How to walk in the Spirit.

MMXX said:

In other words your theology contains a certain amount of ambiguity and uncertainty.

Click to expand...

IOW, salvation contains a certain amount of ambiguity and uncertainty. The ancient churches have always held that salvation is something thats worked out-and that a degree of fear and trembling is healthy. We can have a level of assurance, a strong level even, based on Gods trustworthiness, the observance of fruit in our lives, and even the relationship that we experience personally with Him-but not perfect certainty. As weak, limited, sin-prone humans that would border on arrogance or rash confidence. He’s trustworthy and true, while we’re the wildcard.

The OP is expressing a particular slant on the doctrine of Sola Fide, held by some at least since the time of the Reformation, in which one is forgiven/justified in Gods eyes/saved as long as they believe that they’re forgiven/justified in Gods eyes/saved. It’s to believe in ones belief, as if simply resolving to believe a certain thing makes it true in this case. Some even conceive of it is as, unless one believes that they’re forgiven/justified in Gods eyes/saved, then they are not.

fhansen said:

IOW, salvation contains a certain amount of ambiguity and uncertainty. The ancient churches have always held that salvation is something thats worked out-and that a degree of fear and trembling is healthy. We can have a level of assurance, a strong level even, based on Gods trustworthiness, the observance of fruit in our lives, and even the relationship that we experience personally with Him-but not perfect certainty. As weak, limited, sin-prone humans that would border on arrogance or rash confidence. He’s trustworthy and true, while we’re the wildcard.

Click to expand...

I'm not unfamiliar with this theology. But up until now I've mostly heard it from Protestants who ironically are anti-Catholic. Their version being known as "Lordship Salvation". Which I could never quite pin down, along with what you've laid out. And I think that's because maybe it's not grounded.

1 John is all about how to know that you have eternal life.

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." 1 John 5:13

pescador said:

Jesus said that He wouldn't lose any that the Father has given Him.

Click to expand...

No He didn’t, what He actually said was that it is the “will” of The Father that He should lose none. The Greek word translated to “will” doesn’t always mean something that God has decreed to be true but can also mean something that God desires. The same word is used in 1 Timothy 2:3-4.

“This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭2:3-4‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

So what Jesus was saying is that The Father desires that He should lose none. Your interpretation of this verse contradicts what Jesus said in John 15:2 and John 15:6. In John 15:2 Jesus said The Father cuts off every branch in Me that beareth not fruit. In John 15:6 He said anyone who does not remain in Me is cast away to wither and cast into the fire to be burned. So according these two verses it’s easy to see that you are not interpreting John 6:39 correctly.

fhansen said:

The OP is expressing a particular slant on the doctrine of Sola Fide, held by some at least since the time of the Reformation, in which one is forgiven/justified in Gods eyes/saved as long as they believe that they’re forgiven/justified in Gods eyes/saved. It’s to believe in ones belief, as if simply resolving to believe a certain thing makes it true in this case. Some even conceive of it is as, unless one believes that they’re forgiven/justified in Gods eyes/saved, then they are not.

Click to expand...

I'd say rather than it being called belief in ones belief, it's more like having true faith or not. One ananolgy being that one should have the same faith in their salvation through Christ, as a skydiver has in his parachute.

MMXX said:

Sidon addressed it here: #24

Click to expand...

My reply was in response to his statement

Sidon said:

How you feel, has no effect on the BLood Atonement.
how you act or behave, has no effect on God's Grace, once you have "the Gift of salvation”

Click to expand...

The reason Jesus gave for condemning these people was because of their “lawlessness” they did not hear his words and act on them as He explained in verses 24-27.


““Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭7:24-27‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Jesus said in John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice I know them and they follow. These people heard but did not follow.

Sidon said:

Not at all.

You are reading the verse, as if its a dictionary, but its not.

So, look at this...

"if we die with him"


So, when a person has a theology that is "im saving myself", "im keeping myself saved",, then they read this, "if we die with Him" and they see it in the natural mind and think.....>"oh, that means i have to die as a MARYTR"....
See it?
That is how you misunderstand the verse, and the rest of them you quote, as you are reading them LITERALLY, and not discerning them spiritually.

