lose their salvation.    A true believer will ALWAYS come back to a right relationship with God, because we are a new creation and because God will make sure that we come back to that right relationship with Him.

Do you understand my view now?




> The only time a believer needs to worry about going to hell is if they stop feeling guilty about what they're doing and stop seeking repentance/changing their minds.  When a believer is no longer responsive to what the Holy Spirit is trying to say to them--this is when they begin to harden their hearts and eventually to the point of grieving the Holy Spirit.  If they remain in that state of mind for too long--God only knowing their hearts and that they won't return by repentance--then as Hebrews 6:4 tells you--they are cut off and unable to be "renewed to repentance".  At this point--they're lost forever and turned over to their own delusions that they chose for themselves.


Someone who "stops feeling guilty about what they're doing and stops seeking repentance" is almost certainly someone who was never regenerated and sealed with the Spirit.  This is where you and I actually DO disagree.




> Paul is absolutely talking about his own salvation with regard to him stating that he feared that even he/himself could be castaway or disqualified--not knowing his own heart as God does and that he hadn't finished this life and course yet.  The context of that same scripture Paul refers to his crown and being in fear that it was possible for even him to be castaway because Paul knew that mankind can be tested by the devil to the point of no return to God.  Great men of God have fallen to temptation when no one or themselves thought it possible.  This is why we can not presume upon God as to whom He chooses and who He doesn't choose.  It's not our place in this life to judge even ourselves either way, let alone anyone else.


You see it that way because you see everything (the entire Gospel) through your works-based mentality.    Terry, we're going to have to agree to disagree, because frankly I disagree with your entire view of the Gospel.   

There is no Grace in your view of the Gospel, only your own works, striving and religion.




> Now it's my "obsession"?  Did you ever once think maybe it's not my "obsession", but rather your constant inability to understand clear scripture?
> Reread the entire context of that scripture--Paul refers to his crown of salvation and glory when he makes the statement that he fears that even Paul himself after preaching to everyone else--might be "castaway" (KJV) or "disqualified (NIV)  Just what "crown" do you believe Paul is referring to there?  Certainly not a crown of rewards.  We only get one "crown"--not two-three or four depending on whatever your frame of reference is there or may be aside from the truth.
> 
> I actually had to wait a day before replying to your post because I knew if I'd replied to it when I first read it--I would have been repenting and asking the Lord for forgiveness myself for what I was actually thinking about saying to you then.


The reason I said that it was an obsession was because you seem to be very passionate in your opposition to the reality that once we're truly saved, we're saved. Also because you constantly post scriptures that are about other topics (sanctification, service, self-discipline, etc) and try to make them into scriptures about justification.  *We are justified by faith.*  Read Hebrews 11, if you haven't in a while. And Galatians 3.

Again, I think we should just agree to disagree, because as I said, we're not arguing about 1 or 2 scriptures here, but your entire understanding of the Gospel. 

You are free to believe that it depends on our works.   That is a works-based mentality, and all false religions in the world are works-based religions. (Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism and many others)   In fact, what makes our faith unique is that Christianity is NOT a works-based religion.

But there is one more thing I want to say, something that has been pressing on my heart for days.  You are putting the cart before the horse.     

You are so focused on works, and constantly striving.... but what you don't seem to acknowledge (at least as far as I've seen) is that Jesus wants us to be born again. We need to completely surrender and die to our old self, and be regenerated.  That has to come FIRST, or else we are not saved, but trusting in our deeds instead of Jesus.


HE SAVED US, NOT ON THE BASIS OF DEEDS WHICH WE HAVE DONE IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, 
BUT ACCORDING TO HIS MERCY, BY THE WASHING OF REGENERATION 
AND RENEWING BY THE HOLY SPIRIT

_Titus 3:5_

*Religion:*  Obey God in order to be accepted.
*Gospel:*  Once we've put our faith in Jesus, we are accepted, therefore we obey because we love God and we are grateful!

*Religion:* Motivation is based on fear and insecurity.
*Gospel:* Motivation is based on grateful joy!

Did you see the video I posted the other day?    Terry, give up religion!  Not only will it not save you, but it's infinitely better when you completely surrender yourself, give up on constantly trying to measure up through your own works and become born again. Allow GOD to transform you into the person He created you to be, instead of trying to do it yourself!

----------


## Terry1

> Terry, you keep doing the same thing over and over.  You keep arguing something that I never claimed.


I believe you're the one who keeps changing the narrative "over and over" as you begin to realize just what you actually did say.  




> Please post a quote where I stated that repentance is unnecessary.    I've said this 3 or 4 times, but apparently I need to say it again: I believe that once a person is truly saved, having a repentant heart after one sins is something that inevitably happens, it happens naturally because we love God and because we WANT to be in a right relationship with God.


I understand your view of repentance, but what I've been attempting to relate to you is that Your view of repentance does not reconcile biblically with scripture. 

This is your quote below here stating that "it's ridiculous to have to repent every 5 minutes or go to hell. Now you quote me where I said that this was *ever the case?  Then you go on here to say that my view of salvation is that we have none in this life.  That's not what I said either--if you can find a quote where I did that--then please do post it and I'll show you that's not what I said at all.  What I said was as long as we walk in the Spirit of the Lord we are within the will of God and we can rest in that refuge knowing we are doing what we were called to do and be.  As far as *choosing myself* and presuming upon God that He's already chosen me before I've finished this life--no--just the idea makes me shudder to think it.  You haven't finished this life yet--it's not over until it's over.  You don't even know your own future or heart as well as God already foreknows it and for this reason--not only can't you decide who's chosen--and if you can't decide who's chosen or not--you can't choose yourself before God either.  Again and for the same reason--because this life isn't over yet.  

Here's your quote:

* "The thing you and I disagree on is that you have this ridiculous idea that we have to repent pretty much every 5 minutes or go to hell, completely destroying the entire idea of salvation. There is no salvation in your view. There is a continual striving through our own works and the belief that if we don't do enough good deeds or if we sin one too many times and don't repent every 5 minutes we will be cast into hell. Sorry, but that is both absurd and completely unbiblical.." 
*





> But if a person forgets to repent for a sin, or goes for a period of time without repenting, that does not mean they lose their salvation.    A true believer will ALWAYS come back to a right relationship with God, because we are a new creation and because God will make sure that we come back to that right relationship with Him.


That's not biblical Lily.  True believers can and do fall and many never return.  The Parable of the Sower tells you this and so does Galatians 5:4, John 15: and Hebrew 6:4 and almost the entire book of James-- which are the hard biblical evidence that says your wrong.




> Do you understand my view now?


I could ask you the very same thing. 





> Someone who "stops feeling guilty about what they're doing and stops seeking repentance" is almost certainly someone who was never regenerated and sealed with the Spirit.  This is where you and I actually DO disagree.


Your statement is in direct opposition to Hebrews 6:4 where it clearly tells you that they've been partakers of the Holy Spirit, enlightened by the word of God and tasted the heavenly gifts and then fell away through their own hardening of their hearts--hence God simply cuts them off by not allowing them to be *RENEWED TO REPENTANCE".  "RENEWED" being the key word here meaning that they were once able to repent and return to God--  Where there is no repentance--there's no returning to God--forever--they're lost and can never return because they chose to abandon God and yes--they were believers who were most certainly among the elect at one time, but they fell.  Paul, in 2 Timothy 2:10 confirms this again where Paul says that he "endures for the sake of the elect that they may also obtain salvation.  Why do you think that Paul is saying that the elect may/might obtain something that the word elect indicates that they already have?  It's because they haven't finished this life and course and it's possible to fall.  No man is above temptation in this world.  People do fall and never return to God who were once elect--they were once saved and walked in the spirit.

Paul confirms this again in 1 Corithinans 9:27 saying that he fears himself that it's possible he too could be "castaway" (KJV) or "disqualified" (NIV).  Which is referring to his crown of salvation and not "rewards" as you believe.  





> You see it that way because you see everything (the entire Gospel) through your works-based mentality.    Terry, we're going to have to agree to disagree, because frankly I disagree with your entire view of the Gospel.   
> 
> There is no Grace in your view of the Gospel, only your own works, striving and religion.


Not so--you've been indoctrinated by whatever church of belief system you've subscribed to because that certainly isn't biblical.  God tells you through James and Paul and Hebrews and John along with the entire New Testament that faith without works is dead faith.  If your faith is dead--then grace is of no effect either--hence this is where Paul says they have fallen--where Hebrews tells you that they can not be "renewed to repentance".  Without these spiritual saving elements along with our works that Jesus Himself told you is the only way to glorify the Father in heaven--one can not be walking in the Spirit--nor can they be considered among the elect.





> The reason I said that it was an obsession was because you seem to be very passionate in your opposition to the reality that once we're truly saved, we're saved. Also because you constantly post scriptures that are about other topics (sanctification, service, self-discipline, etc) and try to make them into scriptures about justification.  *We are justified by faith.*  Read Hebrews 11, if you haven't in a while. And Galatians 3.


I don't doubt Hebrews 11 or Galatians 3--what you need to do is stop cherry picking verses that seem to support you POV and instead try to reconcile these scriptures you mentioned with John 15:5 and Hebrews 6:4 by your stated belief.  You can not do it because it's not possible to believe the way you do and make these scriptures you've mention reconcile with the ones I've pointed out as well.




> Again, I think we should just agree to disagree, because as I said, we're not arguing about 1 or 2 scriptures here, but your entire understanding of the Gospel. 
> 
> You are free to believe that it depends on our works.   That is a works-based mentality, and all false religions in the world are works-based religions. (Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism and many others)   In fact, what makes our faith unique is that Christianity is NOT a works-based religion.
> 
> But there is one more thing I want to say, something that has been pressing on my heart for days.  You are putting the cart before the horse.     
> 
> You are so focused on works, and constantly striving.... but what you don't seem to acknowledge (at least as far as I've seen) is that Jesus wants us to be born again. We need to completely surrender and die to our old self, and be regenerated.  That has to come FIRST, or else we are not saved, but trusting in our deeds instead of Jesus.


I can't tell you how wrong you are Lily and I would never say to you and imply what you just did in your statement above to me.  You just stated that you believe I'm not saved at all.  What I can tell you is that I walk in the spirit of the Lord--pray and seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit and I know He leads me.  This is what I was called to do and be, but never presume upon God as to whomever He chooses--not even myself.  I rest in the knowledge that I'm where I should be and for now and until the end of my life-- that is enough--just the same as it was for the Apostle Paul and the rest the Apostles as well.  I don't strive to be saved by my works--my works are the evidence of my faith that most certainly does glorify the Father in heaven--it's my light.  So now I should ask you--where's your light if you have no works that you do in faith to show evidence of your belief in the Lord?




> HE SAVED US, NOT ON THE BASIS OF DEEDS WHICH WE HAVE DONE IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, 
> BUT ACCORDING TO HIS MERCY, BY THE WASHING OF REGENERATION 
> AND RENEWING BY THE HOLY SPIRIT
> 
> _Titus 3:5_






> *Religion:*  Obey God in order to be accepted.
> *Gospel:*  Once we've put our faith in Jesus, we are accepted, therefore we obey because we love God and we are grateful!
> 
> *Religion:* Motivation is based on fear and insecurity.
> *Gospel:* Motivation is based on grateful joy!
> 
> Did you see the video I posted the other day?    Terry, give up religion!  Not only will it not save you, but it's infinitely better when you completely surrender yourself, give up on constantly trying to measure up through your own works and become born again. Allow GOD to transform you into the person He created you to be, instead of trying to do it yourself!


Lily--I'm 59 years old this year.  I've been a believer since the age of 26 and been a witness to more than you could possibly understand.  I'm certainly not going to start casting pearls here either to prove something to someone as yourself who I consider still a babe on the milk of the word.  One thing I can almost guarantee you though--if you stay true and love the truth of God above everything else and have a sincere burning desire to know it--someday you will come to see what I'm telling you now that you so strongly reject at this point and time.  Many years ago--I *was you*.

----------


## lilymc

> I believe you're the one who keeps changing the narrative "over and over" as you begin to realize just what you actually did say.  
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your view of repentance, but what I've been attempting to relate to you is that Your view of repentance does not reconcile biblically with scripture. 
> 
> This is your quote below here stating that "it's ridiculous to have to repent every 5 minutes or go to hell. Now you quote me where I said that this was *ever the case?  Then you go on here to say that my view of salvation is that we have none in this life.  That's not what I said either--if you can find a quote where I did that--then please do post it and I'll show you that's not what I said at all.  What I said was as long as we walk in the Spirit of the Lord we are within the will of God and we can rest in that refuge knowing we are doing what we were called to do and be.  As far as *choosing myself* and presuming upon God that He's already chosen me before I've finished this life--no--just the idea makes me shudder to think it.  You haven't finished this life yet--it's not over until it's over.  You don't even know your own future or heart as well as God already foreknows it and for this reason--not only can't you decide who's chosen--and if you can't decide who's chosen or not--you can't choose yourself before God either.  Again and for the same reason--because this life isn't over yet.  
> 
> Here's your quote:
> ...


Terri, this is why I said we should just agree to disagree.  You are extremely set in your thinking, and arguing with you seems pointless.

If I have time later, I might come back to do a point by point reply, but for now I just have one quick question for you.

You said you've been a believer for a long time, but when did you first join the church you are currently in?  (EO?)   I do have a reason for asking.

----------


## Terry1

> Terri, this is why I said we should just agree to disagree.  You are extremely set in your thinking, and arguing with you seems pointless.
> 
> If I have time later, I might come back to do a point by point reply, but for now I just have one quick question for you.
> 
> You said you've been a believer for a long time, but when did you first join the church you are currently in?  (EO?)   I do have a reason for asking.


I've attended many churches Lily over the decades.  I saw people who loved the Lord in all of them to tell you the truth.  They weren't any less saved, loved or   forgiven by God than myself.  I was shown many people in many different Christian denominations for a reason.  I sincerely believe that because not only have I grown in knowledge, wisdom and understanding, but I came to realize why I was shown these things.  The body of Christ is symbolically like the body of a person with many members having different functions that contribute to the body as a whole.  The body of Christ is the same.  We don't all believe exactly alike, some are babes on the milk still and some of mature meat eaters--the teachers and leaders.  

