One or zero sins

[doclkk]

No, the issue of salvation does not differ from church to church. If you're Catholic - that's fine, our beliefs conflict, if you're protestant, then the issue of salvation does not differ and I highly recommend you to talk to your pastor, I will guarentee that salvation is absolute - Rick Warren, Dave Gibbons, Bill Hyuns, Billy Graham just to name a few (who are known as the Biblical scholars of our time) assert that salvation can be guarenteed.

 

[seebs]

No, the issue of salvation does not differ from church to church.

Er, yes, it does.

If you're Catholic - that's fine, our beliefs conflict, if you're protestant, then the issue of salvation does not differ and I highly recommend you to talk to your pastor, I will guarentee that salvation is absolute - Rick Warren, Dave Gibbons, Bill Hyuns, Billy Graham just to name a few (who are known as the Biblical scholars of our time) assert that salvation can be guarenteed.

You have mistaken a very narrow branch of Christianity for a universal claim about Christianity.

I'll give you a hint: My branch of Christianity doesn't have "pastors".

The issue of salvation varies hugely. There's Calvinists and non-Calvinists, there's partial Calvinists, and there are another dozen or so theories about the question. Not all churches agree on the fate of infants who die before they even know language, let alone have faith. They don't agree on whether or not you need baptism, or whether it needs to be water or spiritual, or whether, if it's water, full immersion is needed. The question of whether apparent backsliding is irrelevant, because you are already saved, or indicates that you were never saved, is not universally agreed upon, even among people who accept OSAS.

In short, it seems clear to me that your understanding of the nature of Christianity is a little narrow, and you would probably benefit a lot from visiting a few churches from different denominations or branches.

 

[Vedant]

About the unforgivable sin...Christians can't commit it. It's impossible. Although Christians can become unchristian and Christian again, and that's what it refers to. Someone who is truly a follower of Christ can't blaspheme against His Spirit that breathes life into us. However, God can't forgive someone that knowingly departs from Christ and His Spirit. If this was a big issue with Christians, we'd hear about it every day in church. The thing is, it's not an issue with Christians because Christians can't commit the sin in the first place. The unforgivability comes from the act of rejecting Christ. If you accept Christ, He will accept you. Christ will accept ANYONE, which is the most wonderful loving and awesome. It doesn't matter who you are, or what you've done, Christ will always accept you. But will you accept Him?

I don't know if I've got this correct or not, but I don't think this "unforgivable sin" is as tangible as other sins. Moreso, it describes the gravity of departing from Christ knowingly, and that Christ can't help you or forgive you if you choose to blaspheme against His Spirit and refuse Him. This is one reason why I don't believe in predestination. God knows everything, but I don't think He's the one that chooses whom to accept and let into His kingdom. We are the ones that must accept Him. This is also why I can't be the judge of who does not get to be with God in the future. How can one knowingly blaspheme against the Spirit of God if he/she has never heard of Christ? It's a bit out of our league to be the judge of something that we don't have any business judging, even though it's in the Bible that "...whoever does not believe will not be saved.", I'm not strong enough as the Gospel writer to be that determined about who is saved and who isn't. After all, it's not in my place to judge, and we shouldn't be judging people either.

I don't know, but I know I'll be confused about many things for a long while to come...these forums help with confusion though ;-).

 

[BInC]

Seebs: I have more important stuff to get to, but this first: How in the heck did you get your idea of the "basics" of christianity? I mean, come on, full of partial immersion? The fundamental rules of the christian church are laid out plain and simple for us in this one book. You might have heard of it. It is called the BIBLE. God created the earth and everything on it. He promised to send a savior. He did. His name was Jesus Christ, and he died on the cross for our sins. Ask and he will forgive you, and you will be saved. Those are the basics of the christian church. find me a church that doesn't believe that, and I will find a church that isn't really christian.

On to the more important subject.