See, if all the born again have to DIE as MARTYRS, as that verse suggests, if you dont discern it, but only read it like its a phone book, then you better get busy playing the martyr for REAL, as that is what happens when you do not rightly divide the word, and instead read it as if its a NOVEL.

And the same goes for how you are only READING the rest of the verses, not discerning them, but only seeming them as literal.
See, this is why there are 40,000 denominations that all DISAGREE.
Its because people read the bible, but do not discern the verses, and then they run off and create another CULT.

Click to expand...

You ignore half of the verses in the New Testament. You ignore Jesus’ parables and now Paul’s own words. According to you we should pick and choose what verses to take literally and what verses to not take literally which is just basically disregarding them all together. Your choosing to ignore every verse that refutes your theology which is why your theology didn’t exist before the 16th century and has been rejected by every single church established by the apostles. Your theology doesn’t line up with all scriptures.

Sidon said:

The problem with teaching a symbolic verse, as LITERAL, as you are doing is that this proves that the teacher does not discern that you don't do this.... ever.
And when this person can't distinguish or understand that in the NT, you have literal verses that you teach as face value, but then you have allegory, proverbial, and symbolic, that you DONT teach as "doctrine", as you are trying to do....... what you do is mark this person, noting that they see the NT verses as all the same. ... Just words in a book.

But God does not see them as all the same, BNR32Fan.
And this is why He told the born again to "study to show yourself approved", and that means to come to the LEVEL of mastering the distinctions, between what is literal and what is not doctrine.
This is how you "rightly divide", and you do that by "spiritually discerning".

Click to expand...

No the problem is you disregard every verse that refutes your beliefs.

BNR32FAN said:

No the problem is you disregard every verse that refutes your beliefs.

Click to expand...

I seem to recall him addressing John 15:2 or 6 a few pages back.

A favorite verse used that you can lose your salvation is:

"But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified." 1 Corinthians 9:27

However here Paul seems to have no doubt about where he will go after he dies:

"For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better." Philippians 1:23

So perhaps Paul meant being disqualified as a teacher.

MMXX said:

I seem to recall him addressing John 15:2 or 6 a few pages back.

Click to expand...

Saying a verse is “symbolic” and “can’t be taken literally” is not addressing it, it’s actually just disregarding it.

MMXX said:

I'd say rather than it being called belief in ones belief, it's more like having true faith or not. One ananolgy being that one should have the same faith in their salvation through Christ, as a skydiver has in his parachute.

Click to expand...

The analogy is close but not quite right, to the concept I mentioned at least. It's like believing that as long as one believes that their parachute won't fail, then it won't. But our trust in our parachute has nothing to do with whether or not it fails. And some have believed this way, however.

I relate this to the OPs position because he tells us that to walk in the Spirit means to see oneself as free from sin, justified by God. This raises two problems. One is that Christianity deals with truth, not imagination. We aren't free from sin because we see ourselves that way regardless of the truth of the matter-as if we're failing to follow God if we see ourselves any other way. That's New Age Christianity. We're free from sin when we're free from sin.
"If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of Him." 1 John 2:29

The other problem involves the way in which we're made righteous. We're not righteous by merely believing that God's made me righteous, but also we're not even made righteous because God declares me to be righteous. We're righteous-and act righteously as per the quote from 1 John above-because God has actually given me righteousness, a righteousness that I can now act on and express-or not. So we're speaking of real, personal change here, that we must cooperate in. That's what walking in the Spirit means, so, again, as a true example of that walk,
“Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.” Rom 8:12-13

BNR32FAN said:

Saying a verse is “symbolic” and “can’t be taken literally” is not addressing it, it’s actually just disregarding it.

Click to expand...

I didn't remember what was said. I would imagine though there are those who teach the same thing as the OP have addressed those kinds of verses. Which would be easy enough to look up to use.

MMXX said:

I didn't remember what was said. I would imagine though there are those who teach the same thing as the OP have addressed those kinds of verses. Which would be easy enough to look up to use.

Click to expand...

Absolutely there are people who have addressed them and the most typical response is that these people were never in Christ to begin with which is a direct contradiction to what Jesus said in these verses.