God scatters his treasures--His people and His truths for a reason.  You'll never find it all in one spot--but scattered in different places and people.  And we learn as we grow in faith never to toss the baby out with the bathwater.  God has stashed his truths in diverse places so that only those who walk in the Spirit of the Lord and desire them will find them.  He told us He did this for a reason.  Those with greater faith are given more because of their steadfastness in the life of Christ and their devotion to the word of God--the true seekers.

You can not judge people by what church they go to--or even by what they subscribe to because we simply do not know the hearts of others as God does.  He knows who belongs to Him--we don't.  

You asked me those questions because you were setting me up to be judged by your limited and shallow view of who's saved and who isn't.  I'm sure you don't see it that way, but I know this is your intention by asking me those questions.   I respectfully have given you enough I believe and more than you can probably chew on right now.

----------


## lilymc

> I've attended many churches Lily over the decades.  I saw people who loved the Lord in all of them to tell you the truth.  They weren't any less saved, loved or   forgiven by God than myself.  I was shown many people in many different Christian denominations for a reason.  I sincerely believe that because not only have I grown in knowledge, wisdom and understanding, but I came to realize why I was shown these things.  The body of Christ is symbolically like the body of a person with many members having different functions that contribute to the body as a whole.  The body of Christ is the same.  We don't all believe exactly alike, some are babes on the milk still and some of mature meat eaters--the teachers and leaders.  
> 
> God scatters his treasures--His people and His truths for a reason.  You'll never find it all in one spot--but scattered in different places and people.  And we learn as we grow in faith never to toss the baby out with the bathwater.  God has stashed his truths in diverse places so that only those who walk in the Spirit of the Lord and desire them will find them.  He told us He did this for a reason.  Those with greater faith are given more because of their steadfastness in the life of Christ and their devotion to the word of God--the true seekers.
> 
> You can not judge people by what church they go to--or even by what they subscribe to because we simply do not know the hearts of others as God does.  He knows who belongs to Him--we don't.  
> 
> You asked me those questions because you were setting me up to be judged by your limited and shallow view of who's saved and who isn't.  I'm sure you don't see it that way, but I know this is your intention by asking me those questions.   I respectfully have given you enough I believe and more than you can probably chew on right now.


Terry, you are misunderstanding and making assumptions.  I agree that Christians are in a variety of different churches, and that God 'scatters his treasures'  - as you put it- in various places.  

I  just wanted to know how long you have been with your current church.  If you don't want to answer me, no worries.  But I am genuinely curious.

----------


## Kevin007

> Kevin.  You think I'm a Mormon.  You are mentally unstable.  Get some help.


No, I know your an SDA.

----------


## Kevin007

I asked a simple question to the Protestants in the other thread "no man  can snatch them out of my hands"--Louise was the only one who chose to  take on that challenge and I respect her for it even though I didn't  agree with her.  It was the question regarding this particular scripture  here *1 Corinthians 9:27: I drive my body and train it, for fear  that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified--*.

That question was asked of all of you and there were no takers other than Louise. 


Terry- Paul isn't talking about Salvation, but of SERVICE.

----------


## Kevin007

> Following Jesus is about *salvation* Kevin.  "If any man would come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily and FOLLOW Me."


NO it is not Following Jesus is about SANCTIFICATION. Do you know the difference? Salvation is a free gift and you cannot "follow" salvation. Salvation is not earned in any way. Following is an effort on our part.

----------


## Kevin007

> The "peasant war" was a war of the classes because of the oppression by the German elite and royalty.  These same classes today would include also the middle to upper middle class citizens.  Luther chose the side of the elites after encouraging the lower classes to go to war with them.  Yes--Luther stated to crush and kill them all and over because they fought for their freedom against the oppressive laws of the land which included keeping them as nothing more than slaves unable to own land and taxing their small wages to enormous degrees.  
> 
>   Luther's thesis is what encouraged the violence as well as Luther himself, because that is what this particular doctrine is designed in nature to do with teaching people that there's nothing they can do to lose their salvation--save murder, violence, adultery--that teaches nothing can separate them from God or the kingdom of heaven after confession.  This is the doctrine of "unconditional election" and the "perseverance of the saints" as in the likes of OSAS and Predestination.  These doctrines breed sin and violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, I believe that it is futile to continue this discussion with you.  I have presented the facts, scripture and sources that you continually choose to deny and distort with your own version to support what it is that you choose to believe.


Terry, for once we agree (about the first part) Jm likes to twist words. I disagree that OSAS breeds violence. The Holy Spirit lives inside every Believer regardless and as it is stated in the Word, a Believer will not use their salvation as a license to sin.

----------


## Kevin007

Terry you said- "That's not biblical Lily.  True believers can and do fall and many never  return.  The Parable of the Sower tells you this and so does Galatians  5:4, John 15: and Hebrew 6:4 and almost the entire book of James-- which  are the hard biblical evidence that says your wrong."

Terry- Lily's point is these verses are not sapeaking of a Believer losing their salvation. There is not one Believer in the NT that lost their salvation. Your understanding of these verses is not correct, or in line with the rest of the Bible. These verses are not talking at all about salvation, but service, fellowship, sanctification and walking with God. I've showed you and refuted each verse you listed. Looks like I'll have to do it again, but I'm off to bed soon. REMIND me pls if I forget by tom. night?

----------


## Kevin007

Terry- Hebrews 6:4 isn't talking about salvation. Judas had been enlightened, but he rejected the light. There is no mention here of a saving faith, the blood or eternal life or child of God. These people heard the good news opined on it, but rejected it.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry you said- *"That's not biblical Lily.  True believers can and do fall and many never  return.  The Parable of the Sower tells you this and so does Galatians  5:4, John 15: and Hebrew 6:4 and almost the entire book of James-- which  are the hard biblical evidence that says your wrong."
> *
> Terry- Lily's point is these verses are not sapeaking of a Believer losing their salvation. There is not one Believer in the NT that lost their salvation. Your understanding of these verses is not correct, or in line with the rest of the Bible. These verses are not talking at all about salvation, but service, fellowship, sanctification and walking with God. I've showed you and refuted each verse you listed. Looks like I'll have to do it again, but I'm off to bed soon. REMIND me pls if I forget by tom. night?


Because there's not a list of names in word that lost their salvation means that they didn't and don't exist?  Read the Parable of the Sower--  The Parable of the Sower is all about those who lost their salvation or fell from their state of elect.  It tells you some believed and remained for a while and withered--they fell away when they gave into temptations of this world.  

All through the NT, Jesus and the Apostles are giving warnings about stepping out of the light--about not "continuing to walk in the Spirit" because this is our *Free Will and choice* to do so.  Paul instructs believers to "remain" in the spirit.  This is why John 15: tells you here-- 7* If you remain in me* *and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you*. 8This is to my Fathers glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.  

Keyword is *IF*--if you remain in me and my words in you"--meaning we have a choice to remain in belief or not.  You yourself said you believe in the free will, but you contradict yourself by then saying that once people are saved--they can't choose to walk away.

If these warnings were not for believers Kevin---all Gods word would have to say to the unsaved is "repent and be saved"--that's it.  Who do you believe the "trials and temptations" were meant for?  Why do you think believers are being warned about them if you're once saved always saved?  Why then doesn't our Lord just whisk you off to heaven in a whirlwind of fire if there's nothing left for you to do, endure, be tested for or do in this life?  

You're like an out of control speeding train headed for the cliffs.  You're a babe on the milk of the word--zealous to be right in your complete wrongness.  We can only pray that at some point you will be able to chew on the meat of the word and actually do the body of Christ some good instead of the damage that you're doing to it and yourself now.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry, you are misunderstanding and making assumptions.  I agree that Christians are in a variety of different churches, and that God 'scatters his treasures'  - as you put it- in various places.  
> 
> I  just wanted to know how long you have been with your current church.  If you don't want to answer me, no worries.  But I am genuinely curious.


I've recently been led to the EOC--Greek Orthodox--because also recently--I came to see a consistency regarding the keepers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ there.  

Just one of your biggest problems that I have seen Lily and not just you, but others as well.  Is that you have this sort of spiritual tunnel vision regarding churches and people.  If you see something in any church or person that that isn't lock-step with what's already set in your mind, you insist that they can't be saved--when in all truth--you have no way of knowing.  You let the least dangerous of offenses to the soul sway you away from the greatest of revelations of truth regarding saving grace through faith.  For example church traditions and practices seem to just hang you up and become a stumbling block for you--when Paul tells you to actually *keep church traditions and practice* that edify Christ.  The ones Paul is telling us not to do are the ones the Jews practiced under the Mosaic Law.  The problem is that you don't understand why some of these traditions and practices are important in our physical world as a witness to the unsaved and why they must be preserved.

Aside from that--Christian traditions do not negate our faith--nor are they dangerous to the eternal souls of man, but what is dangerous to the soul is believing that you're eternally secure in this life without realizing that we are not and that there's a reason we're supposed to be ever watchful and vigilant in our spiritual journey to the end of this life by "remaining in the Spirit of the Lord".  

Thinking that you've already been glorified in this life will naturally give one a sense of security and complacency because it's our human nature to sit back and relax once we feel secure and safe from all harm.  Complacency is that feeling of smug or uncritical satisfaction with oneself or one's achievements as in "well--I can do this because I know I'm saved no matter what".  I can tell you right now a good example of a woman who's in jail for embezzlement who used to walk around praising the Lord all day long and she believed that nothing she did mattered with regard to her salvation.   She will still tell you to this very day that she knows without a doubt that she's saved with no remorse for what she's done at all.  Terry Nichols who along with the late Timothy McVeigh who bombed the building in Oklahoma both believed in once saved always saved and to this day will tell you that nothing they did caused them to lose their salvation and they'd do it again if they could.

And this is why this teaching and doctrine are dangerous and breed sin and violence.  Had these people I just mentioned been taught rightly--it could have saved hundreds of lives lost in that bombing.

You and Kevin can sit here all day long telling me that "well--they never really were saved in the first place".  How do you know when your own requirements for salvation are nothing more than confession of belief and that's it--people are saved.  Do you see how biblically illogical this is?

The fact is that you nor Kevin or anyone who believes that they're *saved, chosen, elect and glorified already in this life actually know who's saved and who isn't.  People who keep telling themselves this will do things opposite the will of God with the thinking that they can "sin boldly"--"kill a thousand times a day" and still be saved.  Charles Stanley teaches this very same thing.  He's that clueless TBN preacher who drools when he speaks.

----------


## Terry1

One more thing I wanted to add to this thread--a lot of clueless so-called Christians whine and complain because our secular government has labeled Christianity amongst religions that commit "hate crimes".   They can't blame the government for this one--not when we've got so-called "Christians" who believe that they can commit crimes and still be saved.  And then they want to criticize Islamic terrorists groups for believing and doing the exact same thing.  

Many so-called "Christians" are their own worst enemies for allowing themselves to believe the lies of false teaching that inevitably encourages hate, sin and violence against one another or whomever they've designated as the enemy.

Hitler believed in Jesus too and thought he was doing God a favor by eliminating the Jews.  Think about what you're subscribing to--question everything and never follow any man made doctrine lock step--trust in the Lord and pray for His truth only.  Our Lord has never called us to anything other than loving our neighbor as ourselves---no matter who they are and just the same as we love God.  Because Jesus Himself told you that whatsoever you do and say to others--you also do unto the Lord Himself.  This is why we are called in love, peace and forgiveness and never sin or violence towards anyone.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry, for once we agree (about the first part) Jm likes to twist words. I disagree that OSAS breeds violence. The Holy Spirit lives inside every Believer regardless and as it is stated in the Word, a Believer will not use their salvation as a license to sin.


Don't fool yourself Kevin--we agree on very little actually.  I like jmd and believe that he's far more enlightened than you are in your current state of mind.

I never even mentioned the nut cases Jim Jones or David Koresh either--all believers in Jesus with their own crazy perverted versions of who's saved and how.

----------


## jmdrake

> Terry, for once we agree (about the first part) Jm likes to twist words. I disagree that OSAS breeds violence. The Holy Spirit lives inside every Believer regardless and as it is stated in the Word, a Believer will not use their salvation as a license to sin.


LOL.  Says the guy that thinks I'm a Mormon.  It's funny that you try to agree and disagree with Terry on the exact same point.  It's funny that you're so filled with hate that you would indirectly side against Protestantism itself just to swipe at me.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, I know your an SDA.


Apparently you don't know the difference as you included info against Mormons in your attacks against me.  You are mentally unstable.  Get help.

----------


## lilymc

> I've recently been led to the EOC--Greek Orthodox--because also recently--I came to see a consistency regarding the keepers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ there.*


Ok. Thank you for answering. That's what I suspected.   I remember you from before. It was either late last year or early this year.  You seemed like a completely different person.   




> Just one of your biggest problems that I have seen Lily and not just you, but others as well. Is that you have this sort of spiritual tunnel vision regarding churches and people. If you see something in any church or person that that isn't lock-step with what's already set in your mind, you insist that they can't be saved--when in all truth--you have no way of knowing. You let the least dangerous of offenses to the soul sway you away from the greatest of revelations of truth regarding saving grace through faith. For example church traditions and practices seem to just hang you up and become a stumbling block for you--when Paul tells you to actually *keep church traditions and practice* that edify Christ. The ones Paul is telling us not to do are the ones the Jews practiced under the Mosaic Law. The problem is that you don't understand why some of these traditions and practices are important in our physical world as a witness to the unsaved and why they must be preserved.


Terry, once again you are presuming things and misunderstanding. 

As I said before, I believe there are true believers in a variety of different churches.  I never claimed that only people who go to a certain church are saved.  In fact, what you are accusing me of is the exact thing that some of the EO people here have implied about non-EO members, so you seem to be blind to those comments, while accusing me of something I never said.

Also, it is not following traditions that I think is dangerous.  You are wrongly assuming again.  In fact, added on man-made traditions is  probably one of the least dangerous aspects of certain religious institutions.

What I think is dangerous is when people are taught doctrines that go directly against what the bible teaches  especially when it comes to doctrines that are consequential, like salvation.   

Believing something wrong about salvation is very different than merely observing certain traditions that are harmless and inconsequential.  