Main Entry: blas·phe·my
Pronunciation: 'blas-f&-mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -mies
Date: 13th century
1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity
2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

My opinion on the "one or zero sins" is no. I believe that God will forgive any sins (because that is what the Bible says). You can turn away from God, but if you come back and ask for forgiveness, you will be granted it. Blasphemy is no different. I have no idea where you got the idea that it was "undefineable," another book that you might be able to get your hands on is the Dictionary. It is kinda neat, just open it up and you can find the definition of just about any word you might want to use. I believe the root, "blaspheme," is latin and means "to speak against." Now the main usage refers to God or a god if you aren't monotheistic. That is why Jesus was accused of blashpemy (agian a reference from the Bible, a pretty usefull book really). They thought he was speaking against God by claiming to be his son.

You can be forgiven no matter what you do. Even speaking agianst God (although if there are levels of sin I think that would be one of the worse ones) can be forgiven, if you ask. When you die, you don't have one or zero sins, you have all the sins you have ever commited or Jesus has all the sins you ever commited. If you ask, you will have zero sins. If you don't, you keep them all. It isn't a sin not to ask for forgiveness, but it is the stupidest thing you could ever do.

It isn't none or one, it's all or nothing.

 

[doclkk]

OK, allow me to clarify

Blasphemy is when you forsake Christ and do not return. If you forsake Christ and return, it's not blasphemy.

So under THAT premise, there is one or zero sins correct?

 

[BInC]

OK, allow me to clarify

Blasphemy is when you forsake Christ and do not return. If you forsake Christ and return, it's not blasphemy.

So under THAT premise, there is one or zero sins correct?

I have never before heard that as a definition of blasphemy. The way I understand it, blasphemy is any disrespect for the Lord. Turning away from him is one way to show disrespect, but there are others (idols, using his name in vain, ect.). I still don't really agree.

Either way though, the way I see it, if you forsake Christ and do not return, then when you die you bear the weight of not only that one sin, but all of your others. This is because by "not returning" you are not asking for forgiveness, so you when you die you have those sins plus you did not repent.

I still say it is all or nothing. And this is one of the few cases where I would pick "nothing."

 

[seebs]

Seebs: I have more important stuff to get to, but this first: How in the heck did you get your idea of the "basics" of christianity? I mean, come on, full of partial immersion?

I didn't make that one up. I mean, people have gone to war over this question.

The fundamental rules of the christian church are laid out plain and simple for us in this one book. You might have heard of it. It is called the BIBLE. God created the earth and everything on it. He promised to send a savior. He did. His name was Jesus Christ, and he died on the cross for our sins. Ask and he will forgive you, and you will be saved. Those are the basics of the christian church. find me a church that doesn't believe that, and I will find a church that isn't really christian.

Well, go into the "baptism required for salvation" thread, then.

I happen to share mostly your position on this, but to claim that churches don't disagree is ludicrous.

I have no idea where you got the idea that it was "undefineable," another book that you might be able to get your hands on is the Dictionary.

The question is not just "blasphemy", but "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit", which is not clearly defined or explained. Some people think it means "not believing in God". Some think it means "attributing to Satan the actions of the Holy Spirit". There are other theories.

This refers to Jesus saying that there is one sin which will not be forgiven, which is "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit". We don't know what He meant. We have lots of theories.

 

[D. Paul]

It seems this is all being discussed outside the understanding of Biblical election. When we are judged, ALL penalty of sin has been borne in the Atonement. However this is only for those whom the Father has given to the Son John 6:37,44, 65; 10:14 and none of those have any sin imputed to them.

 

[D. Paul]

VEDANT, say WHAT?: "Although Christians can become unchristian and Christian again, and that's what it refers to." What Christian (referring to John 6:37 again) who is held by the Father will ever beome un-held?

For God's sake, people, read John 17:6-19 and end this silliness.

 

[seebs]

VEDANT, say WHAT?: "Although Christians can become unchristian and Christian again, and that's what it refers to." What Christian (referring to John 6:37 again) who is held by the Father will ever beome un-held?

For God's sake, people, read John 17:6-19 and end this silliness.

Read Hebrews 6. It talks about people who have fallen away. If they can't fall away, why even mention this non-existent hypothetical?

I point out again: The topic of salvation is one on which humans have not yet reached clarity.

 

[D. Paul]

The topic of salvation is one on which humans have not yet reached clarity.

