SALVATION

[moonbeam]

In this parable of Jesus, what did the lost sheep had to do?

Nothing

Did the sheperd take charge of the lost sheep, or the ninety and nine ?

In the pastoral setting familiar to his hearers they understand that the ninety nine will stay grouped because they have a lead sheep and generally are all related by birth and tend to hang out together... so the shepherd was able to leave them temporarily to rescue an individual who got into difficulties for whatever reason and became separated... so the shepherd took charge of all the sheep.

Who does He call "My sheep" ?

Jesus does not use those words in this particular portion of scripture you have quoted from.

Is the joy in heaven because of the lost sheep, or the ninety and nine ?

Not because of the sheep... but because of "one sinner that repenteth"

who is this sheperd ?

It is not stated - it is a generalisation of a familiar pastoral setting familiar to his hearers... which is why Jesus says "What man of you..."

And who are those sheeps ?

It is only stated that they are sheep... there is no personal pronoun attached to any of the individual sheep.

Who is who in this affair ?

There is a group identified as - "all the publicans and sinners..."
And another group identified as - "And the Pharisees and scribes..."
And the 100 sheep.
And the shepherd.
And of course Jesus.
.

 

[AbbaLove]

See post #702.

I did and have again, but apparently you have yet to read my recent reply #820 ...

Try to keepup unless you are beginning to see the wisdom in Paul's 1st Century order of Salvation ... Romans 8:30 and 1 Corinthians 6:11 ...

30 And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified.​

10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. 11 But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.​

The problem with your order is having sanctification following justification. Sure it's more forgiving to the modern seeker-sensitive mindset .Your order has to interrupt all sins forgiven as including "future sins" as modern Christianity doesn't believe it's possible to STOP sinning while during sanctification.

During the time of the Mosaic laws Jesus said, "Go and sin no more" and "Stop your sinning or something worse may happen." Being that was possible before the NC with the baptism of the Holy Spirit then ......... Why are future sins forgiven during one's sanctification if seeker-sensitive theology is such that living a holy/righteous life is impossible so future sins are forgiven? Seeker-sensitive conlusion: It's not that difficult to be heaven bond when one's future sins during sanctification are already forgiven.

Are you beginning to see the tear/tare in your seeker-sensitive order of salvation? that is so enboldened to actually believe that Paul's (and the Lord's) order (1 Cor. 6:11) is "wrong."

 

[Hugo B]

Nothing

In the pastoral setting familiar to his hearers they understand that the ninety nine will stay grouped because they have a lead sheep and generally are all related by birth and tend to hang out together... so the shepherd was able to leave them temporarily to rescue an individual who got into difficulties for whatever reason and became separated... so the shepherd took charge of all the sheep.

Jesus does not use those words in this particular portion of scripture you have quoted from.

Not because of the sheep... but because of "one sinner that repenteth"

It is not stated - it is a generalisation of a familiar pastoral setting familiar to his hearers... which is why Jesus says "What man of you..."

It is only stated that they are sheep... there is no personal pronoun attached to any of the individual sheep.

There is a group identified as - "all the publicans and sinners..."
And another group identified as - "And the Pharisees and scribes..."
And the 100 sheep.
And the shepherd.
And of course Jesus.
.

So, on the one hand, we have this first group, as you mentionned it, who gathers -all the publicans and sinners-. All those were despised, and rejected, even more probably by the second group, that I'll mention afterwards. What makes those people detestable by the Jews and their religious chiefs ? The law. The one who dictate man's life, what he has to do. The one who intercede in the desert, in the time of Moses, the man of faith.
Publicans and sinners are often related in the writings we receive as a unified group. Luke and the others showed, at multiple times, that this was common for them to come to Jesus.
And for this first group, Luke said in his letter that they "drew near unto Jesus" to "hear Him". And even eat with him.
In general, you do not act like that way when you don't agree with someone. On the contrary, it is because those people liked what they already heard of Him, in the first place, that, this time, they drew near unto Him, to hear again from Him.
Because, Him, Jesus, did not condemned them. He received them, and that was propbably "rare" that "those people", you know, the ones we are pointing at sometimes, to be received by someone. But Jesus did, and He talked to them, and ate with them.



And this second group, -the pharisees and scribes- that were specially attached to the law. They have nothing to do with "them", "those dirty sinners and publicans". They were righteous, before themselves at least.

Concerning them, it is not written that they drew near unto Jesus to hear Him, nor eat with him. For them, it is written that they were whispering against Jesus and those people He received. As if they were observing the scene, by far, out of the corner of their eye. And they did not like this "scene". Something was wrong for them. "How can this Jesus receive such people...?" We can assume that they did not receive "those people".
And that is not how God would have act towards them, according to their understanding.