> Aside from that--Christian traditions do not negate our faith--nor are they dangerous to the eternal souls of man, but what is dangerous to the soul is believing that you're eternally secure in this life without realizing that we are not and that there's a reason we're supposed to be ever watchful and vigilant in our spiritual journey to the end of this life by "remaining in the Spirit of the Lord".*


Terry, if you are ever confused about my views, please just ask.  Please don't assume or waste your time and mine arguing things I never claimed, or subtly twisting my position.

Again, it's not added on traditions that negate our faith, what is dangerous is unbiblical teachings about salvation, or not teaching people about their need to be saved, born again.

My Mom is Catholic, so I went to Catholic church as a child and teenager.   The entire time I was there, nobody ever told me about my need for salvation.

As I mentioned on another thread, if I would have died before the year 2000, I would not have been saved, because getting a bit of water sprinkled on my forehead as a baby does not save me.  Neither does religious ceremonies or rituals, or being a good person.

So, I believe that churchy, religious churches like the RCC are doing something very dangerous, because getting salvation wrong is a huge thing.  And even if this is not official RCC or EO teaching, I personally know many Catholics who think they are saved simply because they were baptized as an infant and went through the sacraments. 

None of those things save us.




> Thinking that you've already been glorified in this life will naturally give one a sense of security and complacency because it's our human nature to sit back and relax once we feel secure and safe from all harm.


You're doing it again!   Where did I ever claim that we are glorified in this life?  Quote please? We are JUSTIFIED in this life.  And then we go through the process of sanctification, or spiritual growth and maturity.    

We are not glorified until Jesus returns, and we are fundamentally changed and we get our imperishable bodies.

The bible says that all who are JUSTIFIED will be glorified:

...and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Romans 8:30
So if one is truly justified  then they will eventually be glorified.  But that doesn't happen until later, when Jesus comes back.

In other words, you can't be truly saved (justified) and then NOT eventually be glorified. 




> Complacency is that feeling of smug or uncritical satisfaction with oneself or one's achievements as in "well--I can do this because I know I'm saved no matter what". I can tell you right now a good example of a woman who's in jail for embezzlement who used to walk around praising the Lord all day long and she believed that nothing she did mattered with regard to her salvation. She will still tell you to this very day that she knows without a doubt that she's saved with no remorse for what she's done at all.


You keep misrepresenting and completely misunderstanding what it means to be once saved, always saved.

I can see that I have to keep repeating myself with you.  And I'm going to keep repeating myself until you finally acknowledge what I have been saying instead of erecting and knocking down strawmen.

Terry, please listen. Once we are truly saved and born again, *we are no longer the same person*.   We have a new heart, a new mind, a new nature.  We are a new creation.

We have the Holy Spirit living in us.  Therefore, someone who is truly saved does not want to live like they used to live.  Their interests change, their priorities change, they have an entirely different perspective, on everything!

Let me give you an example from my own life.

I used to be really into nightclubbing, partying, doing all the worldly things that people do.... I did pretty much everything in my past.

Once I got saved, I began to have different interests.  Going to clubs or bars with my friends and getting drunk was no longer something I wanted to do.  The actual progress  and visible changes in my life did not happen overnight.  It was a process.   But what did happen in an instant was that as soon as I first surrendered to God and put my faith in Jesus, I was born spiritually, the "inner me" became different, at that moment. Of course I was a baby in Christ, but the point I'm trying to make is that someone with a new nature does not want to do all the same things they used to do.

Once I put my faith in Jesus, my interest in worldly things began to fade away, and even though it took a number of years, now I can say that my life is completely and drastically different than what it was 15-20 years ago.  I used to be materialistic, I used to be really into having a nice car, nice clothes, fashion, etc.  Now I don't care as much about things like that.

 The music I listen to, the movies I watch, the books I read,  how I spend my time, and my views on numerous things changed.  My entire perspective of the world changed.

When we are born again and have the Holy Spirit living in us, we are no longer the same person. 

So your argument that you keep repeating  that OSAS makes people think I can do this because I know I'm saved no matter what"  and makes them want to go on a sinning spree _shows a profound misunderstanding on what It means to be truly saved._ 

No true Christian that I know  those who love God and are grateful for their salvation-   none of them fit into that category of people who think Oh boy, I'm going to sin to my heart's content because I'm saved!!!   NO, Terry.   Someone with the Holy Spirit and a new nature does not think that way.  That doesn't mean they never sin.  But a true Christian eventually learns that when we do mess up, there are consequences and God disciplines His children.  We eventually learn that it's better to just obey God.   Some people learn that more quickly than others.  But eventually, all who are truly following God learn, grow, and move forward, that is part of sanctification.

What you are describing is someone who maybe said a shallow sinner's prayer without honestly putting their faith in Christ and Christ alone.  





> Terry Nichols who along with the late Timothy McVeigh who bombed the building in Oklahoma both believed in once saved always saved and to this day will tell you that nothing they did caused them to lose their salvation and they'd do it again if they could.
> 
> And this is why this teaching and doctrine are dangerous and breed sin and violence. Had these people I just mentioned been taught rightly--it could have saved hundreds of lives lost in that bombing.


Wow, Terry.  This is why I said that this is an obsession for you.  Your claim that OSAS breeds people like Timothy McVeigh shows that you are completely blinded by your extreme, over the top hatred for this doctrine.

As I just finished explaining above, no one who is truly saved becomes a monster - the exact opposite happens.  Those who are truly saved are transformed by God... that doesn't happen overnight, it is a process that takes years, but the process goes in that direction  toward holiness.

As for Timothy McVeigh, I don't know where you are getting your information, can you post a quote of his where he states, I'm a true Christian and I am positive i'm saved and going to heaven!

According to a letter he wrote right before his death, he said he was an agnostic, and it seems clear from his own words that he had no idea where he was going.    

In his letter, McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would "improvise, adapt and overcome", if it turned out there was an afterlife. *"If I'm going to hell," he wrote, "I'm gonna have a lot of company."*
So based on his own words, he sure didn't sound like someone who knew he was saved.  If anything, it sounded like he realized that he might be on his way to hell.

Even wikipedia states that he was an agnostic, originally raised catholic. Look at the right hand side, under religion:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

I did read one article that claims he believed in a god  (I didn't see anything about Jesus)  and I'm not sure if this is accurate, but there are reports that he was influenced by the Christian Identity movement   which is an extremely racist, white supremacist cult.  NOT Christianity.  

So to get back to the actual discussion here, the problem is not the doctrine.  The problem is your misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the doctrine, and of salvation.





> You and Kevin can sit here all day long telling me that "well--they never really were saved in the first place". How do you know when your own requirements for salvation are nothing more than confession of belief and that's it--people are saved. Do you see how biblically illogical this is?
> 
> The fact is that you nor Kevin or anyone who believes that they're *saved, chosen, elect and glorified already in this life actually know who's saved and who isn't. People who keep telling themselves this will do things opposite the will of God with the thinking that they can "sin boldly"--"kill a thousand times a day" and still be saved. Charles Stanley teaches this very same thing. He's that clueless TBN preacher who drools when he speaks


I think you broke a new record there for most strawmen packed into one paragraph.   Again, we are not glorified now and none of us ever claimed that.  True believers don't live a life of doing the opposite of God's will or desiring to sin boldly - that is either a huge misunderstanding or a blatant misrepresentation.    If you can find a quote of mine where I claimed that, then please post it.     I don't care what Luther said, he is not me.

Terry,  you just don't get it.  It's as simple as that.    I get the feeling you don't want to get it.  Because then you would have to admit that you recently adopted a view of the Gospel and salvation that is unbiblical and incorrect.   It is churchy, religious, works-based, and simply wrong. I'm sorry.

----------


## lilymc

> LOL.  Says the guy that thinks I'm a Mormon.


I'm just curious, where did Kevin state that you are a Mormon?    (Maybe he did and I just missed that post.)  I do remember him saying recently, "I know you are SDA."

----------


## RJB

> while accusing me of something I never said.


I see way to much of that going on these days on all sides.

----------


## Terry1

> Ok. Thank you for answering. That's what I suspected.   I remember you from before. It was either late last year or early this year.  You seemed like a completely different person.   
> 
> 
> 
> Terry, once again you are presuming things and misunderstanding. 
> 
> As I said before, I believe there are true believers in a variety of different churches.  I never claimed that only people who go to a certain church are saved.  In fact, what you are accusing me of is the exact thing that some of the EO people here have implied about non-EO members, so you seem to be blind to those comments, while accusing me of something I never said.
> 
> Also, it is not following traditions that I think is dangerous.  You are wrongly assuming again.  In fact, added on man-made traditions is  probably one of the least dangerous aspects of certain religious institutions.
> ...



Thank you for the thoughtful post Lily, but now I have one question for you--could you please explain in detail what you mean by "religious works based" and please back that up with scripture that supports it.  Thanks.

----------


## lilymc

> Thank you for the thoughtful post Lily, but now I have one question for you--could you please explain in detail what you mean by "religious works based" and please back that up with scripture that supports it.  Thanks.


Yes, I will do that, but I spent a lot of time on that last reply to you, and I really can't stay on this site right now... I've neglected things I am supposed to be doing today.

So I'll try to reply to that tonight.

----------


## Terry1

> Yes, I will do that, but I spent a lot of time on that last reply to you, and I really can't stay on this site right now... I've neglected things I am supposed to be doing today.
> 
> So I'll try to reply to that tonight.


No problem, I have some stuff to do right now anyway.  I was just taking a break here after getting back from the store.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm just curious, where did Kevin state that you are a Mormon?    (Maybe he did and I just missed that post.)  I do remember him saying recently, "I know you are SDA."


In his "Let me trash the SDAs" thread he included some quote about how Mormons think everybody else is lost or something like that.  But Mormons hadn't been brought up by anybody else.  I think it was a cut a paste error.  Part of this is me ribbing him.  But part of it is...I really think he is a bit unbalanced.  OCD?

----------


## RJB

> But part of it is...I really think he is a bit unbalanced.  OCD?


It usually happens around midnight and towards the end of his posting.  I have a feeling he's just been hitting the bottle and will be fine in the morning other than a headache.

----------


## Kevin007

I work full time and post before bed. I do not drink. Nice insults btw. Personal attacks, yet you call yourselves Christians. Nice.

For your info, Terry- I'm not a babe in Christ. Your interpretation is far from the true meaning of Jesus' finished work. You can't see grace if it hit you in the head. The sad thing is you do not trust in Jesus' finished work at the Cross. You think you have to earn His favor, earn His acceptence.

----------


## RJB

> I work full time and post before bed. I do not drink. Nice insults btw. Personal attacks, yet you call yourselves Christians. Nice.


 Actually I was defending you and trying to explain your seeming lack of comprehension when responding to others, attacking people with unrelated facts, attacking JM as a Mormon in the middle of your anti-SDA rant, trying to get Orthodox Christians to defend the Papacy and other bits of nuttiness was due to temporary intoxication versus something being permanently off.

If you're overworked dude, take a break.  I'm being serious.

----------


## Terry1

> I work full time and post before bed. I do not drink. Nice insults btw. Personal attacks, yet you call yourselves Christians. Nice..


But it's just okay for you and Lily to run roughshod through the thread playing God here telling me I need to be "regenerated/saved".  I can take it--rolls right off my back considering the source too, but that's still no excuse for just plain old ignorance either.  One thing I've never done is tell someone they're not saved--no matter how bad I thought they were.  I don't know what plans God has for anyone--not now or in their future.  This is something that you and Lily should really think about before you accuse someone/anyone of being an "unregenerate", which is just lipstick on the pig and another word for unsaved.    




> For your info, Terry- I'm not a babe in Christ. Your interpretation is far from the true meaning of Jesus' finished work. You can't see grace if it hit you in the head. The sad thing is you do not trust in Jesus' finished work at the Cross. You think you have to earn His favor, earn His acceptence.


There is a reason I mentioned that jmd was a SDA so casually--  I knew exactly what you'd do with that.  Sort of busted up your lil tag team and switched the focus.  

The really sad part here is that you'll deny the book of James totally to support what you choose to believe aside from truth.  You don't know the difference between the two laws and covenants that distinguish between dead works and works of faith or what James is saying when he tells you that *(2: "18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. )*

That's just a useless platitude in your little mind.

----------


## Kevin007

as always these little verses you quote are not talking about salvation

----------


## Terry1

> as always these little verses you quote are not talking about salvation


Uhuh--I'm sure the only verses you believe *are talking about salvation are the ones that say--"believe and you're saved".  The problem with that is that you don't understand what all belief entails regarding "through faith".  The word "through" is an action word which means " movement within a place or an area".  Which also means that "faith" isn't something that's synonymous with belief.  I know it's a stretch that you'll even understand what I'm saying, but this is what I do--work with the less fortunate with the hope that something may sink in eventually.

Yeah, this gent I take care of is  (mod edit)--only his disability was from a car accident.  So one day he walks in the room butt naked and my husband says--"pants!  Go get your pants!"  So the guy walks back in the room, still butt naked and holding his pants in his hand.  I said to the husband--well dear--after all you didn't tell him to put them on.

----------


## Kevin007

> Uhuh--I'm sure the only verses you believe *are talking about salvation are the ones that say--"believe and you're saved".


 nope, lots of other ones...http://www.gotquestions.org/once-sav...ays-saved.html

----------


## Kevin007

how many sins before losing your salvation?

----------


## jmdrake

> how many sins before losing your salvation?


Well I guess you don't think lying is a sin at all.

----------


## Terry1

> nope, lots of other ones...http://www.gotquestions.org/once-sav...ays-saved.html


That guy is a retard that runs that site.  He was quoting Charles Stanley over there too, plus it's an OSAS site as well.  If you want to convince me of anything (which you can't do at this point), but if you'd like to try--at least use a more reputable site less biased with actual reputable theologians instead of zombies and retards.  Charles Stanley is a Southern Baptist preacher and I say that lightly.  He's actually a wolf in sheepskin.

