Ordinances...

[jeffC]

I'm going on "vacation!"

Have a wonderful time!

 

[Fit4Christ]

I think your statement that "the Bible guarantees all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" needs some qualifiers.

Only by you and your religion. The Bible itself has no qualifiers.

As you say, perhaps one has a "heart condition" that only the Master Physician knows of. Many who once called on the name of Jesus have later recanted, in our times and in the Bible.

Then they would have had a pre-existing heart condition that hindered them from fully accepting the offer of Christ.

Further, the Bible teaches clearly and repeatedly that a Christian must endure to the end to be saved in the end. "Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

This verse is not about "endur[ing] to the end to be saved". It is about false prophets, false teachers, and those that follow them, thinking they are following Christ.

My scenario does not require a discussion on the omniscience of God. The situation I present is manifestly not impossible.

If it is not manifestly impossible, then the Bible is inaccurate, therefore making God a liar and Christ's life, death, and resurrection meaningless.

I've read more than a few testimonies of ex-evangelicals who were once fully convinced of their standing before God, but no longer believe.

"The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away" (Job 1:21). Also see the Parable of the Sower (Luke 8)

The example of Judas you presented illustrates the point I am trying to make. It seems one cannot declare that he knows he is saved infallibly. Who can know their own heart and future as the Lord does?

The assurance of John 3:16.

This is why enduring faith is crucial. A eterministic attitude can impede one from exercising saving faith unto repentance. IMO, any teaching implying that God undermines free will is dangerous. Everyone will give an account of himself before God (Rom 14:12).

Right. God calls and you give an account of how you responded.

A doctrine that appears to remove accountability is on the cusp of a slippery slope to relativism.

Says the lds pot calling the OC kettle black. Much of lds doctrine reduces the absoluteness and authority of the Bible.

A simple example is water baptism. The Biblical and historical evidence is clear that it was taught as a salvific commandment by the apostles.

A tempting topic to pursue here, but it would be off topic and derail the thread. It's only clear if you're looking through the wrong glasses. Baptism does not save. If you wish to discuss it further, start a new thread.

Yet many reject this because of their fundamental belief that no works at all can be necessary. The doctrines of the Gospel lead to repentance; they do not teach that repentance is optional. OSAS is not scriptural; a doctrine that appears to be supported by some scriptures but contradicts others is not a sound doctrine.

So you're calling the Bible unsound doctrine, because it has apparent contradictions that you cannot work through and understand? I shall like to be there when Rom 14:12 happens for you and you get to explain and defend that position before Christ, who died so that we may be free from the bondage of our sins. My prayers are offered up for you when that day comes.

 

[jeffC]

I think your statement that "the Bible guarantees all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" needs some qualifiers.

Only by you and your religion. The Bible itself has no qualifiers.

Actually, I was referring also to your own statements. You said “Therefore, the one who falls away in your scenario, had a "heart condition" that was not for the Lord, and it is possible that only the Lord knew of that.” If one has a fatal flaw of which he is unaware, he may think he is saved though by your words this would not be true.


The Bible does provide qualifiers – they're called commandments; I've referenced many in this discussion. They all indicate that one must endure to the end. Consider for example Ex 32:33, Heb 5:9, Heb 10:26, 2 Pet 2:20-21, Rev. 3:5, and lets not forget Matt 24:13 - But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

As you say, perhaps one has a "heart condition" that only the Master Physician knows of. Many who once called on the name of Jesus have later recanted, in our times and in the Bible.

Then they would have had a pre-existing heart condition that hindered them from fully accepting the offer of Christ.

This doesn't negate my point, namely that because of OSAS one may believe he is saved when in actuality he is not. Testimonies of ex-evangelicals illustrate this point. Christians in the Bible fell away. It doesn't get more clear than that (oh, except for the scriptures that say endure to the end to receive eternal life).

Further, the Bible teaches clearly and repeatedly that a Christian must endure to the end to be saved in the end. "Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

This verse is not about "endur[ing] to the end to be saved". It is about false prophets, false teachers, and those that follow them, thinking they are following Christ.

Verse 21 starts a new paragraph. It makes a point that is both independent from and related to the discussion of false prophets. Verse 21 is also part of the context of verses 12 – 14, which relate to everyone. Nonetheless, the point is made that merely saying “Lord Lord” is not sufficient – there must be some qualifiers to the statement that “ all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved,” which was my original point.

My scenario does not require a discussion on the omniscience of God. The situation I present is manifestly not impossible.

If it is not manifestly impossible, then the Bible is inaccurate, therefore making God a liar and Christ's life, death, and resurrection meaningless.

I dare say it is only the interpretation of the Bible which you have been sold on that is inaccurate. A doctrine that appears to be supported by some verses but blatantly contradicts others is not a sound doctrine.


God from the beginning has demanded obedience. To say that obedience is not a requirement is what would make God a liar, which is of course impossible. Christ's life death and resurrection provide the end of faith – salvation for all those that obey (1 Pet 1:9, Heb 5:9).

I've read more than a few testimonies of ex-evangelicals who were once fully convinced of their standing before God, but no longer believe.

