Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The problem is that your method is to pull verses out of context (see post 148). So to make a fair argument, I’m referencing all of Romans and telling you in broad terms what is said. That way there can be no accusations towards me about context. I could do the same with Galatians. And since it’s God’s word, you aren’t disagreeing with me, but with Him.Actually I have not seen anything from the scripture from you that says that we can be saved in sin and unbelief without repentance and confession of sin. Perhaps I missed it. Would you like to post specifically where the scriptures say this please?
I just finished reading Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History" again. It was interesting to me that he never questioned the canonicity of Hebrews, Timothy, or Titus. But he did question the canonicity of the other epistles you mentioned as well as 2nd Peter and 2nd & 3rd John.For example, Martin Luther did explicitly say that he disagreed with the Epistle of James, he did not regard it as canonical, and he wanted to remove it, Hebrews, Jude and Revelations from the Bible as he disputed their legitimacy, as did many early church fathers. So we can do that.
I noticed that people who object to the inclusion of deuterocanonical books tend to subscribe to a more literal interpretation of the rest of the OT. Because they are literalists, they object to certain things in the deuterocanonical books.For example, I regard the deuterocanonical books as Sacred Scripture, books like Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, the histories of the Maccabees, the Prayer of Manessah, Baruch, Esdras, and so on. I even regard 1 Enoch and Jubilees as inspired. Most people disagree at least on 1 Enoch and Jubilees.
Well if you have no scripture that says that we can depart the faith and still be saved in known unrepentant sin and unbelief without repentance and forgiveness, let be honest here and just say so. I already know there is no scripture.I’ve provided God’s word on the subject (or more specifically, I’ve referenced a part that’s relevant to the discussion). Paul makes a strong argument for the security of the believer. So you aren’t disagreeing with me, but with one of the inspired writers of scripture.
Salvation can be lost in that one believes that they have a life-saving, life-changing faith in Christ but continue to willfully, knowingly, sin without feeling any conviction or trying to repent, or even walk away from Christ altogether. The OSAS crowd will say they were never actually saved to begin with, and there may be some truth to that. God knows who His sheep are. However, I would be hard-pressed to say to anyone that they are not or never were saved if they declare, or have ever declared, with their mouth that Jesus is Lord. That is what judgment is and that is not our place. There are plenty of people out there who will say that they used to believe but no longer do. It is not our place to answer if they ever actually believed but to show them that they can believe again if they truly want to. That is the job that Christ gave us in the Great Commission. Christ's job is to answer that question of if they are, or have ever been, saved or not.
Well that is a claim you have never proven from scripture. You provide me where I have posted scripture out of context that changes the meaning to my application of the scripture to subject matter of discussion.The problem is that your method is to pull verses out of context (see post 148). So to make a fair argument, I’m referencing all of Romans and telling you in broad terms what is said. That way there can be no accusations towards me about context. I could do the same with Galatians. And since it’s God’s word, you aren’t disagreeing with me, but with Him.
I’m not sure why you are claiming that I’ve made an argument that I haven’t made. That would be a straw man, which is poor form. My argument is that we are made righteous by God through faith. Well, it’s Paul’s argument, and I’m just agreeing with him, just like I agree with him about the security of our salvation. So your argument isn’t with me, but God’s word.Well if you have no scripture that says that we can be saved in known unrepentant sin and unbelief without repentance and forgiveness, just say so. I already know there is no scripture.
I see, so your not arguing against someone that was once a believer departing the faith to choose to live in a life of known unrepentant sin without repentance and God's forgiveness is not in a saved state with God?I’m not sure why you are claiming that I’ve made an argument that I haven’t made. That would be a straw man, which is poor form. My argument is that we are made righteous by God through faith. Well, it’s Paul’s argument, and I’m just agreeing with him, just like I agree with him about the security of our salvation. So your argument isn’t with me, but God’s word.
There’s no amount of evidence you’ll believe, so I won’t waste my time or yours. Suffice it to say, I have provided scripture in context to show that salvation is from God and that He will keep us secure. And I know you don’t want to disagree with God’s word.Well that is a claim you have never proven from scripture. You provide me where I have posted scripture out of context that changes the meaning to my application of the scripture to subject matter of discussion.
Well that is a claim I guess we will agree to disagree on. Thank you for the discussion though.There’s no amount of evidence you’ll believe, so I won’t waste my time or yours. Suffice it to say, I have provided scripture in context to show that salvation is from God and that He will keep us secure. And I know you don’t want to disagree with God’s word.
I’m agreeing with Paul who makes a compelling argument in all of Romans that those who are saved are secure. That’s God’s word. Hopefully you won’t disagree that Romans is rightfully in the canon.I see, so your not arguing against someone that was once a believer departing the faith to choose to live in a life of known unrepentant sin without repentance and God's forgiveness is not in a saved state with God?
So you are disagreeing with God’s word. Okay.Well that is a claim I guess we will agree to disagree on. Thank you for the discussion though.
Take Care.
I think probably the best way to answer the question is whether or not you think that you can your own salvation. And if so then how.
I’ve stated what they say. But to be clearer, Paul makes a solid argument about how salvation comes to man, and that it’s not about man, but God. So if you disagree, you are disagreeing with God’s very words. You are free to do so, obviously.
Recent discussions (in other threads) are making me agree with this. I've always understood Revelation with a mostly Idealist interpretation. People nowadays are turning it into literal fortune telling of the future. It's like a different religion altogether that presents Jesus and the saints like blood-thirsty monsters and disregards the rest of the NT.I'm a bit on Luther's side regarding Revelation.
So you are disagreeing with God’s word. Okay.
That sounds like this post is actually asking Free-will VS. Predestination then, which is a similar question if you think about it.
Literally, for every argument, one can posit there will always be another argument to go against it. One just has to choose what they believe based on their understandings and convictions. There is no way to answer this question without starting a debate or having rebuttals and things like that but I have 20 minutes before work starts so, why not?
It's both. God knows who His sheep are. Likewise, He still commands us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. The fact that God knows all is why I said that there is some truth in the belief that if one walks away then they were never saved to begin with. However, that would be looking at it from God's perspective and not our own, which is not a wrong thing to attempt to do. God, despite knowing all, still expects us to make a decision to follow Him in order to be saved. He knows exactly who will, or won't but still expects us to make that decision. He commands us to believe so that we may not perish but have eternal life. The Word commands it, I choose to believe it. As a man in a human body, whether God has "preordained" it or not is of no consequence. He commands we make the choice even though He knows whether we will obey or not. It's a circular argument. Ultimately though, we must make that choice regardless.
Recent discussions (in other threads) are making me agree with this. I've always understood Revelation with a mostly Idealist interpretation. People nowadays are turning it into literal fortune telling of the future. It's like a different religion altogether that presents Jesus and the saints like blood-thirsty monsters and disregards the rest of the NT.
To me where you said God knows all, is where the rubber meets the road. God knows what's going on with us. He knows where we are at with it. No matter how pious or salty we appear, God knows what's in our heart. I think that's the ultimate measuring stick.
I know. And I’m not being serious here. I’m just using the same method of arguing as he has used.Whether I agree with him or not is of no consequence here but I will say that he is merely disagreeing with your interpretation of it. There are verses that go on both sides...which means that since the Word of God cannot be wrong, there must be a middle ground that you and/or him are missing.
Recent discussions (in other threads) are making me agree with this. I've always understood Revelation with a mostly Idealist interpretation. People nowadays are turning it into literal fortune telling of the future. It's like a different religion altogether that presents Jesus and the saints like blood-thirsty monsters and disregards the rest of the NT.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?