Here's a quote from Charles Stanley:

 "When He died on the Cross, He took care of all of our sin. You say, 'You mean to tell me that if a person takes their own life, after all these things that you just talked about, all these sins, that that person is forgiven?' Yes! A believer who commits suicide is 'already forgiven'. Now I didn't say it was going to be good for him, but he is forgiven in advance. Pardoned of that sin. *No matter what you do as a Child of God, you are forgiven. Murder, stealing, adultery, worshiping idols....all forgiven in advance!" 
*

This guy is an evil nut job who doesn't believe in the need for repenting after confession of belief.  He's encouraging murder--stealing, adultery and worse--claiming that no matter what you do after confessing Christ there's nothing you can do to lose your salvation and this is the guy that you're attempting to use to change my mind???  Try again Kevin--LOL

----------


## Terry1

Kevin, you didn't respond to this post above here.  I'd like to know just what you think about Charles Stanley's quote here.   You/yourself posted Stanley's teaching from that site.  Do you agree with him here?


 Here's a quote from Charles Stanley:

* "When He died on the Cross, He took care of all of our sin. You say, 'You mean to tell me that if a person takes their own life, after all these things that you just talked about, all these sins, that that person is forgiven?' Yes! A believer who commits suicide is 'already forgiven'. Now I didn't say it was going to be good for him, but he is forgiven in advance. Pardoned of that sin. No matter what you do as a Child of God, you are forgiven. Murder, stealing, adultery, worshiping idols....all forgiven in advance!" 

*

Stanley is saying that because he believes that people drawn to Christ are forgiven in advance--that there's no need of repenting of any of these sins after they've confessed Christ.  I know this is what you believe because you've already posted it before as well, which I had to repost to convince Lily that you did.

----------


## erowe1

> This guy is an evil nut job who doesn't believe in the need for repenting after confession of belief.





> Stanley is saying that because he believes that people drawn to Christ are forgiven in advance--that there's no need of repenting of any of these sins after they've confessed Christ.


Where are you getting this? The quote you posted doesn't say anything about not needing to repent.

Here's the very first thing that came up when I searched for the word "repent" at his website.
http://www.intouch.org/resources/art...e#.VCbtvCldVpU

I also notice that Kevin never even said anything about Charles Stanley in the first place. He just posted a link to a website, that, according to you, is run by a developmentally disabled person who on some occasion quoted Charles Stanley about something.

I imagine that in your own mind your response was perfectly logical.

----------


## Terry1

> Where are you getting this? The quote you posted doesn't say anything about not needing to repent..


Charles Stanley teaches *post confession* "repentance" only as something we take responsibility for by saying "Lord I'm sorry", but he will never say in any of his teachings that we should ask for forgiveness for them --only that we acknowledge them as sin and nothing beyond that.  This is where you have to carefully read exactly what it is that he's actually saying.  Read his teaching on repentance here in this link that you posted again: http://www.intouch.org/resources/art...e#.VCbv2ZV0zRY

Within the context of his teaching there in that link--Charles Stanley never teaches any Christian to stop sinning or cease from their sins or else they can lose their salvation--only to acknowledge the fact that sin is against God and that all God will ever do to anyone refusing to repent is discipline them--but never disqualify them or cast them away, which is contrary to what the Apostle Paul teaches us.  

*1 Corinthians 9:  (KJV)

24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.

26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:

27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.


*


> Here's the very first thing that came up when I searched for the word "repent" at his website.
> http://www.intouch.org/resources/art...e#.VCbtvCldVpU
> 
> I also notice that Kevin never even said anything about Charles Stanley in the first place. He just posted a link to a website, that, according to you, is run by a developmentally disabled person who on some other occasion quoted Charles Stanley about something.
> 
> I imagine that in your own mind your response was perfectly logical.


That site promotes Charles Stanley's teaching all of the time.  At the bottom of the link that Kevin posted is again a "recommended reading link" pertaining to the doctrine of OSAS by Charles Stanley.

----------


## erowe1

> Charles Stanley teaches *post confession* "repentance" only as something we take responsibility for by saying "Lord I'm sorry", but he will never say in any of his teachings that we should ask for forgiveness for them --only that we acknowledge them as sin and nothing beyond that.  This is where you have to carefully read exactly what it is that he's actually saying.  Read his teaching on repentance here in this link that you posted again: http://www.intouch.org/resources/art...e#.VCbv2ZV0zRY
> 
> Within the context of his teaching there in that link--Charles Stanley never teaches any Christian to stop sinning or cease from their sins or else they can lose their salvation--only to acknowledge the fact that sin is against God and that all God will ever do to anyone refusing to repent is discipline them--but never disqualify them or cast them away, which is contrary to what the Apostle Paul teaches us.  
> 
> *1 Corinthians 9:  (KJV)
> 
> 24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
> 
> 25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.
> ...


In the link I gave he says:



> Then repent, which requires that you make a decision to turn away from sin.


In the link you gave he says:



> “Lord, I’m really sorry I got caught.”
> 
> “God, I really regret that sin. I sure hope I can do better next time.”
> 
> Does either of these statements indicate genuine repentance? I don’t think so. Both are prompted out of guilt or embarrassment, not a heartfelt sense of remorse over the fact that the Father has been grieved. Usually, these people have no intention of changing. They just want God off of their backs.


and



> This repentance is a change of mind that leads to a change in behavior.


In that same link he clearly says that repentance is something required both by unbelievers in order to become saved and by believers as a part of their fellowship with God.

And again, even if you did accurately characterize Charles Stanley's teaching (which it sure doesn't look like to me), it still has nothing at all to do with anything Kevin said, or with anything that was said in the article contained at the link he gave.

That quote from 1 Corinthians, which you give in the large font, doesn't have anything at all to do with whether or not someone can lose salvation. It doesn't even mention the topic.

----------


## Terry1

> In the link I gave he says:
> 
> 
> In the link you gave he says:
> 
> and
> 
> 
> In that same link he clearly says that repentance is something required both by unbelievers in order to become saved and by believers as a part of their fellowship with God.
> ...


Now that you've said, just what I hoped you would--then explain how someone "can not be renewed to repentance" as in someone who has been a partaker of the Holy Spirit and tasted the heavenly gifts already--* Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
*

----------


## erowe1

> Now that you've said, just what I hoped you would--then explain how someone "can not be renewed to repentance" as in someone who has been a partaker of the Holy Spirit and tasted the heavenly gifts already--* Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
> 
> 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
> *


This is the same question you asked me the other day, which I answered. Did you see that response? Did you read the article I linked to in it?

----------


## Terry1

> That quote from 1 Corinthians, which you give in the large font, doesn't have anything at all to do with whether or not someone can lose salvation. It doesn't even mention the topic.


You can't see it can you--amazing!

Here Paul is explaining to you those that seek a corruptible CROWN vs an incorruptible CROWN.  What CROWN do you think Paul's referring to there?  Then he goes on to explain to you then why he "runs" and "fights" to keep his body in "subjection" to the Lord in fear that it's possible that even himself after preaching to everyone else could be "castaway" or disqualified".  From what is he referring to erowe?  He's referring to his crown of salvation mentioned right before in the previous line of scripture.  How you can not see this is truly bizarre and amazing all by itself.  This is how strong and powerful deception can be and those who do understand what I'm saying are seeing that in action with your example of it as we speak!

*1 Corinthians 9: (KJV)

 24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

 25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.

26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:

 27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

*

----------


## Terry1

> This is the same question you asked me the other day, which I answered. Did you see that response? Did you read the article I linked to in it?


No, sorry I missed that--could you give me the link and post # on that now?

----------


## Terry1

> Yes, I will do that, but I spent a lot of time on that last reply to you, and I really can't stay on this site right now... I've neglected things I am supposed to be doing today.
> 
> So I'll try to reply to that tonight.


Lily--please stay out of my rep box with your personal insults.  If you have a disagreement with something I've said--at least have a enough dignity and respect to acknowledge that in public, plus you never answered my last post to you that you said you would either. 

You held my feet to the fire when I didn't reply to your questions right away, so I did.  Can you now live up to those same standards that you set for me as well?  Thanks

----------


## lilymc

> Lily--please stay out of my rep box with your personal insults.  If you have a disagreement with something I've said--at least have a enough dignity and respect to acknowledge that in public, plus you never answered my last post to you that you said you would either.  Thanks


Telling you to stop the misrepresentations is not insulting you.    On the other thread you blatantly misrepresented the views of those you disagree with, so it is not an "insult" to point out to you that you are misrepresenting again.

Man!  You even misrepresent a private message to you!  LOL!

It's no wonder why you do the same with the scriptures.

----------


## Terry1

> Telling you to stop the misrepresentations is not insulting you.    On the other thread you blatantly misrepresented the views of those you disagree with, so it is not an "insult" to point out to you that you are misrepresenting again..


Those weren't "misrepresentations" Lily--those were differences of opinion--there's a difference.




> Man!  You even misrepresent a private message to you!  LOL!
> 
> It's no wonder why you do the same with the scriptures.


Well--if I neg repped you and said the same things that you said--I suppose you'd consider that a compliment then?  Should I try it now? 

Here's exactly what you said and neg repped me for which was not a "misrepresentation", but rather a difference of opinion, plus you basically accused me of lying as well:

Lily said:
*"That is absolutely not true. No "protestant" I know does not understand the difference between mere belief (as in the demons believe) and a saving faith. Stop with the misrepresentations."*

----------


## lilymc

And actually, I was going to reply to your post last night, about the question you asked me yesterday.

But when I came back, I noticed you were steaming mad and on a rampage, you even indirectly called a brother in Christ basically retarded (when you compared him to the mentally disabled man you take care of).  

At that point I lost interest in getting into a conversation with you.    It seems pointless anyway,  but I might get back to this discussion later, if I feel led to.

----------


## Terry1

> And actually, I was going to reply to your post last night, about the question you asked me yesterday.
> 
> But when I came back, I noticed you were steaming mad and on a rampage, you even indirectly called a brother in Christ basically retarded (when you said he was just like the mentally disabled man you take care of).  
> 
> At that point I lost interest in getting into a conversation with you.    It seems pointless anyway,  but I might get back to this discussion later, if I feel led to.


Yeah, well--this doesn't surprise either.  You nor erowe are going to back up your beliefs with your explanations in detail with scripture to back them up.  You and some others consistently do this then start with the personal attacks to distract attention away from your inability to back up anything you claim with scripture that supports your beliefs.

I forgive you Lily because I understand well what the real problem is here.  I hope you will someday too.

----------


## Terry1

I'll repeat this again here too Lily since you seemed to miss it before--

You held my feet to the fire when I didn't reply to your questions right away, so I did. Can you now live up to those same standards that you set for me as well? Thanks

----------


## lilymc

> I'll repeat this again here too Lily since you seemed to miss it before--
> 
> You held my feet to the fire when I didn't reply to your questions right away, so I did. Can you now live up to those same standards that you set for me as well? Thanks


In just about every single one of my posts on this topic (or similar topics) I have made it clear what I mean by "religious" and "works-based."

Maybe you should go back and just read all my posts on this topic.  Instead of making me repeat myself.  You don't listen anyway, because I find that I am always repeating myself with you.

Heck, even on this very thread, on the previous page (if I'm not mistaken) I explained to you about how you are putting the cart before the horse.

There you go, that is one way of describing someone who has a works-based mentality -  someone who doesn't understand that FIRST we must be born again, justified, declared righteous, become an adopted son or daughter of God.  And THEN, AFTER THAT, we do good things because we love God and because we have a new nature, and because GOD transforms us, continually.  

We don't have to strive to do good works for fear of losing our salvation, because the good works are an inevitable outcome of our new life in Christ, and everything we do is out of our love, respect, gratitude, joy and excitement about having a relationship with God.

Now here is what you usually do.  You take what I just said and you completely twist it and misunderstand it and make into me saying something I never said.  You make it into me saying, "we don't have to do good works."  NO.   That is not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that if you do this in the right order -  if you FIRST trust fully in Jesus, put your faith in Him and what HE did on the cross to pay the price for your sins and make that conscious decision to turn from your old life and follow Him..... THEN, by God's grace, if your faith in genuine , you will be justified.  Then you go to step 2, which is a life-long process.  The works inevitably follow step 1.

As I explained on the other thread, the problem is that many people skip over step 1.  That is where the big problems arise.

So to answer your question from yesterday, someone with a "religious and works-based" mentality would be someone who - for whatever reason - skipped step 1 and tried going straight to step 2, thinking that their works are going to cause them to be accepted by God.

----------


## Terry1

> In just about every single one of my posts on this topic (or similar topics) I have made it clear what I mean by "religious" and "works-based."
> 
> Maybe you should go back and just read all my posts on this topic.  Instead of making me repeat myself.  You don't listen anyway, because I find that I am always repeating myself with you.
> 
> Heck, even on this very thread, on the previous page (if I'm not mistaken) I explained to you about how you are putting the cart before the horse.
> 
> There you go, that is one way of describing someone who has a works-based mentality -  someone who doesn't understand that FIRST we must be born again, justified, declared righteous, become an adopted son or daughter of God.  And THEN, AFTER THAT, we do good things because we love God and because we have a new nature, and because GOD transforms us, continually.  
> 
> We don't have to strive to do good works for fear of losing our salvation, because the good works are an inevitable outcome of our new life in Christ, and everything we do is out of our love, respect, gratitude, joy and excitement about having a relationship with God.
> ...


But when I told you basically the same thing that I'd already answered those questions--it wasn't good enough for you.  You persisted and posted the post link and numbers you wanted answered.  All I'm asking is the same that you asked of me and I did as you requested.

So here's the question again.  




> Quote Originally Posted by Terry1 View Post 
> 
> Thank you for the thoughtful post Lily, but now I have one question for you--could you please explain in detail what you mean by "religious works based" and please back that up with scripture that supports it. Thanks.


You're reply was:




> Yes, I will do that, but I spent a lot of time on that last reply to you, and I really can't stay on this site right now... I've neglected things I am supposed to be doing today.
> 
> 
> So I'll try to reply to that tonight.


So what I'm asking for here is for you to back up what you believe is "religious works based" with scripture to confirm that.  After all--you must have some scripture in mind if this is what you believe and subscribe to.

----------


## lilymc

You must have missed my latest post.  See the post right above your last one.

I just answered your question.

----------


## Terry1

> You must have missed my latest post.  See the post right above your last one.
> 
> I just answered your question.


I asked for you to back up your belief with scripture Lily--not commentary.  Scripture is what matters here.  Thanks

----------


## lilymc

> I asked for you to back up your belief with scripture Lily--not commentary.  Scripture is what matters here.  Thanks


Which part?  What specifically in my last post do you think is untrue?  Justification?   Being born again?   That some people skip over step 1?