Seed, you

must

be

joking.

Scripture is abundantly clear on salvation. God has made himself perfectly clear. And your understanding of the Heb 6:4-6 passage leaves something to be desired too. Granted, that is a difficult passage but it is NOT saying that the salvation granted to an individual, one who is held by the Father, is now at the discretion of that individual to keep it or lose it. The 'tasting" of the heavenly gift is not equivalent to salvation.

 

[D. Paul]

Sorry, seebs. I called you "Seed" I'm sure you noticed.

 

[doclkk]

To Seebs - please "interpret" what Romans 10:8-9 means then ... when it says "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

I don't see how that is open to interpretation. It says "you will be saved."

Why is it that Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbytarians, Covenant, and non-denominational all believe in absolute salvation?

Even though the head of the Christian communities agree with it as well ... is it that your church has more insight than them? Warren, Hyuns and Graham all are familiar with Greek and Hebrew and still assert that the original text states overtly the existence of absolute salvation?

 

[seebs]

Seebs, you

must

be

joking.

Nope. I'm observing the actual world around me, in which there are a few thousand Protestant denominations, and we have so many debates about the nature of salvation that many common positions have names, and there are names for these beliefs going back roughly 2000 years.

Scripture is abundantly clear on salvation. God has made himself perfectly clear.

Rule 1: If two people disagree about what something says, it's not clear.
Rule 2: If two people disagree about whether or not something is clear, it's not clear.

And your understanding of the Heb 6:4-6 passage leaves something to be desired too.[/quoote]

It's not my understanding; I'm just pointing out how it is interpreted by a few hundred million people.

Granted, that is a difficult passage but it is NOT saying that the salvation granted to an individual, one who is held by the Father, is now at the discretion of that individual to keep it or lose it. The 'tasting" of the heavenly gift is not equivalent to salvation.

That's one interepretation.

Are you aware of the various debates on this, such as Calvinism vs. Arminianism? Double-predestination vs. regular predestination vs. free will? OSAS/OSNAS? Whether or not baptism is part of salvation, whether you need to be a "Christian" to be saved, whether you need to be in a specific church, whether you need to do confession, whether you need to take communion, whether you need to die in a state of grace, etcetera.

There's an awful lot of speculation and debate for something "perfectly clear".

 

[seebs]

To Seebs - please "interpret" what Romans 10:8-9 means then ... when it says "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Well, I'm curious. If you're mute, and can't speak, but you believe, do you think you're saved?

I don't see how that is open to interpretation. It says "you will be saved."

Yup. And Jesus said "not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord..." - what do you think He meant?

Why is it that Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbytarians, Covenant, and non-denominational all believe in absolute salvation?

Er, "non-denominational" believe all sorts of different things. Furthermore, of the groups you mention, I know for sure that Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians all have some degree of debate on what "absolute salvation" is, and whether or not there is any.

Even though the head of the Christian communities agree with it as well ... is it that your church has more insight than them? Warren, Hyuns and Graham all are familiar with Greek and Hebrew and still assert that the original text states overtly the existence of absolute salvation?

There are many heads of many Christian communities.

I don't claim to have more insight than them; I claim that their insight, like mine, like Paul's, is that we see through a glass, darkly, and we may well be mistaken on many issues, and that I have no problem with this.

It is not necessary for me to claim certainty on the details of salvation to appreciate what the Holy Spirit changes about me, here and now, where I can see it.

 

[D. Paul]

Nope. I'm observing the actual world around me, in which there are a few thousand Protestant denominations, and we have so many debates about the nature of salvation that many common positions have names, and there are names for these beliefs going back roughly 2000 years.



Rule 1: If two people disagree about what something says, it's not clear.
Rule 2: If two people disagree about whether or not something is clear, it's not clear.

And your understanding of the Heb 6:4-6 passage leaves something to be desired too.[/quoote]

It's not my understanding; I'm just pointing out how it is interpreted by a few hundred million people.



That's one interepretation.