And, as you see it in the text, it is right after those whispers from the pharisees and scribes, that Jesus gives three parables. So here is, in a few lines, the background where the "scene" occured.

And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them....And he spake this parable unto them, saying,...(Luke 15:2-3)

As in the parable, there is two "groups", and each one represents a "type of sheep". And between those two groups, there is a sheperd, which is none other than Jesus Himself. He is the good sheperd.

I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. (John 10:14)

The "lost sheep" represents publicans and sinners. The "ninety and nine" represents the pharisees and scribes".

God is Spirit, and Jesus always talked in a spiritual way, in order to show the Father, who He really is.

Regarding all of this, do you begin to see what the parable is saying...? How can sheeps in the desert not be lost ? Why was there only one of them who was ? Is the desert a "normal" place for a sheep ?
Who came back to the house of the sheperd ?The lost one, or the ninety and nine ? What is the text saying ?
Who needed repentance, and who did not ? Who did all the way for the lost sheep ?
Did Jesus accused this sheep ? No, He lay it on His shoulders. The sheep did not even had to do the walking. Jesus took her in charge.
But what is said of the others ?
Who receive the care of the sheperd ? The sinner, or the righteous ? The one who put the law in practice, or the one who did not ?

Hugo

 

[moonbeam]

So, on the one hand, we have this first group, as you mentionned it, who gathers -all the publicans and sinners-. All those were despised, and rejected, even more probably by the second group, that I'll mention afterwards. What makes those people detestable by the Jews and their religious chiefs ? The law. The one who dictate man's life, what he has to do. The one who intercede in the desert, in the time of Moses, the man of faith.
Publicans and sinners are often related in the writings we receive as a unified group. Luke and the others showed, at multiple times, that this was common for them to come to Jesus.
And for this first group, Luke said in his letter that they "drew near unto Jesus" to "hear Him". And even eat with him.
In general, you do not act like that way when you don't agree with someone. On the contrary, it is because those people liked what they already heard of Him, in the first place, that, this time, they drew near unto Him, to hear again from Him.
Because, Him, Jesus, did not condemned them. He received them, and that was propbably "rare" that "those people", you know, the ones we are pointing at sometimes, to be received by someone. But Jesus did, and He talked to them, and ate with them.



And this second group, -the pharisees and scribes- that were specially attached to the law. They have nothing to do with "them", "those dirty sinners and publicans". They were righteous, before themselves at least.

Concerning them, it is not written that they drew near unto Jesus to hear Him, nor eat with him. For them, it is written that they were whispering against Jesus and those people He received. As if they were observing the scene, by far, out of the corner of their eye. And they did not like this "scene". Something was wrong for them. "How can this Jesus receive such people...?" We can assume that they did not receive "those people".
And that is not how God would have act towards them, according to their understanding.

And, as you see it in the text, it is right after those whispers from the pharisees and scribes, that Jesus gives three parables. So here is, in a few lines, the background where the "scene" occured.


As in the parable, there is two "groups", and each one represents a "type of sheep". And between those two groups, there is a sheperd, which is none other than Jesus Himself. He is the good sheperd.


The "lost sheep" represents publicans and sinners. The "ninety and nine" represents the pharisees and scribes".

God is Spirit, and Jesus always talked in a spiritual way, in order to show the Father, who He really is.

Regarding all of this, do you begin to see what the parable is saying...? How can sheeps in the desert not be lost ? Why was there only one of them who was ? Is the desert a "normal" place for a sheep ?
Who came back to the house of the sheperd ?The lost one, or the ninety and nine ? What is the text saying ?
Who needed repentance, and who did not ? Who did all the way for the lost sheep ?
Did Jesus accused this sheep ? No, He lay it on His shoulders. The sheep did not even had to do the walking. Jesus took her in charge.
But what is said of the others ?
Who receive the care of the sheperd ? The sinner, or the righteous ? The one who put the law in practice, or the one who did not ?

Hugo

I think you are highlighting… in your own unique way… that the entire flock (Jews/Israel/Gentiles) is lost in the wilderness (estranged from God)... with the Law being the instrument or mechanism whereby some become aware of their sinfulness and inability to meet it’s requirements… but… there are some who believe they have the ability to meet the requirements of the Law and they have become self-righteous in the extreme… this self-righteous group detest the group who are aware of their sinfulness and inability… and so those who are aware of their sinfulness wonder even further away from that self-righteous group as far as they can get… having nothing in common with the self-righteous and being constantly maligned and rejected by them… the shepherd seeks after those who wonder away from the self-righteous group… because he is looking for those who are looking for a saviour (Him)

Have I grasped your meaning?
.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

And this encapsulates the problem with the doctrine of sola fide. If you believe that man is only declared or imputed to be righteous instead of made righteous, then there's nothing to lose as long as you at least see yourself as a believer. And thinking that merely believing one's sins are forgiven makes them forgiven means than everything actually depends on you-this is referred to as "fiduciary faith", faith in one’s faith. But that's not what any of this is about.