MMXX said:

I'm not unfamiliar with this theology. But up until now I've mostly heard it from Protestants who ironically are anti-Catholic. Their version being known as "Lordship Salvation". Which I could never quite pin down, along with what you've laid out. And I think that's because maybe it's not grounded.

Click to expand...

I don't know much about Lordship Salvation, only enough to know that it appears to be a recognition of something often missing or wrongly understood or emphasized in parts of Protestant theology and an attempt to get back to historic Christianity-without necessarily realizing it I assume.

MMXX said:

1 John is all about how to know that you have eternal life.

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." 1 John 5:13

Click to expand...

Yes, one telling sign that we have eternal life is by the way we act.
“Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as He is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.” 1 John 3:7-8

Properly understood this is no different in kind than Jesus words to the young man in Matt 9:17-19
If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
“Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 1honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’

All of this and more are summed up by-are accomplished by-the fulfillment of the greatest commandments, to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves. That's to walk by the Spirit, who, alone, can cause or work that love in us.
"And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us." Rom 5:5

That's the true definition of righteousness and in any case demonstrates that righteousness is a gift, that we must embrace and act on, not merely an imputation.
"...not having my own righteousness from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God on the basis of faith" (Phil 3:9).

"And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Rom 8:4

Again, as the church of Christ can so wisely teach:
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

And that proceeds from a life of walking in the Spirit.

fhansen said:

The analogy is close but not quite right, to the concept I mentioned at least. It's like believing that as long as one believes that their parachute won't fail, then it won't. But our trust in our parachute has nothing to do with whether or not it fails. And some have believed this way, however.

Click to expand...

I gave the parachute analogy to counter the notion of "belief in belief" because I don't think that's what it is. I think what it is about is having complete pure faith in Christ as one's only hope of salvation. Calling it "belief in belief" sounds like inaccurate mockery to me.

fhansen said:

I relate this to the OPs position because he tells us that to walk in the Spirit means to see oneself as free from sin, justified by God. This raises two problems. One is that Christianity deals with truth, not imagination. We aren't free from sin because we see ourselves that way regardless of the truth of the matter-as if we're failing to follow God if we see ourselves any other way. That's New Age Christianity. We're free from sin when we're free from sin.

"If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of Him." 1 John 2:29

Click to expand...

I don't think you're getting it right. It's not that one sees oneself as free of sin. Most I know of who believe what the OP believes are acutely aware of their sin, especially those who live righteously. It's that God sees us free of sin through the blood of Jesus. Otherwise we wouldn't make it into heaven.

fhansen said:

The other problem involves the way in which we're made righteous. We're not righteous by merely believing that God's made me righteous, but also we're not even made righteous because God declares me to be righteous. We're righteous-and act righteously as per the quote from 1 John above-because God has actually given me righteousness, a righteousness that I can now act on and express-or not. So we're speaking of real, personal change here, that we must cooperate in. That's what walking in the Spirit means, so, again, as a true example of that walk,
“Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.” Rom 8:12-13

Click to expand...

I believe what the OP is saying is that in the eyes of God, the blood, only the blood, and nothing but the blood, makes us appear pure.

I'm not sure that Romans 8:12-13 is referring to obtaining everlasting life through fulfilling an obligation. I'll have to examine that along with the whole chapter.

fhansen said:

I don't know much about Lordship Salvation, only enough to know that it appears to be a recognition of something often missing or wrongly understood or emphasized in parts of Protestant theology and an attempt to get back to historic Christianity-without necessarily realizing it I assume.

Yes, one telling sign that we have eternal life is by the way we act.
“Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as He is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.” 1 John 3:7-8

Properly understood this is no different in kind than Jesus words to the young man in Matt 9:17-19
If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
“Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 1honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’

All of this and more are summed up by-are accomplished by-the fulfillment of the greatest commandments, to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves. That's to walk by the Spirit, who, alone, can cause or work that love in us.
"And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us." Rom 5:5

That's the true definition of righteousness and in any case demonstrates that righteousness is a gift, that we must embrace and act on, not merely an imputation.
"...not having my own righteousness from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God on the basis of faith" (Phil 3:9).

"And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Rom 8:4

Again, as the church of Christ can so wisely teach:
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

And that proceeds from a life of walking in the Spirit.

Click to expand...