----------


## Terry1

> Which part?  What specifically in my last post do you think is untrue?  Justification?   Being born again?   That some people skip over step 1?


Scripture Lily--scripture that supports your statement here "religious works based" belief that you're claiming is not of God and unbiblical.

----------


## erowe1

> Here Paul is explaining to you those that seek a corruptible CROWN vs an incorruptible CROWN.  What CROWN do you think Paul's referring to there?


The crown is the fruit of his ministry as an apostle evidenced by all the people he led to Christ, such as the ones he's writing to.

Read the passage in its context. What is this self-deprivation that he subjects himself to? It is that he does not eat certain things even though he knows he has the right to eat them (v. 4), he does not marry even though he knows he has a right to marry (v. 5), he does not take money from the people he ministers to even though he knows he has a right to do that (vv. 6-14). He says in v. 15, "I have used none of these things." And he explains why not again in vv. 16-18--notice how verses 16 and 17 are connected to the preceding verses by the word "for." And verse 18 asks, "What then is my reward?"

Now notice at this point that when he asks about this reward in v. 18, he is clearly not talking about his own eternal life in Heaven as the reward. At no point is his own eternal life brought into the slightest question here.

And again, in vv. 19-2, which are all one sentence, he continues to explain his reasons for his practice of self-deprivation, again beginning this sentence with "for."

Why again? V. 23. "that I may be a partaker of it with you." "You" being the recipients of the letter, the fruit of Paul's ministry. These souls of others are the eternal crown he looks forward to.

If you have read much of the apostle Paul, you know that this metaphor is the same one he uses elsewhere.

Philippians 4:1:



> Therefore, my brothers and sisters, you whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm in the Lord in this way, dear friends!


1 Thessalonians 2:19:



> For what is our hope, our joy, or the crown in which we will glory in the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes? Is it not you?


Finally, compare all of this with what Paul had earlier in 1 Corinthians said about the pursuit of eternal rewards by people who were already saved in 3:10-15:



> 10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.


The question of Paul's own salvation is the furthest thing from the topics he brings up in the context of 1 Corinthians 9:27. How anybody ever got the idea that he was entertaining the possibility of missing out on his own glorification in that verse I've never understood. But you're not the first person I've seen try to argue that. I think most people who think that have probably just never actually read the book of 1 Corinthians as a coherent whole before.

----------


## erowe1

> No, sorry I missed that--could you give me the link and post # on that now?


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...94#post5656994

----------


## Terry1

> The crown is the fruit of his ministry as an apostle evidenced by all the people he led to Christ, such as the ones he's writing to.
> 
> Read the passage in its context. What is this self-deprivation that he subjects himself to? It is that he does not eat certain things even though he knows he has the right to eat them (v. 4), he does not marry even though he knows he has a right to marry (v. 5), he does not take money from the people he ministers to even though he knows he has a right to do that (vv. 6-14). He says in v. 15, "I have used none of these things." And he explains why not again in vv. 16-18--notice how verses 16 and 17 are connected to the preceding verses by the word "for." And verse 18 asks, "What then is my reward?"
> 
> Now notice at this point that when he asks about this reward in v. 18, he is clearly not talking about his own eternal life in Heaven as the reward. At no point is his own eternal life brought into the slightest question here.
> 
> And again, in vv. 19-2, which are all one sentence, he continues to explain his reasons for his practice of self-deprivation, again beginning this sentence with "for."
> 
> Why again? V. 23. "that I may be a partaker of it with you." "You" being the recipients of the letter, the fruit of Paul's ministry. These souls of others are the eternal crown he looks forward to.
> ...


No--your interpretation doesn't match scripture.  I'll show you where, but I don't have time right now--I'll get back to this one later, but thanks for the thoughtful reply--I will respond, just can't do it right now.  Thanks.

----------


## erowe1

> No--your interpretation doesn't match scripture.  I'll show you where, but I don't have time right now--I'll get back to this one later, but thanks for the thoughtful reply--I will respond, just can't do it right now.  Thanks.


If it didn't match, it would be easy to show me where, since the passage we're talking about is 1 Corinthians 9:27. Either my interpretation matches up with what that passage says or it doesn't.

Is this your way of changing the subject to some other passage without acknowledging what I showed you to be the case concerning this one?

There is just no possible way that, all of a sudden, out of the clear blue sky, in 1 Corinthians 9:27 Paul totally changes the subject from what he had been talking about for all of the previous two chapters and would continue talking about for all of the next chapter to make some totally irrelevant comment about losing his own salvation, when, in fact, 1 Corinthians 9:27 makes perfect sense within that context, talking about Paul's choice to deprive himself of things he has a right to enjoy in his apostolic ministry, and his reasons for that choice.

----------


## Terry1

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...94#post5656994


And this post as well.  I'll have let them sit for now--gotta run, but I promise I will respond.  Thanks

----------


## lilymc

> Scripture Lily--scripture that supports your statement here "religious works based" belief that you're claiming is not of God and unbiblical.


Terry, I had to take a few minutes to get over my amazement that you are actually trying to defend a "religious works-based" mindset.   

The entire New Testament loudly and clearly proclaims the message  that mere 'religion' is not enough.   That is one of the biggest themes of the Gospel!

Who did Jesus have the highest criticism for?  Not the sinners, the "religious" leaders of that day.   Why?  Because they were so prideful, stubborn, concerned with outward appearances, legalistic - but missing the whole point.    They had religion but they weren't saved, they didn't have God in their hearts.

Here is an example of the religious folk rejecting God's will:


But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.  
Luke 7:30

Here is an example of the religious folk putting tradition before God:

And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?   For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.’   But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been  given to God,”  he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.  
Matthew 15:3-6 

Here is an example of how they were cared more about long, showy prayers than doing God's will:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.  
Matthew 23:14

Here is a great example of religious people trusting in _themselves_, and thinking they are righteous because of their own works, while looking down at other people for not doing enough "good works"

*The Pharisee and the Publican*

And He also told this parable to some *people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt:*   “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.   The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.   I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’   But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be  merciful to me, the sinner!’   I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

 And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them.   But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.  Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”

Luke 18:9-17

Here is an example of what Jesus thinks about religious leaders who exalt themselves and do things for show, but don't have God.  This sounds so much like certain big churches of today - churches that have robed priests who appear to be righteous, but behind the scenes are doing horrible, ungodly things.

But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.  They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues,  and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men.   But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.   *Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.   Do not be called  leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.*  But the greatest among you shall be your servant.   Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted. 
Matthew 23:5-12

Here we can see that the law is meant to show that people cannot do it on their own, no one can keep the law perfectly, this is why EVERYONE needs to just surrender to God and put their faith in Jesus.  We are justified by faith, the works come inevitably as a result of a true saving faith.

 Obviously, the law applies to those to whom it was given, for its purpose is to keep people from having excuses, *and to show that the entire world is guilty before God.  For no one can ever be made right with God by doing what the law commands. The law simply shows us how sinful we are.*


But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago.  * We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ.* And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.

 For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard.   Yet God freely and graciously declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. * For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood.* This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past,

Romans 3:19-25

Here is what I've been saying over and over and over.  That when someone is truly saved, they are a new creation. This is what it's all about - new LIFE in Christ, not religion, not striving to do follow the law before being regenerated, but becoming a new creation, and once our nature changes, the good works and good fruit are an inevitable outcome!


“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”  
2nd Corinthians 5:17

Here is another example of Jesus' rebuking those who care more about outward appearances without being born spiritually and be fundamentally changed from the inside out.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness."  
Matthew 23:27

Look at how strongly Jesus spoke against religious leaders who mislead people and end up keeping people away from salvation!

"What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you cross land and sea to make one convert, and then you turn that person into twice the child of hell you yourselves are!"  
Matthew 23:15

Jesus made it clear that we must be born again.     First things first. 

"Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”  
John 3:3

Terry, I could go on and on and on.   I could post hundreds more, if I wanted to.  The WHOLE NEW TESTAMENT, the whole Gospel is about this -  about the need to have JESUS, not mere religion.. not trying to earn our way to salvation or "maintain our salvation" by all our good works.

I might come back to post more scriptures, but really, the entire New Testament is about this.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Thank you for the thoughtful post Lily, but now I have one question for you--*could you please explain in detail what you mean by "religious works based" and please back that up with scripture that supports it.  Thanks*.


+1  Lily's claim there sounds like something from a militant Reformist's angry screed rather than a conclusion based on evidence.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry, I had to take a few minutes to get over my amazement that you are actually trying to defend a "religious works-based" mindset.   
> 
> The entire New Testament loudly and clearly proclaims the message  that mere 'religion' is not enough.   That is one of the biggest themes of the Gospel!
> 
> Who did Jesus have the highest criticism for?  Not the sinners, the "religious" leaders of that day.   Why?  Because they were so prideful, stubborn, concerned with outward appearances, legalistic - but missing the whole point.    They had religion but they weren't saved, they didn't have God in their hearts.
> 
> Here is an example of the religious folk rejecting God's will:
> 
> 
> ...


I'm back right now only for a few minutes and then I have to run again, but the most important issue here that I wanted you to see and realize is who Jesus and the Apostles are speaking to in this scripture that you use to support your belief. 

Every one of those scriptures that you're using are Jesus and the Apostles speaking to the Jews at that time who were still practicing the Mosaic OT law.  Explaining to them why that law is cursed and dead because of the resurrection of Christ.

What you and many protestants are not understanding is the difference between these two polar opposite laws being the Mosaic law and the Law of faith under the New covenant.

Under the New covenant of faith--we are still taught to do good works, as you've seen me post those scriptures over and over, but under the law of faith and the New Covenant--these works are done as an act of faith in Jesus by what the Holy Spirit is leading us to do.  Just as James tells you that the hungry can't get fed, the poor can not be helped and not good can happen without the children of God being obedient to the spirit and doing these good works that the NT teaches is our fruit and our light and evidence of our belief.  

I don't have time to go any further with this, but this in theory should be enough, but in reality--I realize it probably won't be. 

Important note here:  The word "obedient" implies *choice*.  Being obedient in faith is our choosing to do the will of God through our faith by acting upon it in answer to our calling.  Let me know if this makes sense to you or not.

----------


## Terry1

> +1  Lily's claim there sounds like something from a militant Reformist's angry screed rather than a conclusion based on evidence.


 

What I'm clearly seeing more and more every day from many of the protestants are beliefs just like that too.  This is all because of the reformers leaving the ancient teachings of the Gospel of Christ.  More and more I believe you were absolutely correct when you said that these reformers were the "wolves" that Paul spoke of that would come in and literally tear the Gospel to shreds.  Even the numbers that we posted yesterday are almost positive proof of that regarding worldwide church membership.  Amazing and frightening all at the same time isn't it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What I'm clearly seeing more and more every day from many of the protestants are beliefs just like that too.  This is all because of the reformers leaving the ancient teachings of the Gospel of Christ.  More and more I believe you were absolutely correct when you said that these reformers were the "wolves" that Paul spoke of that would come in and literally tear the Gospel to shreds.  Even the numbers that we posted yesterday are almost positive proof of that regarding worldwide church membership.  *Amazing and frightening all at the same time isn't it.*


Yessir!

----------


## Kevin007

> Kevin, you didn't respond to this post above here.  I'd like to know just what you think about Charles Stanley's quote here.   You/yourself posted Stanley's teaching from that site.  Do you agree with him here?
> 
> 
>  Here's a quote from Charles Stanley:
> 
> * "When He died on the Cross, He took care of all of our sin. You say, 'You mean to tell me that if a person takes their own life, after all these things that you just talked about, all these sins, that that person is forgiven?' Yes! A believer who commits suicide is 'already forgiven'. Now I didn't say it was going to be good for him, but he is forgiven in advance. Pardoned of that sin. No matter what you do as a Child of God, you are forgiven. Murder, stealing, adultery, worshiping idols....all forgiven in advance!" 
> 
> *
> 
> Stanley is saying that because he believes that people drawn to Christ are forgiven in advance--that there's no need of repenting of any of these sins after they've confessed Christ.  I know this is what you believe because you've already posted it before as well, which I had to repost to convince Lily that you did.


do you have proof he said this? The chances of a Believer committing murder is possible, unlikely but possible. We are still in the flesh and still sin. The reason he is forgiven in advance is because God knew the Believer would commit that sin beforehand. A sin is a sin- all and any sin separate us from God but Believer's are credited with Jesus' righteousness. We are justified through faith.

----------


## Kevin007

> What I'm clearly seeing more and more every day from many of the protestants are beliefs just like that too.  This is all because of the reformers leaving the ancient teachings of the Gospel of Christ.  More and more I believe you were absolutely correct when you said that these reformers were *the "wolves" that Paul spoke of* that would come in and literally tear the Gospel to shreds.  Even the numbers that we posted yesterday are almost positive proof of that regarding worldwide church membership.  Amazing and frightening all at the same time isn't it.


Keep on believing that. Too bad you have no clue what the verses are talking about.

----------


## Kevin007

http://www.kingschurchaz.com/Wolvesi...sClothing.html

here are the wolves Paul is talking about. Listing some of the false religions and cults. These cults do not believe in what Jesus taught and the Gospel of grace.

----------


## Terry1

> The crown is the fruit of his ministry as an apostle evidenced by all the people he led to Christ, such as the ones he's writing to.
> 
> Read the passage in its context. What is this self-deprivation that he subjects himself to? It is that he does not eat certain things even though he knows he has the right to eat them (v. 4), he does not marry even though he knows he has a right to marry (v. 5), he does not take money from the people he ministers to even though he knows he has a right to do that (vv. 6-14). He says in v. 15, "I have used none of these things." And he explains why not again in vv. 16-18--notice how verses 16 and 17 are connected to the preceding verses by the word "for." And verse 18 asks, "What then is my reward?"
> 
> Now notice at this point that when he asks about this reward in v. 18, he is clearly not talking about his own eternal life in Heaven as the reward. At no point is his own eternal life brought into the slightest question here..


The key word in question here is "castaway" or "disqualified".  What does the word "castaway" or "disqualified" mean to you?  It means to be thrown away--discarded and of no use any longer.