So let me ask you, does wanton, grave sin matter at all for the believer? Can he still go to heaven as long as he believes his sins are forgiven? Would God’s justice consist of or allow for such a silly notion?

Faith is first of all to turn from sin/the world and enter fellowship with God. It’s to reverse Adam’s disfellowship, to reverse Adam’s rebellion, within ourselves.

It's to say "yes" to God, to the true God as revealed by His Son, Jesus Christ. And that "yes", that faith, itself, is a matter of justice- of righteousness-the first right thing that fallen man can do. Faith is a supernatural gift, of grace, something we cannot conjure up on our own and yet it's also a choice, since we can reject it.

I see that in my absence David and Clare have effectively rebutted your reply. But I do have thoughts to add.

God decided on His own, without any counsel from man, that He would save those who believe (1 Cor 1:21). Saying that God saves those who believe is not "faith in one's faith". It is advocating for a decision that God Himself made concerning which sinners He would save from eternal damnation.

Refusing to acknowledge God's decision to save those who believe and insisting that He saves people who deserve it turns "salvation" (the topic of this thread) on it's head. You see that, right? People who deserve "salvation" don't need to be "saved", do they?

 

[Clare73]

Try to keepup unless you are beginning to see the wisdom in Paul's 1st Century order of Salvation ... Romans 8:30 and 1 Corinthians 6:11 ...

30 And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified.​

10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. 11 But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.​

The problem with your order is having sanctification following justification. Sure it's more forgiving to the modern seeker-sensitive mindset .Your order has to interrupt all sins forgiven as including "future sins" as modern Christianity doesn't believe it's possible to STOP sinning while during sanctification.
During the time of the Mosaic laws Jesus said, "Go and sin no more" and "Stop your sinning or something worse may happen." Being that was possible before the NC with the baptism of the Holy Spirit then ......... Why are future sins forgiven during one's sanctification if seeker-sensitive theology is such that living a holy/righteous life is impossible so future sins are forgiven? Seeker-sensitive conlusion: It's not that difficult to be heaven bond when one's future sins during sanctification are already forgiven.
Are you beginning to see the tear/tare in your seeker-sensitive order of salvation? that is so enboldened to actually believe that Paul's (and the Lord's) order (1 Cor. 6:11) is "wrong."

10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor those habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

following replies to post 702 ...

Like Paul i too understand Justification in Paul's order (Golden Chain) even though your theological pride is such that you actually think Paul's order is "wrong" with sanctification following justifiction instead of sanctification preceding justification (Lord's order) ...

10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor those habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

So far so good - we agree that sanctification precedes justification

SALVATION when we stop sinning ... Sanctification followed by Justification

You can't. That's why Paul's order is correct with sanctification preceding justification

Thus the reason your order is wrong and Paul's order (the Lord's order) is the correct,

So now you're hopefully coming around to see why your order is wrong. How can one be justified before they are even sanctified? Now you're Hopefully beginning to see why your order is easy-peasy seeker-sensitive Christianity with justified preceding sanctified. And why too many so-called Christians are referred to by the world as hypocrites being carnal, nominal, lukewarm having believed they were justified even though they can't seem to STOP sinning. "Go and sin no more" ... "Stop your sining or something worse may happen."

And so your half-hearted apology is that they were never saved (TWNS). By putting OSAS (justified) toward the beginning of your theological order ... hoping you will win more converts to stay the race and win the prize. Are you beginning to see that Paul's order is God;s order.

Hopefully you are beginning to feel a pang in your heart/stomach when you are so emboldened as to ever say or write again, Paul's order is wrong with justification (NOT Sanctification preceding "He also glorified"...

And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified
... and ...

But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

When you say, write that Paul's order is wrong who do you think is responsible ...

the Holy Spirit's counsel and wisdom that means die to self - STOP sinning.
theological seeker-sensitive interpretation with being justified before being sanctified
the theo[ill]logical cunning of a lying spirit who tells you what you want to believe

see post 816 as reply to 702. Hopefully you re beginning to see why the Holy Spirit led Paul to write Romans 8:30 and 1 Corinthians 6:11. You re on shifting sands when you go" against Paul as being "wrong" while accepting postmodern Salvation theology.

