levels

[Hupomone10]

Fine..you're splitting hairs. I still disagree to some extent. God provided a way to conquer sin via Jesus. Failure to accept this gift will send us to hell. Accepting this in no way lessens the severity of sin. I never said weren't lost because of sin. What gets us into heaven? Not sinning or the redemptive work of Jesus?

You may say it's splitting hairs; I disagree. I think it's the result of the watered down message many of us are hearing hearing today.To me (and obviously to Tozer) it is putting the attention on a thing called faith and making it out to be a thing in itself and diverting the attention from that which has infected God's creation - sin. And as 98cwitr pointed out, unbelief is also sin anyway.

What about the person who has not heard about Christ? Or what about the person who has heard about Christ but given a faulty presentation of the gospel and of Christ? Would you still insist it is his unbelief in a thing he's never heard about that's sending him to hell, in spite of all Scripture that makes it clear that it's sin? Isn't it because he's a sinner? How does one become a sinner? Isn't it because of sins committed on the one hand, and being born with a sinful nature on the other? Otherwise the Bible would constantly refer to lost people as unbelievers or faithless ones instead of sinners.

Certainly belief is important, but belief is simply how you appropriate the message. And what is the message? Is it that you are an unbeliever and if you will simply have something called "faith" you will be ok? No, it is that you are a sinner, you are defiled and totally unacceptable in God's eyes and having no right to heaven or holy God whatsoever in yourself. And as such, it calls you to flee to the Cross and to Christ Who took sin - all sin, not just unbelief - onto Himself on the Cross.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Ironside]

You may say it's splitting hairs; I disagree. I think it's the result of the watered down message many of us are hearing hearing today.To me (and obviously to Tozer) it is putting the attention on a thing called faith and making it out to be a thing in itself and diverting the attention from that which has infected God's creation - sin. And as 98cwitr pointed out, unbelief is also sin anyway.

What about the person who has not heard about Christ? Or what about the person who has heard about Christ but given a faulty presentation of the gospel and of Christ? Would you still insist it is his unbelief in a thing he's never heard about that's sending him to hell, in spite of all Scripture that makes it clear that it's sin? Isn't it because he's a sinner? How does one become a sinner? Isn't it because of sins committed on the one hand, and being born with a sinful nature on the other? Otherwise the Bible would constantly refer to lost people as unbelievers or faithless ones instead of sinners.

Certainly belief is important, but belief is simply how you appropriate the message. And what is the message? Is it that you are an unbeliever and if you will simply have something called "faith" you will be ok? No, it is that you are a sinner, you are defiled and totally unacceptable in God's eyes and having no right to heaven or holy God whatsoever in yourself. And as such, it calls you to flee to the Cross and to Christ Who took sin - all sin, not just unbelief - onto Himself on the Cross.

Blessings,
H.

Wow. You missed the point. No one is going to heaven if they don't believe. Sinners wil be in heaven and hell, but only believers will be in heaven. You are making a mountain out of a molehill and over complicating things. I get the impression that you like to argue.

 

[VCViking]

Forgive me, but I like to counter or at least balance this idea whenever I see it.
(I should have clarified, the following is a quote from A. W. Tozer; that's what the reference immediately below it means )

Another doctrine that hinders God’s work, and one which is heard almost everywhere, is that sinners are not lost because they have sinned, but because they have not accepted Jesus. “Men are not lost because they murder; they are not sent to hell because they lie and steal and blaspheme; they are sent to hell because they reject a Saviour.” This short-sighted preachment is thundered at us constantly, and is seldom challenged by the hearers.

A parallel argument would be hooted down as silly, but apparently no one notices it: “That man with a cancer is dying, but it is not the cancer that is killing him; it is his failure to accept a cure.” Is it not plain that the only reason the man would need a cure is that he is already marked for death by the cancer? The only reason I need a Saviour, in His capacity as Saviour, is that I am already marked for hell by the sins I have committed. Refusing to believe in Christ is a symptom of deeper evil in the life, of sins unconfessed and wicked ways unforsaken. The guilt lies in acts of sin; the proof of that guilt is seen in the rejection of the Savior.

If anyone should feel like brushing this aside as mere verbal sparring, let him first pause: the doctrine that the only damning sin is the rejection of Jesus is definitely a contributing cause of our present weakness and lack of moral grip... It is, for all its harmless seeming, a most injurious belief, for it destroys our sense of responsibility for our moral conduct. It robs all sin of its frightfulness and makes evil to consist in a mere technicality. And where sin is not cured power cannot flow.

- “Paths to Power”, A.W Tozer

Hey! We agree on something! Gotta love Tozer.

 

[Hupomone10]

Hey! We agree on something! Gotta love Tozer.

 

[Hupomone10]

Wow. You missed the point. No one is going to heaven if they don't believe. Sinners wil be in heaven and hell, but only believers will be in heaven. You are making a mountain out of a molehill and over complicating things.

(I could point out the error you have in that statement above, but I don't want to be an arguer or making mountains... )

I get the impression that you like to argue.

Help me out, someone. Are we still on the forums? or did I wake up somewhere else... Yeah, it's unusual to find someone on here that likes to argue. I'm probably the only one on CF that will strike you that way. Be patient with us, brother.

Well, it's not that I love it; I'm just willing to do it whenever "the ridiculous" is said. No offense intended, but saying something like "Someone does not go to hell because of sin, they go because of unbelief" LOL, sorry, that to me is like saying to a 5 pt Calvinist "God wants you to be saved but it's up to you." Sorry if I annoyed you, but that's a sore spot with me.

But, on the positive side, congratulations, bro! You just made it to the top of my list for today!

Well, I'll let you have the last word, so I can not be an arguer...

... on a different subject, did you take your name from H. A. Ironside? And if so, is he a favorite? AND do you know any links where his stuff is to read? I hate to admit it, but I haven't read any of him in many years, and have none of his commentaries on my shelves. I was recently thinking I'd like to get away from so much John MacArthur in my commentaries and get some of his to read.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Ironside]

Well, I'll let you have the last word, so I can not be an arguer...

... on a different subject, did you take your name from H. A. Ironside? And if so, is he a favorite? AND do you know any links where his stuff is to read? I hate to admit it, but I haven't read any of him in many years, and have none of his commentaries on my shelves. I was recently thinking I'd like to get away from so much John MacArthur in my commentaries and get some of his to read.

Blessings,
H.

Well thanks for the last word, but I'll just let it go and agree to disagree.

As far as my name, yes it is after Harry Ironside. He is one of my favorites. He has such a plain and gentle way of putting things which makes it very easy to understand. Here is a link to some stuff of his. It is only a small portion of the 50+ books he authored.

Wholesomewords(.)org

 

[Hupomone10]

Well thanks for the last word, but I'll just let it go and agree to disagree.

As far as my name, yes it is after Harry Ironside. He is one of my favorites. He has such a plain and gentle way of putting things which makes it very easy to understand. Here is a link to some stuff of his. It is only a small portion of the 50+ books he authored.

Wholesomewords(.)org

Thanks, brother. I found the list for Ironside, and a lot of others I'd like to read in time. A good resource