Within the context of that same scripture, Paul is speaking with regards to his "crown".  So you're attempting to say that his "crown" is referring to "the fruit of his ministry".  That's not a crown erowe--that is his calling.  His crown is his final reward--his "crown of glory" which implies his own eternal life and salvation.  

You show me anywhere in scripture where the word "crown" is used to describe our fruits of the spirit or calling.  I don't need to use scripture here to prove a biblically logical point, but this scripture does come to mind here:
*2 Timothy 4:
6For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. 7I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: 8Henceforth 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*.

In 1 Corinthians 9:17 *For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
* 

Again here Paul is referring to his reward.  What reward do you think Paul is talking about then?  His "preaching gift" or his crown of salvation?  What is Paul talking about that's at stake here if he does not preach the right Gospel of Christ?  Again--is he talking about his fruits of the ministry or his crown of salvation?  You need to answer this for yourself because what you believe does not reconcile with the context of this scripture nor does it match up or reconcile with James, John, Hebrews, Revelation and Matthew that all tell us that our hope of eternal life is based upon whether we continually walk in the spirit of the Lord or not.





> And again, in vv. 19-2, which are all one sentence, he continues to explain his reasons for his practice of self-deprivation, again beginning this sentence with "for."
> 
> Why again? V. 23. "that I may be a partaker of it with you." "You" being the recipients of the letter, the fruit of Paul's ministry. These souls of others are the eternal crown he looks forward to.
> 
> If you have read much of the apostle Paul, you know that this metaphor is the same one he uses elsewhere.
> 
> Philippians 4:1:
> 
> 1 Thessalonians 2:19:
> ...


.

Key words "REWARD" "ABUSE" "POWER" "CROWN" "FEAR" "BODY" "CASTAWAY".

So you have to ask yourself why then Paul is fearing for his crown that even he--*after preaching* to others that he/himself *his own body* (not fruits) could be "castaway".

I can't prove anything to you--not even using clear scripture if you're so indoctrinated by your own willingness to believe something else that can't possibly reconcile with the rest of scripture and you're not willing to see it.  Only God can open blind eyes--not me.  All I can do is present the truth and facts as a witness--the rest is up to God with anyone.  What do you value the most here?  It's your eternal life and journey--not mine.

----------


## Terry1

To answer your second question here regarding Hebrews 6:4.




> erowe1 wrote:
> It's talking about people who never had saving faith, but who only played along externally. It says this explicitly in v. 9.
> 
>  Also, the intervening analogy of the land in verses 7-8 makes the same point. The two different kinds of crops that the two different kinds of land produce are the results of the two different characters those lands have in the first place.
> 
>  I know I've posted this resource before when you've brought this passage up. I don't know if you took the time to read it. But it's excellent, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in studying the warning passages in Hebews in depth.
> http://www.waynegrudem.com/wp-conten...-hebrews-6.pdf


First of all--look at what *clear scripture is saying here in Hebrews 6:*

* 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,* 

What is this scripture saying to you?  It's clearly saying that some of "those" have been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift".  It's also saying that they once walked in the Spirit of the Lord being "partakers of the Holy Ghost".  So they had to have been in a state of elect and walking in the Spirit of the Lord at one point.  


*5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,* 

These elect once experienced the word of God and the power of the next life--they were enlightened and walked in the spirit--at one point in their life.



*6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.*

Just the same as Paul tells us it's possible to fall away in Gal. 5:4--Hebrews is telling you that once they fall after having been enlightened, walked in the spirit of the Lord and experienced the power of God--they can not be renewed to repentance, which is the only way back to God when we stumble.  Hence this branch/is now dead--being once a true believer and now fallen to the temptations of the world--is cut off and burned.

This reconciles with John 15:5.  They are saying the exact same thing.  John 15:5 says here:

*15 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.*

Note this scripture is saying that "every branch IN ME"--meaning that they're already part of the true Vine in Jesus and of the elect.  Stating again that if they bear no fruit they are cut off and burned away from the body of Christ being the true Vine.  These scripture all harmoniously reconcile with each other as should be.  Your interpretation chops them up separates and corrupts apart from one another and makes no sense at all.

*Hebrews 6:
 7For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: 8But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.*

Here again Hebrews 6:7 is saying the exact same thing as John 15:6--see how amazingly these scriptures compliment and reconcile with each other here:

*6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.*


You must be able to reconcile what you believe with scripture and at the same time see how scripture also reconciles with itself and confirms itself.

----------


## moostraks

> http://www.kingschurchaz.com/Wolvesi...sClothing.html
> 
> here are the wolves Paul is talking about. Listing some of the false religions and cults. These cults do not believe in what Jesus taught and the Gospel of grace.


So you wallow in James White teachings as well? That explains why your posts sound like S_F...

----------


## Terry1

> http://www.kingschurchaz.com/Wolvesi...sClothing.html
> 
> here are the wolves Paul is talking about. Listing some of the false religions and cults. These cults do not believe in what Jesus taught and the Gospel of grace.


They forgot to name themselves.   OSAS, Predestination and the perseverance of the saints doctrine was contrived by the reformers themselves and do not reconcile with the Gospel of Jesus Christ--as has been shown to you and some others as well.

----------


## Terry1

> do you have proof he said this? The chances of a Believer committing murder is possible, unlikely but possible. We are still in the flesh and still sin. The reason he is forgiven in advance is because God knew the Believer would commit that sin beforehand. A sin is a sin- all and any sin separate us from God but Believer's are credited with Jesus' righteousness. We are justified through faith.


Not the way you believe it is--our justification comes as a result of what we do and how we live through faith.  Faith and works are not mutually exclusive.   Faith and works occur at the same time as James tells you one without the other makes them both dead.  And this is all a matter of choice to do the will of God.  Faith does not act upon itself, nor can it perform on it's own without the believer being willing to act upon it.

Having *faith in faith* is not biblical, nor is it consistent with scripture in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

James 2:14-26King James Version (KJV)

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

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

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

----------


## erowe1

> Within the context of that same scripture, Paul is speaking with regards to his "crown".  So you're attempting to say that his "crown" is referring to "the fruit of his ministry".  That's not a crown erowe--that is his calling.


Paul disagrees. Notice again what he says about his crown in 1 Thessalonians and Philippians.

You also keep mentioning that Paul's talking about what he does to his own self, his own body. That's a very important thing to notice. Look again at what he's doing to himself. Take a specific inventory of the exact self-deprivations that he lists when he talks about subjecting his own body to discipline: not taking a wife although he has a right to take a wife, not getting paid although he has a right to get paid, and not eating certain foods although he has a right to eat them. He's not talking about doing things he has to do in order to go to Heaven. He's talking about doing things he knows he doesn't have to do, but he does them anyway for the sake of this reward, which must be something else.

----------


## erowe1

> To answer your second question here regarding Hebrews 6:4.
> 
> 
> 
> First of all--look at what *clear scripture is saying here in Hebrews 6:*
> 
> * 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,* 
> 
> What is this scripture saying to you?  It's clearly saying that some of "those" have been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift".  It's also saying that they once walked in the Spirit of the Lord being "partakers of the Holy Ghost".  So they had to have been in a state of elect and walking in the Spirit of the Lord at one point.  
> ...


I agree with you that Hebrews 6 and John 15 are reconciled. When both of them talk about someone being condemned they're talking about someone who was never truly saved. Notice that none of the passages you mention use the terminology that you use in your explanations of them. They could clearly refer to people who were at one time bound for Heaven using the same language that the same authors reserve for such people in other passages. But conspicuously they don't. And instead they use terms that can apply to unsaved people along with saved people, such as "partake of the Holy Spirit."

What did you think about that Grudem article?

----------


## lilymc

This discussion and the view a couple people here have of the Gospel is extremely sad.

There's no grace, no joy, no life, no acceptance.  It's no different than the mindset of the Pharisees, except now we're tacking on the words "as an act of faith" - thinking that somehow makes it different and New Testament.  It's still the same legalistic and self-focused interpretation that the Pharisees had, and it's making the same mistake they did -  missing the whole point of the Gospel.   

Also, with this graceless view of the Gospel, there is no "Good News."    In fact, it's bad news.    Because it's about ourselves, the things we do that earn our salvation and "maintain" it.    As someone posted on another thread, that viewpoint often leads people to fear and worry because the focus is on their actions and always measuring up.   I think it can also lead to pride, which is exactly what God doesn't want, that's why the Word says  "so no one can boast."

This self-imposed burden is exactly what Paul was talking about when he warned people to not keep themselves under the yoke of the law.  Because here's the thing. It IS a choice for all of us.  Do we want Grace and a new life in Christ?  Or do we want it to be about us, and striving to keep the law or "lose our salvation"?  Because IF we choose the latter, then we have to keep all of it, perfectly.  How prideful to think we can do that!  And how foolish.  That was the whole point of the law, to show us that we CAN'T do it, it was to show us our need for a Savior!   

Some with that viewpoint might say, "Well, the Pharisees couldn't do it because they didn't have God, but we can do it as led by the Holy Spirit."  

The problem with that is that if we have skipped over Step 1 -  obeying Jesus and His command, "You must be born again"  -   then we're no different than the Pharisees, who were not doing God's will or putting their faith in Him.

Jesus talked about how some people looked to the scriptures but not to HIM:

“...and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, *yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.*”

John 5:38-40
We can't earn God's grace and salvation.  It's a free gift.  If we reject that and choose to keep ourselves chained to the law in order to earn or "not lose our salvation" then we are basically rejecting God's grace.

Paul talks about this in the following passage.  It's ironic that Paul's words "fallen away from grace" have been misused by the very people here that this passage speaks to -  those who reject the Gospel of Grace.  That is yet another example of missing the point and misinterpreting scripture.   In fact, getting it very wrong, because in this particular case, Paul is talking about choosing our own efforts instead of what Jesus did for us!

Paul is emphasizing the danger in choosing to remain under the yoke of slavery (the law) which is rejecting Grace.  _That_ is falling away from the Grace of God, by one's own choice. Please look at the words in bold, that is who Paul is speaking about.


*Freedom in Christ*

 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.  Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.   *You who are trying to be justified by the law* have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.   For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope.  For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Galatians 5:1-6


Here is some commentary on that passage, from various people.  I'm going to bold some pertinent parts.


v. How tragic! Jesus, dying on the cross, pouring out His blood, His life, His soul, His agony, His love for us - and it will profit you nothing! Two men died with Jesus; for the one who put his trust in Jesus, it was eternal life.* For the one who trusted in himself, it profited him nothing.*

Every man who becomes circumcised … is a debtor to keep the whole law: *When we embrace the law as our rule of walking with God, we must embrace the whole law.* We become debtors to keep the whole law, and that is a heavy debt!

i. Again, the legalists among the Galatians wanted them to think they could observe some aspects of the law without coming under the entire law. But when we choose to walk by law, we must walk by the whole law.

ii. Why must we keep the whole law? Because if we come to God on the basis of our own law keeping, then our law-keeping must be perfect. No amount of obedience makes up for one act of disobedience; if you are pulled over for speeding, it will do not good to protest that you are a faithful husband, a good taxpayer, and have obeyed the speed limit many times. All that is irrelevant. You have still broken the speeding law and are guilty under it.

You have fallen from grace: When we embrace the law as our rule of walking with God, we depart from Jesus and His grace. We are then estranged from Christ, separated from Him and His saving grace.

Boice on you have fallen from grace: *"The phrase does not mean that if a Christian sins, he falls from grace and thereby loses his salvation.* There is a sense in which to sin is to fall into grace, if one is repentant. But to fall from grace, as seen by this context, is to fall into legalism … Or to put it another way, * to choose legalism is to relinquish grace as the principle by which one desires to be related to God."*

iii. Literally, Paul writes, "you have fallen out of grace," which is not the same as the colloquial English phrase "you have fallen from grace."

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that passage only applies to those people 2000 years ago - gentiles who were making the same mistake the legalistic Jews made.  It is just as true today as it was then.  It applies to ALL people who choose to think they can earn or maintain their salvation, thus keeping themselves under the yoke of slavery.

I don't want to be too hard on anyone, but I honestly believe that the works-based view of the Gospel is sad, unfree, and bad news.   Not to mention off-putting to unbelievers.    

Think about this from the perspective of a nonbeliever.  What is "Good News"  about a Gospel that means striving to constantly do "good works" to earn our salvation and maintain our salvation or go to hell?    Where is the salvation in that?   Where is the good news in that?  There is none, that is why it's a false Gospel.  The very word GOSPEL means "Good News."

The true Gospel is one that completely transforms people, the one that gives people new LIFE, is an entirely different thing.  It is not sad and gloomy, it is the exact opposite.  It brings JOY, peace, freedom, LOVE and praise for God.   And it makes us WANT to obey and serve God.  Not for fear of losing our salvation but because we know that He loves us, even while we were still sinners he loved us enough to die for us...how can one not be thankful for that?  

I still want to get back to an earlier post or two on this thread, but I'll try to do that later.  This post was sort of spontaneous.

----------


## Kevin007

> Not the way you believe it is--*our justification comes as a result of what we do and how we live through faith.*  Faith and works are not mutually exclusive.   Faith and works occur at the same time as James tells you one without the other makes them both dead.  And this is all a matter of choice to do the will of God.  Faith does not act upon itself, nor can it perform on it's own without the believer being willing to act upon it.
> 
> Having *faith in faith* is not biblical, nor is it consistent with scripture in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
> 
> James 2:14-26King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
> 
> 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
> ...


absolutely not. We are justified by Jesus.


*Justification* is a pronouncement to clear the guilty. When one is  justified, he is declared right before the Lord; he is pardoned and cleared of  any violation. “there is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in  Christ Jesus” (Rom.8) 

 Rom 3:24-25 “*being justified freely by His grace* through the redemption that  is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through  faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had  passed over the sins that were previously committed.” 

 Rom 5:1: “Therefore, having been *justified by faith*, _we have peace with God_  through our Lord Jesus Christ” 

 Rom 5:9: “Much more then, having now been *justified by His blood*, we shall be  saved from wrath through Him.”

 Our justification is by faith in the work of the Son of God on the cross, his  shed blood and death for forgiveness of our sins.

http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp139.htm

Terry- Justification is all of Jesus and NONE of us. Proof above.