For example future sins are not forgiven as Jesus instructs us to "Go, sin no more" and "Stop your sinning or something worse may happen"

You and many others apparently believe it's impossible to STOP sinning so they likewise think that being holy/righteous (Sanctification) is not possible so todays nominal church interprets "All sins" as including future sins. They do this because your out of order with sanctification following justification instead of the Lord's order with justification following sanctification.

Your theology is such that a modern-day born again regenerated Christian has to have their future sins forgiven in order to be sanctified. In effect the church has watered down sanctification to mean that sin is still allowed, but don't worry even future sins are now forgiven ... even after being born again with the indwelling empowerment of the Holy Spirit. Then your posts as much as suggest that those that don't believe your order of Salvation are tares.

It's no wonder why American Christianity has been referred to as the Laodicean (halfhearted) church with one foot in the church; while the other foot is stuck in the world. Yet you hold to your Salvation order because its more acceptable to the seeker-sensitive gospel mindset that maintains it's near impossible if not impossible to STOP sinning.

So the majority of today's American church has changed the order of Salvation to the point that those that favor Paul's order are considered tares. Those that believe your re-order believes it will further the salvation of mankind by bringing in more converts. Than your excuse if your order isn't successful is that "they were never saved" when they remain carnal, lukewarm, backslide, etc.

See post #702.

 

[Clare73]

Try to keepup unless you are beginning to see the wisdom in Paul's 1st Century order of Salvation ... Romans 8:30 and 1 Corinthians 6:11 ...

30 And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified.​

10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. 11 But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.​

The problem with your order is having sanctification following justification. Sure it's more forgiving to the modern seeker-sensitive mindset .Your order has to interrupt all sins forgiven as including "future sins" as modern Christianity doesn't believe it's possible to STOP sinning while during sanctification.
During the time of the Mosaic laws Jesus said, "Go and sin no more" and "Stop your sinning or something worse may happen." Being that was possible before the NC with the baptism of the Holy Spirit then ......... Why are future sins forgiven during one's sanctification if seeker-sensitive theology is such that living a holy/righteous life is impossible so future sins are forgiven? Seeker-sensitive conlusion: It's not that difficult to be heaven bond when one's future sins during sanctification are already forgiven.
Are you beginning to see the tear/tare in your seeker-sensitive order of salvation? that is so enboldened to actually believe that Paul's (and the Lord's) order (1 Cor. 6:11) is "wrong."

See post #702.

 

[AbbaLove]

Who came back to the house of the sheperd ? The lost one, or the ninety and nine ?

The [lost] sheep of Israel were those that were blind; while the gentile "dogs" that the 99 despised weren't so blind ...

He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.​

​

When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”​

Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment.​

​

​

He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If though wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.Then said Jesus unto His disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.​

​

QUESTION: Is this young man also counted among the ninety and nine lost sheep (because of his riches) in that he never acknowledged Jesus as Lord ? ... as did the Canaanite woman (Lord, help me!) and the Roman centurian (“Lord, I do not deserve to have you") and the.man with Leprosy - “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.” Hopefully he will dwell in the house of the shepherd.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Your interpretation varies somewhat from the Biblical text.

Salvation is from the wrath of God (Ro 5:9) and condemnation of all mankind (Ro 5:18) at the final judgment because of sin.
There is no relation with God and no Holy-Spirit-enabled love of God until that issue is resolved.

That issue is resolved ONLY by faith (Eph 2:8-9) in the (blood, Ro 3:25) atoning work and person of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin.

Strawman. . .I would likewise be nothing if I were never conceived.

True faith which saves necessarily loves and obeys.
Love and obedience are the consequence of Holy Spirit enabled faith, not the cause of that faith.

Your God is too small.

If love and obedience were the consequence of faith then 1 Corinthians 13:2 would be a useless message because it would be an impossible scenario.

“If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭13‬:‭2‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Furthermore Christians would never sin if obedience was a consequence of faith. The reason we still sin is because the option for us to do so is always there.

 

[Hugo B]

I think you are highlighting… in your own unique way… that the entire flock (Jews/Israel/Gentiles) is lost in the wilderness (estranged from God)... with the Law being the instrument or mechanism whereby some become aware of their sinfulness and inability to meet it’s requirements… but… there are some who believe they have the ability to meet the requirements of the Law and they have become self-righteous in the extreme… this self-righteous group detest the group who are aware of their sinfulness and inability… and so those who are aware of their sinfulness wonder even further away from that self-righteous group as far as they can get… having nothing in common with the self-righteous and being constantly maligned and rejected by them… the shepherd seeks after those who wonder away from the self-righteous group… because he is looking for those who are looking for a saviour (Him)

Have I grasped your meaning?
.