So in Matthew 9 when the man told Jesus that he had kept all those commandments since childhood, Jesus said "that's great, you're in!" Right? No, what Jesus said in the end that it was basically impossible for that law keeper to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Which freaked out those who were listening. So they asked "who then can be saved?!". And Jesus said "with man it is impossible". IOW even with a man keeping all the commandments it is impossible. Only though God is it possible. That's my take anyways.

I'm not ignoring the other verses you posted. I just need to examine them more. Right now I'm on my phone on a shaky bus.

MMXX said:

I gave the parachute analogy to counter the notion of "belief in belief" because I don't think that's what it is. I think what it is about is having complete pure faith in Christ as one's only hope of salvation. Calling it "belief in belief" sounds like inaccurate mockery to me.

Click to expand...

There might be a difference between your understanding and that of the OP.

MMXX said:

I don't think you're getting it right. It's not that one sees oneself as free of sin. Most I know of who believe what the OP believes are acutely aware of their sin, especially those who live righteously. It's that God sees us free of sin through the blood of Jesus. Otherwise we wouldn't make it into heaven.

Click to expand...

Scripture is quite clear that grave sin keeps us from entering heaven. That's the problem. But, of course, he doesn't see himself as a sinner regardless of whether or not he is one. And that's the problem with that theology.

MMXX said:

I believe what the OP is saying is that in the eyes of God, the blood, only the blood, and nothing but the blood, makes us appear pure.

Click to expand...

As verse after verse attests-we're pure only to the extent that we are pure, made pure, yet with our continuing participation.
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 8:9

"But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. All who have this hope in Him purify themselves, just as He is pure." 1 John 3:2-3

"This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister." 1 John 3:10

MMXX said:

I'm not sure that Romans 8:12-13 is referring to obtaining everlasting life through fulfilling an obligation. I'll have to examine that along with the whole chapter.

Click to expand...

Do that. Sometimes I'd like to shout that we should take off any Reformation lenses that we might filter our reading through-just for a moment-and read Romans and other writings in light of the concept that God not only forgives sin but also gives or imparts real personal righteousness, even if only in a relatively nascent and untested form at first, at justification, as we turn to Him in faith and become new creations in Christ.

MMXX said:

So in Matthew 9 when the man told Jesus that he had kept all those commandments since childhood, Jesus said "that's great, you're in!" Right? No, what Jesus said in the end that it was basically impossible for that law keeper to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Which freaked out those who were listening. So they asked "who then can be saved?!". And Jesus said "with man it is impossible". IOW even with a man keeping all the commandments it is impossible. Only though God is it possible. That's my take anyways.

Click to expand...

No, Jesus never said that. He said, "if you want to be perfect..." And that's the point I've been making: God prefers perfection, of course, but doesn't demand it. He nonetheless requires change and progress in that change-an orientation on the path towards righteousness, towards love, towards perfection, towards Himself, at least sufficient to exclude such serious and anti-love sin as outlined in Galatians 5, for example, or Rev 22. The problem is that the young man couldn't stand being regarded as less than perfect-and probably wanted that perfection, an ultimate perfection that can only come from God we become His children via faith- to be attributed to himself.

fhansen said:

No, Jesus never said that. He said, "if you want to be perfect..." And that's the point I've been making: God prefers perfection, of course, but doesn't demand it. He nonetheless requires change and progress in that change-an orientation on the path towards righteousness, towards love, towards perfection, towards Himself, at least sufficient to exclude such serious and anti-love sin as outlined in Galatians 5, for example, or Rev 22. The problem is that the young man couldn't stand being regarded as less than perfect-and probably wanted that perfection, an ultimate perfection that can only come from God we become His children via faith- to be attributed to himself.

Click to expand...

The young man couldn't stand the idea of what it took to become perfect.

Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”

26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Now how do you interpret verse 26? To me it means that when left up to man, it's impossible for man to enter the kingdom of God.

The idea I believe is not to dismiss sanctification. You seem to think that's what it comes down to. That sanctification isn't supposed to be important according to the OP's theology. But what it really is, as I see it, is differentiating between justification and sanctification. In the theology you're presenting, from what I gather, basically justification comes by way of sanctification. Whereas in the theology the OP is presenting, it's the opposite order. Sanctification comes though justification.