----------


## Kevin007

> This discussion and the view a couple people here have of the Gospel is extremely sad.
> 
> There's no grace, no joy, no life, no acceptance.  It's no different than the mindset of the Pharisees, except now we're tacking on the words "as an act of faith" - thinking that somehow makes it different and New Testament.  It's still the same legalistic and self-focused interpretation that the Pharisees had, and it's making the same mistake they did -  missing the whole point of the Gospel.   
> 
> Also, with this graceless view of the Gospel, there is no "Good News."    In fact, it's bad news.    Because it's about ourselves, the things we do that earn our salvation and "maintain" it.    As someone posted on another thread, that viewpoint often leads people to fear and worry because the focus is on their actions and always measuring up.   I think it can also lead to pride, which is exactly what God doesn't want, that's why the Word says  "so no one can boast."
> 
> This self-imposed burden is exactly what Paul was talking about when he warned people to not keep themselves under the yoke of the law.  Because here's the thing. It IS a choice for all of us.  Do we want Grace and a new life in Christ?  Or do we want it to be about us, and striving to keep the law or "lose our salvation"?  Because IF we choose the latter, then we have to keep all of it, perfectly.  How prideful to think we can do that!  And how foolish.  That was the whole point of the law, to show us that we CAN'T do it, it was to show us our need for a Savior!   
> 
> Some with that viewpoint might say, "Well, the Pharisees couldn't do it because they didn't have God, but we can do it as led by the Holy Spirit."  
> ...


very very well said Lily!  great post! I can tell the Spirit was guiding you here.

----------


## jmdrake

> I agree with you that Hebrews 6 and John 15 are reconciled. When both of them talk about someone being condemned they're talking about someone who was never truly saved. Notice that none of the passages you mention use the terminology that you use in your explanations of them. They could clearly refer to people who were at one time bound for Heaven using the same language that the same authors reserve for such people in other passages. But conspicuously they don't. And instead they use terms that can apply to unsaved people along with saved people, such as "partake of the Holy Spirit."
> 
> What did you think about that Grudem article?


Erowe1, here is the problem that your side of the argument *never* address.  What's the definition of a "truly saved" person?  It's certainly not one who believes in Jesus.  You can't be someone who "partakes of the Holy Spirit" unless you first believe in Jesus.  So we get to a circular definition.  "So who do you know someone who's fallen away was never saved?"  Answer: "Because they fell away".  Question: "What made them fall away?"  Answer: "They were never saved."  Question: "How are you saved?"  Answer: "Just believe".  Question: "But what about people who believed and fell away"  Answer: "They were never saved."  Question: "But they believed right?"  Answer: "They didn't have a saving faith."  Question: "How do you know that they didn't have a saving faith?"  Answer: "Because they fell away."

----------


## Terry1

> Erowe1, here is the problem that your side of the argument *never* address.  What's the definition of a "truly saved" person?  It's certainly not one who believes in Jesus.  You can't be someone who "partakes of the Holy Spirit" unless you first believe in Jesus.  So we get to a circular definition.  "So who do you know someone who's fallen away was never saved?"  Answer: "Because they fell away".  Question: "What made them fall away?"  Answer: "They were never saved."  Question: "How are you saved?"  Answer: "Just believe".  Question: "But what about people who believed and fell away"  Answer: "They were never saved."  Question: "But they believed right?"  Answer: "They didn't have a saving faith."  Question: "How do you know that they didn't have a saving faith?"  Answer: "Because they fell away."


I think some of the confusion lies in the fact that people who've never been saved that are drawn to God and then saved have been given just enough grace and a "measure of faith" that allows them to repent and believe as babes being "reborn" in Christ.  Gods grace is what enables the unbeliever to be drawn to confession and repentance through provocation of God.  And the word tells us also that they're given just a small measure of faith in the beginning.  Like a seed that needs soil and water to begin growth.

The Parable of the Sower then goes on to say that while some will flourish and choose to remain in faith, some will wither and die being chocked out by the thorns and thistles, being the trials and temptations of this world, choosing opposite the will of God.  This is where they can fall from grace and faith or be cut off from the true Vine and burned forever being that they never produced any fruit/good works (which is our "light as Jesus says) as a result of their faith.  This is also when James says that faith can't live without the good works to give evidence of that same faith.  Because we are "called" to do something in Christ and be something in Christ.

What they're not understanding is that our faith and good works are not mutually exclusive.  They must work together or else both faith and works are dead.  Having *faith in faith* is not biblical, although this is what the perseverance of the saint's doctrine supports because they are not understanding the difference between the two major covenants.  Under the Mosaic law those works were dead--under the Law of faith--those works are of faith and good as we're taught rightly and absolutely essential for faith to grow and the only way to glorify the Father in heaven, because our goodness is our "light" that our Lord tells us must shine for all to see.  Meaning that if our light can't shine for unbelievers to see--there is no witness for Christ in this world that can only happen through our good works of faith.  After all--Jesus said He didn't come for the righteous, but to bring sinners to repentance.  We are called to witness to sinners--not the righteous, because the righteous were called to this purpose here and now.

----------


## Terry1

Only a believer can fall from grace--only a believers faith can die.  Unbelievers can not fall from something they never had to begin with and only faith that has been given life in the beginning can die from not being acted upon.  Because although grace is what is given to draw unbelievers to God--faith must also be acted upon before it can live and grow before grace is of any effect in a believers life.  Confession and baptism only save us if we remain in faith by acting upon that same faith by doing the good works that we were called to do as witnesses for Christ.  

Grace and faith are not mutually exclusive either, because one must have the other in order for either of them to be of any effect in a believers life.  Just the same as faith and our good works are not mutually exclusive--they must work together to be alive and of any effect.

All of this saying that we must *choose to do something* as a result of that same gift by acting upon it through faith by answering our calling.  We have all been called as witnesses for Christ in some way and purpose.  This is why we are still here and why when Jesus was resurrected we didn't all just leave this place and go with Him.  This life is a test and that test is for a good reason and to the very end of our lives and not before.  

Therefore--we are given the great hope that it "might be" or "may be" and conditional upon us remaining in faith to the very end of our lives.  We can not presume upon God that He's already chosen us or that we've already been glorified with the Father in heaven.  This does not happen in this life.  Jesus tells us that even He/himself was not perfected or glorified with the Father until the third day here:

*Luke 13:
32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.*

So if Jesus couldn't be "perfected" until the third day on His resurrection while still in the flesh--neither can we Presume upon God that we are either.  No flesh and blood can inherit the kingdom of heaven--not even Jesus's earthly flesh could do that until after His resurrection.

----------


## erowe1

> You can't be someone who "partakes of the Holy Spirit" unless you first believe in Jesus.


Yes you can. You can attend a church service and witness people using the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Some of the people addressed in this passage had even witnessed miraculous manifestations of the Holy Spirit, which it calls the powers of the age to come. All of the things Hebrews 6 mentions are experiences that unbelievers can have along with believers.

Notice how conspicuously the author avoids mentioning any of the things that he refers to throughout the book of Hebrews that could only characterize saved people:
Sins forgiven (Hebrews 10:17; 8:12)Cleansed consciousness (9:14; 10:22)Law written on their hearts (8:10; 10:16).God producing holiness of life within them (2:11; 10:14; 12:10)God having given them an unshakable kingdom (12:28; 10:34; 11:16)God being pleased with them (11:5-6; 10:38; 12:28; 13:16, 21)They have faith (4:3; 6:12; 13:7; 10:22, 38-39; all of chap. 11)they hold fast to that faith (3:6, 14; 4:14; 6:12; 11:13; 13:7)They have hope (6:11; 7:19; 9:28; 10:23, 34; 11:10, 16; 13:14)They have love (6:9; 10:33-34)They offer acceptable worship and prayer (10:19; 12:28; 13:15)They obey God (10;36; 11:7-8, 17, 25; 12:10-14)They enter God's rest (4:1, 3, 11)They know God (8:11)They are God's house, children, and people (2:10-13; 3:6; 8:10)They share in Christ (3:14)They are going to receive future salvation (1:14; 5:9; 7:25; 9:28)

When warning the people who fall away in chapter 6 and the other warning passages, the author could have used those terms to make clear that falling away was something that all true believers risked doing. But he did not. He instead restricts himself to descriptions that include false believers along with the true ones, such as "partake in the Holy Spirit."

Furthermore, in Hebrews 6 (as well as the other warning passages) he explicitly teaches that the not falling away is one of the things that characterizes true believers. In verse 9 he writes, "Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation." And in verses 7-8 he had just compared the two different groups to two different kinds of land: one that produces a useful crop and the other that produces thistles, where the two different kinds of produce are determined by what the land actually was in the first place.

----------


## erowe1

> Only a believer can fall from grace--only a believers faith can die.


On the contrary, a true believer's faith will not die. True faith will prove its genuineness by producing good works, and not dying. See James 2.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes you can. You can attend a church service and witness people using the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Some of the people addressed in this passage had even witnessed miraculous manifestations of the Holy Spirit, which it calls the powers of the age to come. All of the things Hebrews 6 mentions are experiences that unbelievers can have along with believers.


Witnessing the power of the Holy Spirit != partaking of the Holy Spirit.  The Pharisees witnessed the power of the Holy Spirit and called that the power of Satan.  Further Hebrews 6 never uses the term "unbelievers."  You use it because that fits your thesis.   But consider Hebrews 6:6

_6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame._

To *renew them again unto repentance*.  That means they repented once.  How can one repent without belief?  Rhetorical question.

----------


## erowe1

> Witnessing the power of the Holy Spirit != partaking of the Holy Spirit


Yes it does.

Partaker (or _metochos_ in the Greek) is a very generic word. It could include any kind of participation in anything the Holy Spirit does. Anyone who has witnessed anyone else using a spiritual gift, or anything else the Holy Spirit does, has been a _metochos_ in the Holy Spirit.

The author of Hebrews 6 seems to be deliberately vague, only saying things that are generic enough to include both true believers and false ones.

----------


## erowe1

> To *renew them again unto repentance*.  That means they repented once.  How can one repent without belief?  Rhetorical question.


If that's a rhetorical question, it shouldn't be. That shows that your mind is closed. Are there kinds of repentance that people can experience without genuine saving faith? Yes.

Also, I'm not sure if it means that the person genuinely repented, or just that they were on the brink of genuinely repenting, and that they have forgone the opportunity to get back to that point.

Either way, once again, none of the phrases used in that passage are phrase that apply exclusively to true believers. The author could have been that explicit, but they chose not to be.

Most importantly, to repeat what you keep avoiding, the author explicitly contrasts those who fall away with those who have things that accompany salvation in v. 9.

----------


## erowe1

> Further Hebrews 6 never uses the term "unbelievers."


To use that word prior to v. 7 would undermine the point of the passage. The author is deliberately using language that is inclusive of both true believers and false ones. It is a way of making people evaluate their sincerity.

Notice, however, that in v. 12 it does mention "those who through faith and patience inherit the promises." People who actually have faith are contrasted with the ones who don't, and so fall away.

----------


## Terry1

> If that's a rhetorical question, it shouldn't be. That shows that your mind is closed. Are there kinds of repentance that people can experience without *genuine saving faith*? Yes.
> 
> Also, I'm not sure if it means that the person genuinely repented, or just that they were on the brink of genuinely repenting, and that they have forgone the opportunity to get back to that point.
> 
> Either way, once again, none of the phrases used in that passage are phrase that apply exclusively to true believers. The author could have been that explicit, but they chose not to be.
> 
> Most importantly, to repeat what you keep avoiding, the author explicitly contrasts those who fall away with those who have things that accompany salvation in v. 9.


Can I ask that you specifically explain what you mean by "genuine saving faith" with specific scripture that supports your explanation?

----------


## jmdrake

> To use that word prior to v. 7 would undermine the point of the passage. The author is deliberately using language that is inclusive of both true believers and false ones. It is a way of making people evaluate their sincerity.
> 
> Notice, however, that in v. 12 it does mention "those who through faith and patience inherit the promises." People who actually have faith are contrasted with the ones who don't, and so fall away.


Actually your quote undermines your own argument.  _those who through faith and patience inherit the promises_  Some have faith that does not endure.

_Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved._

Calvinism and OSAS reinterprets Matthew 24:13 to say "But he who doesn't endure in the end never had faith in the first place."

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes it does.
> 
> Partaker (or _metochos_ in the Greek) is a very generic word. It could include any kind of participation in anything the Holy Spirit does. Anyone who has witnessed anyone else using a spiritual gift, or anything else the Holy Spirit does, has been a _metochos_ in the Holy Spirit.
> 
> The author of Hebrews 6 seems to be deliberately vague, only saying things that are generic enough to include both true believers and false ones.


He's not being vague at all.  _4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,_

Someone who witnessed the power of the Holy Spirit but didn't believe does not count as "enlightened".  Again consider those who claimed the miracles of Jesus were of the devil.  They were not at all "enlightened."  But under the vague definition you are trying to shoehorn on the verse they "partook" of the Holy Spirit since they witnessed the actions of the Holy Spirit.

----------


## jmdrake

> If that's a rhetorical question, it shouldn't be. That shows that your mind is closed.


Right.  Anyone who disagrees with you has a closed mind.  




> Are there kinds of repentance that people can experience without genuine saving faith? Yes.


Enlightened people who repented = believers.  You can't repent or be enlightened without God working on your heart.




> Also, I'm not sure if it means that the person genuinely repented, or just that they were on the brink of genuinely repenting, and that they have forgone the opportunity to get back to that point.


Unsure because the verse is unclear?  Or unsure because to take the Bible for what it says means adopting a belief you disagree with?




> Most importantly, to repeat what you keep avoiding, the author explicitly contrasts those who fall away with those who have things that accompany salvation in v. 9.


Nope.  I'm not ignoring anything.  Enduring faith (faith with patience) = ultimate salvation.  You're claiming that people who fall away never had saving faith in the first place without ever defining what saving faith means.  You are the one that keeps avoiding.

----------


## erowe1

> Someone who witnessed the power of the Holy Spirit but didn't believe does not count as "enlightened".


Yes they do. You're just asserting your conclusion without any reasons. The word "enlightened" is just as vague as being a partaker of the Holy Spirit or being renewed to repentance. All learning is enlightenment. It's true that believers are enlightened, but enlightenment alone doesn't automatically indicate belief.