You are very close. Not of my meaning, but Jesus' meaning. You understood why some sheeps did not need repentance. Because of the law. It makes you think that you are righteous. I mean, see for yourself : if someone put the law in practice, is he relying on God alone, or in himself ?
Does such a man need a Saviour...?

The law centers everything on man, on what He has to do. And, by doing so, it completely depart man from faith. Instead of rely on the Lord, you're being the one on which you rely, without even noticing.
However, since the beginning, the Lord proposed to bear us, as a man bear his son. But how can you be borne in such a way ?

But for someone sees that he is unable to put the law in pratice, and to do any good; for the sinner, isn't there an absolute necessity to rely on Someone else ?

I won't impose anything to you.
When you are lost, what can you even do ? You are at a point where there is nothing you can do, there is no escape. There is no coming back either. You are here, alone, and if someone else does not come to save you, there is only death at the end of the tunnel. Like this sheep in the pit, only someone "out" of the pit can reach out for her.
Only someone who is "not lost" can save you. Or, only the One who is the way Himself can find you, and bring you back home, in His home.

I don't think I can be clearer than that. Only a lost one can be saved. It is someone who is not asking himself "how?", but "Who?". "Who can save me from here ? Who can save me from myself ?". "No matter how hard I try, nothing good come out of me..."

What Jesus looked for in man has always been "faith". "Faith" in Him. Will He find faith when He'll return ?
This direct link between us and Him.

Hugo

 

[moonbeam]

I don't think I can be clearer than that. Only a lost one can be saved. It is someone who is not asking himself "how?", but "Who?". "Who can save me from here ? Who can save me from myself ?". "No matter how hard I try, nothing good come out of me..."

What Jesus looked for in man has always been "faith". "Faith" in Him. Will He find faith when He'll return ?
This direct link between us and Him.

I agree wholeheartedly...

A Psalm of David.

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures:

He leadeth me beside the still waters.

He restoreth my soul:

He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil:

for thou art with me; Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:

Thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life:

And I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.
.

 

[AbbaLove]

Furthermore Christians would never sin if obedience was a consequence of faith. The reason we still sin is because the option for us to do so is always there.

Maybe your hanging around the wrong crowd or going to the wrong church or not even going to a church that will help you grow in the Lord and STOP practing sin.

Some congregations now have two services. One is more "contemporary" for young people that prefer more of a performance service that isn't too heavy, even with some entertainment to hold their attention and keep them coming back.

Reformed Christianity (Calvinism) during the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation brougth with it a return to Sola Scripta. Sometimes referred to as the formal principle of the Reformation, is the belief that “only Scripture, because it is God's inspired Word, is our inerrant, sufficient, and final authority for the church” (God's Word Alone,). The basis of Sola Scriptura is inspired scripture as relevant Truth

Clare73's own theology order is not sola Scripture. While Paul's order with sanctification preceding justification is not wrong ... whereas Clare73 pretends to believe his order is the correct order ...

salvation --> justification --> obedience --> sanctification --> death --> resurrection (glorified body)​

The following Sola Scripta by the apostle Paul is the inspired Word of God ...

And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified. (Romans 8:30)​

​

But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1Corinthians 6:11)​

Some so-called theologians have followed the way of seeker-sensitive theology thinking the results will be more converts. The only problem is when the converts don't seem to be growing in their sanctification they are reassured that any "future sins are already forgiven"... OR ... if worse comes to worse they may be written off as "never saved" when originally under the assurance that "OSAS"

 

[BNR32FAN]

Maybe your hanging around the wrong crowd or going to the wrong church or not even going to a church that will help you grow in the Lord and STOP practing sin.

Some congregations now have two services. One is more "contemporary" for young people that prefer more of a performance service that isn't too heavy, even with some entertainment to hold their attention and keep them coming back.

Reformed Christianity (Calvinism) during the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation brougth with it a return to Sola Scripta. Sometimes referred to as the formal principle of the Reformation, is the belief that “only Scripture, because it is God's inspired Word, is our inerrant, sufficient, and final authority for the church” (God's Word Alone,). The basis of Sola Scriptura is inspired scripture as relevant Truth

Clare73's own theology order is not sola Scripture. While Paul's order with sanctification preceding justification is not wrong ... whereas Clare73 pretends to believe his order is the correct order ...

salvation --> justification --> obedience --> sanctification --> death --> resurrection (glorified body)​

The following Sola Scripta by the apostle Paul is the inspired Word of God ...