Are you aware of the various debates on this, such as Calvinism vs. Arminianism? Double-predestination vs. regular predestination vs. free will? OSAS/OSNAS? Whether or not baptism is part of salvation, whether you need to be a "Christian" to be saved, whether you need to be in a specific church, whether you need to do confession, whether you need to take communion, whether you need to die in a state of grace, etcetera.

There's an awful lot of speculation and debate for something "perfectly clear".

I am certainly aware of those perspectives;

That's one interepretation.

Are you aware of the various debates on this, such as Calvinism vs. Arminianism? Double-predestination vs. regular predestination vs. free will? OSAS/OSNAS? Whether or not baptism is part of salvation, whether you need to be a "Christian" to be saved, whether you need to be in a specific church, whether you need to do confession, whether you need to take communion, whether you need to die in a state of grace, etcetera.

There's an awful lot of speculation and debate for something "perfectly clear".

I am not interested in how a man has speculated. Are you saying the bible is subject to all mans' interpretationso that it becomes a muddled mass of conflicting ideas and impossible to understand? Hey, that's the God I wanna serve - the One who can't speak a coherent thought. Ever consider that someone could be wrong and that there is such a thing as proper exegesis of a text and that there are men capable of correctly rendering the meaning of scripture? I trust Sola Scriptura. You must not.

 

[seebs]

I am certainly aware of those perspectives;
I am not interested in how a man has speculated.

But every interpretation we have is speculative!

Are you saying the bible is subject to all mans' interpretationso that it becomes a muddled mass of conflicting ideas and impossible to understand?

I am saying that any time someone says "this is what the Bible says", what you're getting is a human interpretation.

Hey, that's the God I wanna serve - the One who can't speak a coherent thought. Ever consider that someone could be wrong and that there is such a thing as proper exegesis of a text and that there are men capable of correctly rendering the meaning of scripture? I trust Sola Scriptura. You must not.

Well, of course not, it's self-contradictory.

If the Bible is the reliable source of truth, then to be true, Sola Scriptura must be found in the Bible. It's not.

I agree that someone could be wrong. In fact, I think it very likely.

What that means, to me, is that no matter how much I like my interpretation, I should be ready to consider correcting myself if I learn that I was wrong.

I'm not saying "there's no truth here". I'm saying that God knows the truth, and we don't necessarily. This has nothing to do with God's limitations, and everything to do with ours.

 

[D. Paul]

That's all very well and good. No one is saying Sola Scriptura is in the Bible. A specific word does not have to be in there in order for us to use it. The Sovereignty of God is not in the Bible either but you had better believe it.

God has spoken. Hebrews 1 tells us how. He has given Christ to make things perfectly plain and he even says so. If you think God is incoherent then there is nothing left. You need never take anything in the Book as certainty. Or is that your point so you can make your own rules?

 

[pentecostal girl]

the verse about speaking out against the holy Spirit means, to turn from. if someone turns from God there is no forgiveness period.. Which is why it is the unforgivable sin.. But one sin is enough to send us to hell.. I personally believe a true Christian cannot blaspheme the Holy Spirit...

I disagree, people turn away from God, but in Hebrews Jesus tells them to come again unto repentance. I can't really define blasphemy and don't anyone can because it comes in many different forms. But if someone has a close def. I would like to hear it HOpe God blesses

 

[seebs]

That's all very well and good. No one is saying Sola Scriptura is in the Bible.

Well, then, we have a problem. If we should only believe things we find in the Bible, and sola scriptura isn't in the Bible... Why believe it?

A specific word does not have to be in there in order for us to use it. The Sovereignty of God is not in the Bible either but you had better believe it.

The entire concept that there's a single book which you should look at and nothing else anywhere you should even consider is not found in the Bible, directly or indirectly.

As to Sovereignity, which of the dozen or so meanings did you have in mind? Calvinism? Omnipotence?

God has spoken. Hebrews 1 tells us how. He has given Christ to make things perfectly plain and he even says so.

Right. And that's why we have thousands of denominations?

If you think God is incoherent then there is nothing left.

I don't think God is incoherent. I think people are.

You need never take anything in the Book as certainty. Or is that your point so you can make your own rules?

No. The point is to follow God, not to follow men.

And you, friend, are Man, and not God. So I don't follow you; I follow Him.