Nowhere in the description in Hebrews 6:4-6 is there a phrase that applies exclusively to believers. The author could have even said, "who have believed/have faith," but didn't. Nor did he use any other phrase that would be that definitive. On the other hand, beginning with v. 7 he contrasts those who fall away with those who don't, and it is only those who don't who have things that accompany salvation (v. 9), including faith (v. 12).

Notice also a very similar contrast in Hebrews 10:39. Those who fall away are those who do not really have faith and are not saved. And again, in the warning about entering the rest in Hebrews 3-4, the difference between those who enter it and those who fall away is that the former have faith and the latter do not.

----------


## erowe1

> Enlightened people who repented = believers.  You can't repent or be enlightened without God working on your heart.


But you can repent, and be enlightened, and have God work on your heart without having saving faith.




> Unsure because the verse is unclear?  Or unsure because to take the Bible for what it says means adopting a belief you disagree with?


Because the verse is unclear to me. But it makes no difference, for the reason I stated.




> Enduring faith (faith with patience) = ultimate salvation.


Correct. According to the author of Hebrews, those who fall away do not have this kind of faith.




> You're claiming that people who fall away never had saving faith in the first place without ever defining what saving faith means.  You are the one that keeps avoiding.


Saving faith is the kind of faith that people have who have been justified. "Justified" is not a word that Hebrews uses. But you can also use some of the terms that he does in place of it. Saving faith is faith that is had by people whom God forgives of their sins, whom God sanctifies, whose consciences are cleansed, who enter God's rest, and who are going to inherit future salvation (to highlight how I was not avoiding that, you will see that these are all taken from the list I already provided in post 181). I believe that the book of Hebrews never refers to any other kind of faith, and that every time it refers to people having faith, it is only these people. It does not refer to those who fall away as having ever had faith.

----------


## erowe1

> Actually your quote undermines your own argument.  _those who through faith and patience inherit the promises_  Some have faith that does not endure.
> 
> _Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved._
> 
> Calvinism and OSAS reinterprets Matthew 24:13 to say "But he who doesn't endure in the end never had faith in the first place."


Matthew 24 :13 is talking about a totally different subject, people who are suffering in the Tribulation enduring until the end of it and being saved from it.

But if you want to apply that language to the warning passages in Hebrews, then you're exactly right. The view of the author of Hebrews is exactly what you characterize as the OSAS/Calvinist view. He teaches that those who have faith will not fall away, and those who fall away are people who never had faith. Their falling away is proof of their lack of faith, not that they once had faith and then lost it.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes they do. You're just asserting your conclusion without any reasons.


Nope.  That would be you.




> The word "enlightened" is just as vague as being a partaker of the Holy Spirit or being renewed to repentance. All learning is enlightenment. It's true that believers are enlightened, but enlightenment alone doesn't automatically indicate belief.


Enlightened about what?  Learning about what?  Learning that the earth is round?  The "vagueness" you claim exists simply does not.  The context the enlightenment is being used is regarding the Holy Spirit.  




> Nowhere in the description in Hebrews 6:4-6 is there a phrase that applies exclusively to believers. The author could have even said, "who have believed/have faith," but didn't. Nor did he use any other phrase that would be that definitive. On the other hand, beginning with v. 7 he contrasts those who fall away with those who don't, and it is only those who don't who have things that accompany salvation (v. 9), including faith (v. 12).





> Notice also a very similar contrast in Hebrews 10:39. Those who fall away are those who do not really have faith and are not saved. And again, in the warning about entering the rest in Hebrews 3-4, the difference between those who enter it and those who fall away is that the former have faith and the latter do not.


And these people fell away from what exactly?  Sorry but you're claim that "this is all vague" is preposterous.  Hebrews 6 isn't even vague about repentance.

_Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,_

The writer of Hebrews makes it clear what kind of repentance he is talking about.

----------


## jmdrake

> Matthew 24 :13 is talking about a totally different subject, people who are suffering in the Tribulation enduring until the end of it and being saved from it.
> 
> But if you want to apply that language to the warning passages in Hebrews, then you're exactly right. The view of the author of Hebrews is exactly what you characterize as the OSAS/Calvinist view. He teaches that those who have faith will not fall away, and those who fall away are people who never had faith. Their falling away is proof of their lack of faith, not that they once had faith and then lost it.


No he isn't.  You're making that conclusion without evidence and based on nothing but a hand waving claim about "vagueness."

----------


## erowe1

> Enlightened about what?  Learning about what?


The author doesn't say. Like I said, he's deliberately vague.




> And these people fell away from what exactly?


From what they had, including the things listed in Hebrews 6:4-6. They didn't have any of the things I listed in post 181. But they had identified outwardly as believers and belonged to a church, where they learned Christian doctrine, and enjoyed Christian experiences. But they lacked what the author of Hebrews repeatedly refers to as "faith."




> Sorry but you're claim that "this is all vague" is preposterous.  Hebrews 6 isn't even vague about repentance.
> 
> _Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,_
> 
> The writer of Hebrews makes it clear what kind of repentance he is talking about.


Exactly. So even right there in verse 1 the author had already mentioned repentance as something separate from faith that by itself did not indicate salvation. I was going to mention that before, but thought it unnecessary since my point had already been sufficiently proven.

Consistently throughout the warning passages in Hebrews, it is only those who do not fall away who have faith. Those who do fall away may have some enjoyed certain benefits from their association with the Church, but at no point are they ever said to have faith, or any of the other things I listed in post 181. On the other hand, there are others who will not fall away, and the reason the author gives for that is their having faith.

----------


## jmdrake

> The author doesn't say. Like I said, he's deliberately vague.


He wasn't at all vague.  Claiming vagueness is the only way you can even attempt to make Hebrews 6 say what you want.  And in the midst of that "vagueness" you claim he's affirming Calvinism?  That's just a crock.

----------


## erowe1

> He wasn't at all vague.  Claiming vagueness is the only way you can even attempt to make Hebrews 6 say what you want.  And in the midst of that "vagueness" you claim he's affirming Calvinism?  That's just a crock.


He was vague in that he used a series of phrases, all of which apply both to those with genuine faith and to those who appear to have faith but then show they don't by falling away.

He could have used descriptions (including using the word "faith") that would have exclusively applied to true believers. Throughout the book he has a number of such descriptions. But he conspicuously reserves those descriptions solely for those who do not fall away, and never applies them to those who do or might.

I'm not saying anything about Calvinism in its entirety. But the warning passages in Hebrews are explicitly teaching the doctrine that Calvinists call "perseverance of the saints." That's the whole point of those passages. Saints persevere, and those who don't persevere aren't really saints.

----------


## Terry1

> He wasn't at all vague.  Claiming vagueness is the only way you can even attempt to make Hebrews 6 say what you want.  And in the midst of that "vagueness" you claim he's affirming Calvinism?  That's just a crock.


I agree with you.  "Vague" simply means that he either he didn't understand it, can't see it or he's in denial.  Gods word is clear to those with spiritual eyes to see it with.  At any rate--any one of these things should cause one to pause and doubt what they're believing if they can't reconcile it with Gods word and then blame the word of God for being unclear and uncertain as vague---is just too bizarre.

----------


## jmdrake

> He was vague in that he used a series of phrases, all of which apply both to those with genuine faith and to those who appear to have faith but then show they don't by falling away.
> 
> He could have used descriptions (including using the word "faith") that would have exclusively applied to true believers. Throughout the book he has a number of such descriptions. But he conspicuously reserves those descriptions solely for those who do not fall away, and never applies them to those who do or might.
> 
> I'm not saying anything about Calvinism in its entirety. But the warning passages in Hebrews are explicitly teaching the doctrine that Calvinists call "perseverance of the saints." That's the whole point of those passages. Saints persevere, and those who don't persevere aren't really saints.


That's simply the way *you* choose to look at it.  The more direct way to look at it is that it supports the opposite view of enduring faith as opposed to perseverance of the saints.  In other words it's not that you are magically preserved once you become a saint, but those that endure to the end are the saints.  Really the only person being vague is you.  The question you haven't answered is how much "belief" must one have before they "really believe"?  If someone honestly, sincerely believes that Jesus is the Son of God and died for their sins, do you believe that means they are a "persevering saint" and whatever happens after that just doesn't matter?  Because there are people who believed that who didn't persevere.

----------


## erowe1

> In other words it's not that you are magically preserved once you become a saint, but those that endure to the end are the saints.


Those are two different ways of saying the same thing.

Those who are saints will persevere. Those who persevere are saints. Those who do not persevere are not saints.

It's not as if all people on the earth are in one category until the moment they die, and then and only then do they get separated into the saved and the unsaved. That eternal distinction is the result of a distinction that there already was between them in their lives on this earth. That is the point of the analogy of the two kinds of ground in Hebrews 6:7-8. Falling away is the demonstration of already being the kind of ground that will produce that result in the first place, and persevering is the demonstration of being the other kind of ground.

It's true that there are certain qualities that by themselves are not sufficient to guarantee that someone will persevere. Hebrews 6:4-6 lists some of them. Some people who have been enlightened, and are sharers of the Holy Spirit, and of the powers of the age to come, and who have tasted the heavenly gift and the good word of God will fall away and not have another opportunity to repent. So all of those things put together are not enough to guarantee future salvation.

But that doesn't mean that there are no other qualities that a person can have that will guarantee future salvation. It just means that whatever qualities might imply such a guarantee, they are not the ones listed in Hebrews 6:4-6. Whatever the good ground in vv. 7-8 is, it's ground that has those qualities that guarantee future salvation. Verse 9 says that there are people who have things that accompany salvation (which must mean something more than those things listed in vv. 4-6). Verse 12 says that those who eventually inherit the promises have faith and patience. For all the things that people who fall away may have (such as those listed in verses 4-6), they don't have faith and patience.

There is a similar warning passages in Hebrews 10:26-39. It begins, "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left." But then it ends, "But we do not belong to those who shrink back and are destroyed, but to those who have faith and are saved." So there are some who have knowledge of the truth but then fall away. But these, according to v. 39, despite what they might look like externally, do not actually have faith, and are not actually saved. Those who do have faith and are saved demonstrate that difference by not falling away.

Another one is in Hebrews 3-4. Notice how it begins: "But Christ is faithful as the Son over God’s house. And we are his house, if indeed we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory." Some people already, right now, are in God's house. These people are those who hold firmly to their confidence and hope. The people who don't hold firmly to it are not people who right now belong to the house but later on get removed from it, but rather people who do not belong to it at all in the first place. Verse 14 reiterates the same thing: "We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end." It's not that people who fail to hold to their conviction once knew Christ but then don't any more. It's that they had not come to share in him in the sense that this verse means in the first place. If it is the case that somebody is certain to hold to their conviction firmly until the end, then it is also the case that that person has already come to share in Christ. Sharing in Christ is not something that gets postponed until they first persevere. It something that the people who are not going to persevere never truly did.

Still in Hebrews 3-4, these people who do belong to God's house, and who have shared in Christ, all of whom are certain to persevere, are said to enter God's rest. Those who do not persevere do not enter God's rest (3:11). The reason in verse 19 is because of their unbelief (also 4:2). Whatever it is that these people who appear to be Christians might have, they do not have real faith. But all those who do have faith, without any exception, do enter God's rest (4:3).

All through Hebrews 11 it describes Old Testament saints who had faith, and again and again it points out how the proof of their faith is in their perseverance. Had they not persevered, it would have indicated a lack of real faith.

These people who, according to Hebrews, have faith and by that faith are going to persevere and be ultimately saved, already in this life are being sanctified (Hebrews 2:11; 13:12), and even have been sanctified (10:10), already in this life have ceased from their works (4:10), already in this life have a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul (6:19), already in this life have Jesus as their high priest making intercession for them (7:25; 9:24), already in this life have eternal redemption (9:12), already in this life have cleansed consciences (9:14; 10:2, 22), already in this life have the promise of an eternal inheritance (9:15), already in this life have been perfected forever (10:14), already in this life have had all of their past present and future sins forgotten by God (10:17), already in this life are worshipping God with genuine acceptable godly worship (10:22; 12:28; 13:15).

Although there exist people who are going to fall away who have experienced some of the blessings of outward association with Jesus and his Church, they are distinguished from those who aren't going to fall away by their lack of the above things. The two different kinds of ground are different already, even if they look the same on the outside, and they are bound to demonstrate that difference in time when their fruits show what they are.

Thus, Jesus is both the author of the believer's faith and its finisher (Hebrews 12:12).

This is all from Hebrews, the same book that has those warning passages, and often from the very context of the warning passages themselves.

This is also consistent with the rest of scripture. Yes, there exist people who have some measure of an association with Christ and the Church, who experience some of the blessings that attend those things, and who will fall away and do not end up glorified (to use Paul's word). But this does not in any way lessen the truth that there are some people who won't, and that there are things that distinguish those who are going to end up in Heaven right now in this life. Paul uses the word justification for this. Paul is absolutely explicit and clear, with no vagueness at all, in Romans 5 and 8, in promising that there is a 100% guarantee that each and every person who has ever been justified by faith is going to be glorified. He allows for no exceptions. And this is not some extrapolation from some off the cuff comment of his, it is the point he drives at in both of those passages. So whatever things there are that might be insufficient to guarantee that a person is going to be glorified, there still exist some things, such as justification, that people can have right now in this life that do guarantee it.

----------


## erowe1

> At any rate--any one of these things should cause one to pause and doubt what they're believing if they can't reconcile it with Gods word and then blame the word of God for being unclear and uncertain as vague---is just too bizarre.


I'm not blaming the Bible. I'm pointing out something that the author of Hebrews 6 did very deliberately and clearly. When describing the blessings that were enjoyed by people who then fall away, he restricted himself solely to broad descriptions that include both false believers and true ones. That is the strategy of the passage, and he couldn't have made the point he was making without doing that. Had he wanted to, he could have given a description that would only apply to true believers, so as to warn that no matter what you have, be it faith and forgiveness of sins or anything else, you might still fall away and not be ultimately saved, but he conspicuously did not.

When you and jmdrake insist that the description in Hebrews 6:4-6 clearly and exclusively describes true believers who have all the things I listed in post 181, it's easy to prove that that's factually inaccurate. The description in Hebrews 6:4-6 includes people who have those things, but it also unequivocally includes other people who lack those things. And as the author himself develops his point in verses 7-12 he says this explicitly.

----------