And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified. (Romans 8:30)​

​

But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1Corinthians 6:11)​

Some so-called theologians have followed the way of seeker-sensitive theology thinking the results will be more converts. The only problem is when the converts don't seem to be growing in their sanctification they are reassured that any "future sins are already forgiven"... OR ... if worse comes to worse they may be written off as "never saved" when originally under the assurance that "OSAS"

Sola scriptura isn’t the problem. The problem is Recta interpretatio (correct interpretation).

 

[fhansen]

A person who is declared rigteousness by God on the basis of believing his sins are forgiven does not need to worry that his future sins won't be forgiven also because his righteousness was never based on his obedience but was always on the basis of forgivness for his failures to obey.

If he abandons righteousness through forgiveness in favor of thinking that his salvation is at steak if he returns to the flesh, then he falls from grace and estranges himself from Christ.

This is faith in one's faith. It's different in kind from the faith that God is looking for. Maybe you can comment on the following passage, and why/how it relates to God's forgiveness:
"But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Matt 6:15

And while I believe I already asked you this simple question before, can you answer it in any case?: Can a believer persistently engage in wanton, grave sin and still expect to enter heaven?

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

This is faith in one's faith. It's different in kind from the faith that God is looking for.

It's clear you don't want to address the issue since every time I bring it up you wave your hands over there to distract the audience like a magician does. To you, faith is not about trusting Jesus' sacrifice as sufficient to cover one's sins, but is about trusting that the path to eternal life is working hard to be worthy of it. The same can be said about your version of grace and your version of forgiveness. Does it not bother you that your beliefs have gutted the meaning of these words, as I asked before with no response?

Maybe you can comment on the following passage, and why/how it relates to God's forgiveness:
"But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Matt 6:15

Ok, sure...

There is also a story that goes along with it (Matt 18:21-35). It is about a person who was forgiven a large debt which he could not pay who then did not forgive a small debt owed to him. The master found out about it and threw him into prison and declared that he would not be let out of prison until he payed the last cent of his original debt.

Jesus made it clear in verses 22 and 35 that this story is symbolic of how God's forgiveness of our sins against Him relates to our forgiveness of other people's sins against us. We are to forgive them over-and-over-again every day just as God forgives us over-and-over-again every day.

I take this as instruction to be just as forgiving to others as God is to me. Freely He gives, so freely I give.

But this is a strange question coming from a person who believes babtism washes away past sins, confession washes away current grave sins, venial sins don't need forgiveness, and prayers for dead people can drag them out of pergatory. None of these things require a person to forgive every single tiny offense against him in order for God to forgive his sins. So, please provide an answer for how a person obtains God's forgiveness in all these circumstances without them first forgiving other people's sins. When you give up, I will explain to you how Jesus' words do not constitute a death sentence for all.

And while I believe I already asked you this simple question before, can you answer it in any case?: Can a believer persistently engage in wanton, grave sin and still expect to enter heaven?

There is a change of nature that occurs when God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit enter a person's heart. That change of nature is described in various ways as "born again", "born of the Spirit", "born of God", "child of God", "new creation", "new creature", and "new man" among others. They use different words but describe the same change of nature. We see in the descriptions of this new nature that it is "truly righteous and holy" (Eph 4:24) and that "he cannot sin, because he has been born of God" (1 Jn 3:9). We also see that the new nature has these properties because it is "joined to the Lord", is "one spirit with Him" (1 Cor 6:17), and because "His seed remains in them" (1 Jn 3:9).

Failure to understand these principles is the reason people are unable to distinguish between the corrupt old nature which will never enter the kingdom of God and the new nature which is already in it.

 

[AbbaLove]

Sola scriptura isn’t the problem. The problem is Recta interpretatio (correct interpretation).

You mean the way you want to [dis]regard His Word to justify your actions being your own ?correct? interpertation to satisfy your comfort zone? That worldy mindset with one foot in the church and one foot in the world is known as seeker-sensitive [nominal] Christian theology.

So you don't take to heart the Words of Jesus (physical manifestation of God incarnate) as Sola Scriptura? Is it possibly because the enemy has convinced you it's not possible to stop sinning? Even though Jesus/God says it is possible to stop sinning.

"No, Lord,” she said. And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”(John 8:11)​

​

Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.” (Jphn 5:14)​

Remember that these evenets took place before the baptism (indwelling) of the Holy Spirit to instruct/guide 'born again' Christians in righteousness. If it was possible to stop sinning back them (OT) it is even more possible with the abiding Holy Spirit as our Guide ..
.

Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)​

​

But if anyone obeys His Word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in Him: Whoever claims to live in Him must live as Jesus did. (1 John 2:5-6)​

Is Sola Scriptura too convicting for a seeker-sensitive believer so that they cherry pick scripture to convince themself that they are OK even though they practice sin or "just a little sin" once in while.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You mean the way you want to [dis]regard His Word to justify your actions being your own ?correct? interpertation to satisfy your comfort zone? That worldy mindset with one foot in the church and one foot in the world is known as seeker-sensitive [nominal] Christian theology.

So you don't take to heart the Words of Jesus (physical manifestation of God incarnate) as Sola Scriptura? Is it possibly because the enemy has convinced you it's not possible to stop sinning? Even though Jesus/God says it is possible to stop sinning.

"No, Lord,” she said. And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”(John 8:11)​

​

Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.” (Jphn 5:14)​

Remember that these evenets took place before the baptism (indwelling) of the Holy Spirit to instruct/guide 'born again' Christians in righteousness. If it was possible to stop sinning back them (OT) it is even more possible with the abiding Holy Spirit as our Guide ..
.

Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)​

​

But if anyone obeys His Word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in Him: Whoever claims to live in Him must live as Jesus did. (1 John 2:5-6)​

Is Sola Scriptura too convicting for a seeker-sensitive believer so that they cherry pick scripture to convince themself that they are OK even though they practice sin or "just a little sin" once in while.

Ok do you know someone who doesn’t sin? And if so, how do you know they don’t sin. Obviously you still sin because you’re bearing false witness against me right now in this post so you’re already disqualified as someone who doesn’t sin. So why are you casting stones at me? Get the beam out of your eye before you worry about the speck in mine.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You mean the way you want to [dis]regard His Word to justify your actions being your own ?correct? interpertation to satisfy your comfort zone? That worldy mindset with one foot in the church and one foot in the world is known as seeker-sensitive [nominal] Christian theology.

So you don't take to heart the Words of Jesus (physical manifestation of God incarnate) as Sola Scriptura? Is it possibly because the enemy has convinced you it's not possible to stop sinning? Even though Jesus/God says it is possible to stop sinning.

"No, Lord,” she said. And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”(John 8:11)​

​

Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.” (Jphn 5:14)​

Remember that these evenets took place before the baptism (indwelling) of the Holy Spirit to instruct/guide 'born again' Christians in righteousness. If it was possible to stop sinning back them (OT) it is even more possible with the abiding Holy Spirit as our Guide ..
.

Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)​

​

But if anyone obeys His Word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in Him: Whoever claims to live in Him must live as Jesus did. (1 John 2:5-6)​

Is Sola Scriptura too convicting for a seeker-sensitive believer so that they cherry pick scripture to convince themself that they are OK even though they practice sin or "just a little sin" once in while.

Speaking of disregarding scripture I asked you about these two verses twice already and you never replied.

In 2 Timothy 2:12 Paul wrote this to Timothy.

“If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us;”
‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭2‬:‭12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Paul made it clear that even he and Timothy were capable of denying Christ which would result in Christ denying them.

In James 5:19-20 James wrote this.

“My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”
‭‭James‬ ‭5‬:‭19‬-‭20‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Here James says that if one of the brethren strays from the truth their soul is in danger of death but if another brother turns him BACK then that brother will have saved his soul from death. This indicates that the one who strayed was saved before he turned away. Then after he turned away he was in danger of condemnation but IF he repents he can be saved but James makes it clear that they are not certain to repent. That’s why he didn’t say when one of the brethren turns him back, he said if they turn him back. Furthermore if the one who strayed was destined to turn back then his soul was never actually in danger of death.

I asked you about these verses twice and you haven’t responded.

Are you going to address them this time or are you going to continue disregarding them again?

 

[BNR32FAN]

It's clear you don't want to address the issue since every time I bring it up you wave your hands over there to distract the audience like a magician does. To you, faith is not about trusting Jesus' sacrifice as sufficient to cover one's sins, but is about trusting that the path to eternal life is working hard to be worthy of it. The same can be said about your version of grace and your version of forgiveness. Does it not bother you that your beliefs have gutted the meaning of these words, as I asked before with no response?

Ok, sure...

There is also a story that goes along with it (Matt 18:21-35). It is about a person who was forgiven a large debt which he could not pay who then did not forgive a small debt owed to him. The master found out about it and threw him into prison and declared that he would not be let out of prison until he payed the last cent of his original debt.

Jesus made it clear in verses 22 and 35 that this story is symbolic of how God's forgiveness of our sins against Him relates to our forgiveness of other people's sins against us. We are to forgive them over-and-over-again every day just as God forgives us over-and-over-again every day.

I take this as instruction to be just as forgiving to others as God is to me. Freely He gives, so freely I give.

But this is a strange question coming from a person who believes babtism washes away past sins, confession washes away current grave sins, venial sins don't need forgiveness, and prayers for dead people can drag them out of pergatory. None of these things require a person to forgive every single tiny offense against him in order for God to forgive his sins. So, please provide an answer for how a person obtains God's forgiveness in all these circumstances without them first forgiving other people's sins. When you give up, I will explain to you how Jesus' words do not constitute a death sentence for all.

There is a change of nature that occurs when God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit enter a person's heart. That change of nature is described in various ways as "born again", "born of the Spirit", "born of God", "child of God", "new creation", "new creature", and "new man" among others. They use different words but describe the same change of nature. We see in the descriptions of this new nature that it is "truly righteous and holy" (Eph 4:24) and that "he cannot sin, because he has been born of God" (1 Jn 3:9). We also see that the new nature has these properties because it is "joined to the Lord", is "one spirit with Him" (1 Cor 6:17), and because "His seed remains in them" (1 Jn 3:9).

Failure to understand these principles is the reason people are unable to distinguish between the corrupt old nature which will never enter the kingdom of God and the new nature which is already in it.

How does James 5:19-20 fit into that interpretation of those verses given in the last paragraph of your post my friend?

“My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”
‭‭James‬ ‭5‬:‭19‬-‭20‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[fhansen]

It's clear you don't want to address the issue since every time I bring it up you wave your hands over there to distract the audience like a magician does. To you, faith is not about trusting Jesus' sacrifice as sufficient to cover one's sins, but is about trusting that the path to eternal life is working hard to be worthy of it. The same can be said about your version of grace and your version of forgiveness. Does it not bother you that your beliefs have gutted the meaning of these words, as I asked before with no response?

Sorry, the gutting has been done by novel gospels around 5 centuries old now. I've been quite clear, giving the fuller-orbed understanding of faith and its purpose. Faith means relationship with God, to come to know and to enter right relationship with Him, a relationship that was snubbed by Adam at the Fall, and which Jesus came to reconcile, a relationship which is the basis of justice for man-that which makes him just, while alienation from Him is the basis of fallen man's injustice. Jesus is the express image of God. Everything Jesus said and did is an expression of who God is; when we see Him we see God. When we believe in Him we believe in God. The following verses help on this:

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him." Heb 11:6

"He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through Him you believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and glorified Him, and so your faith and hope are in God." 1 Pet 1:20-21

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3

Ok, sure...

There is also a story that goes along with it (Matt 18:21-35). It is about a person who was forgiven a large debt which he could not pay who then did not forgive a small debt owed to him. The master found out about it and threw him into prison and declared that he would not be let out of prison until he payed the last cent of his original debt.

Jesus made it clear in verses 22 and 35 that this story is symbolic of how God's forgiveness of our sins against Him relates to our forgiveness of other people's sins against us. We are to forgive them over-and-over-again every day just as God forgives us over-and-over-again every day.

I take this as instruction to be just as forgiving to others as God is to me. Freely He gives, so freely I give.

But this is a strange question coming from a person who believes babtism washes away past sins, confession washes away current grave sins, venial sins don't need forgiveness, and prayers for dead people can drag them out of pergatory. None of these things require a person to forgive every single tiny offense against him in order for God to forgive his sins. So, please provide an answer for how a person obtains God's forgiveness in all these circumstances without them first forgiving other people's sins. When you give up, I will explain to you how Jesus' words do not constitute a death sentence for all.

You're skirting the question. You say that all we must do is to believe in order for our sins to be forgiven. But Jesus says we must forgive others their sins in order for our sins to be forgiven. A change must occur in us, towards righteousness, towards love, to put it best. And if we fail at this righteousness then, yes, we can confess and be restored to it.

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9

There is a change of nature that occurs when God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit enter a person's heart. That change of nature is described in various ways as "born again", "born of the Spirit", "born of God", "child of God", "new creation", "new creature", and "new man" among others. They use different words but describe the same change of nature. We see in the descriptions of this new nature that it is "truly righteous and holy" (Eph 4:24) and that "he cannot sin, because he has been born of God" (1 Jn 3:9). We also see that the new nature has these properties because it is "joined to the Lord", is "one spirit with Him" (1 Cor 6:17), and because "His seed remains in them" (1 Jn 3:9).

Failure to understand these principles is the reason people are unable to distinguish between the corrupt old nature which will never enter the kingdom of God and the new nature which is already in it.

Alright, that's good, so righteousness isn't merely declared of or imputed to us-but given as a result of justification-we're changed in our nature and in our actions. So, keeping in mind that John isn't speaking of a merely forensically declared righteousness but of actual sinlessness, are you saying that a born again person never sins?

We are only one person, btw, and God isn't interested in pretending that we're righteous when we're not.