"The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away" (Job 1:21). Also see the Parable of the Sower (Luke 8)

yes, this is my point.


In the parable of the sower, the ground will be fertile or not based on our own choices. If we permit the weeds to overgrow the true seed, one's faith is overcome. This is not for fault of the seed, which is good.

The example of Judas you presented illustrates the point I am trying to make. It seems one cannot declare that he knows he is saved infallibly. Who can know their own heart and future as the Lord does?

The assurance of John 3:16.

Please clarify for me: do you believe that all will be saved? What is your answer to my question?

This is why enduring faith is crucial. A deterministic attitude can impede one from exercising saving faith unto repentance. IMO, any teaching implying that God undermines free will is dangerous. Everyone will give an account of himself before God (Rom 14:12).

Right. God calls and you give an account of how you responded.

and why is it called judgment? Our accountability will put us on the right or left hand of God.


Rev. 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.


Matt 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.


Read the rest of Matt 25. Verses 34-46 do not mention the condition of calling on the name of the Lord, but give plenty of conditions specifying works.

A doctrine that appears to remove accountability is on the cusp of a slippery slope to relativism.

Says the lds pot calling the OC kettle black. Much of lds doctrine reduces the absoluteness and authority of the Bible.

I disagree with your characterization of how I view the Bible. I view the Bible as inspired, and accept all of its teachings as profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.


As far as Biblical relativism goes, perhaps you would care to answer Orontes' inquiry on how one can conclude that the Bible is the absolute authority without begging the question.


Regardless, your response did not address my position.

A simple example is water baptism. The Biblical and historical evidence is clear that it was taught as a salvific commandment by the apostles.

A tempting topic to pursue here, but it would be off topic and derail the thread. It's only clear if you're looking through the wrong glasses. Baptism does not save. If you wish to discuss it further, start a new thread.

I agree this topic would take us off course. Perhaps I should have resisted the temptation to include it. But I wanted to give an example of a doctrine which traditionally has been accepted as salvific in orthodox Christianity that has been sidelined by the zeal of those emphasizing grace. The baptism topic has been discussed before by others, but I find it interesting enough to explore. Perhaps when this discussion has wrapped up.

Yet many reject this because of their fundamental belief that no works at all can be necessary. The doctrines of the Gospel lead to repentance; they do not teach that repentance is optional. OSAS is not scriptural; a doctrine that appears to be supported by some scriptures but contradicts others is not a sound doctrine.

So you're calling the Bible unsound doctrine, because it has apparent contradictions that you cannot work through and understand? I shall like to be there when Rom 14:12 happens for you and you get to explain and defend that position before Christ, who died so that we may be free from the bondage of our sins. My prayers are offered up for you when that day comes.

To be precise, I'm calling OSAS unsound and unbiblical teaching, despite it's warm and fuzzy exterior. The contradictions are real, clear, and frequent. If you want to address this in more detail, most of the scriptural basis for my position is in my discussion with Phoebe. You can start there for your rebuttal. You'll have the advantage of knowing what my positions will be!


Thank you for your prayers – they are always appreciated I'm confused as to your position on my judgment, however. I call upon the name of the Lord Jesus, and I believe that He died so that all may be free from the bondage of our sins. Since your stance is that there are no extra qualifiers for salvation, how will my interpretation of His Word affect my judgment?

 

[Fit4Christ]

Jeffc,

Sorry, won't be able to address your post for a few days. I will try upon my return.

 

[Fit4Christ]

Actually, I was referring also to your own statements. You said “Therefore, the one who falls away in your scenario, had a "heart condition" that was not for the Lord, and it is possible that only the Lord knew of that.” If one has a fatal flaw of which he is unaware, he may think he is saved though by your words this would not be true.

You cannot believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour and not be saved. If, in the end, one is not saved, then there was something wrong with believing Jesus Christ was their Lord and Saviour. Your scenario, as presented, would make the Bible, not to mention Jesus Christ, a liar. Can't happen.

The Bible does provide qualifiers – they're called commandments; I've referenced many in this discussion. They all indicate that one must endure to the end. Consider for example Ex 32:33, Heb 5:9, Heb 10:26, 2 Pet 2:20-21, Rev. 3:5, and lets not forget Matt 24:13 - But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

I've considered them and do not see what you claim to be seeing. If you'd like to look at them in context, I'm game.

This doesn't negate my point, namely that because of OSAS one may believe he is saved when in actuality he is not. Testimonies of ex-evangelicals illustrate this point. Christians in the Bible fell away. It doesn't get more clear than that (oh, except for the scriptures that say endure to the end to receive eternal life).

Nor does it make your point. How do you know whether or not these so-called "ex-evangelicals" were actually saved or not? Did God discuss their salvation with you? Perhaps it is in God's plan for them to fall away, only to be restored later on in their lives... I don't know and neither do you. Let's not pretend to know the "what ifs".

Verse 21 starts a new paragraph. It makes a point that is both independent from and related to the discussion of false prophets. Verse 21 is also part of the context of verses 12 – 14, which relate to everyone. Nonetheless, the point is made that merely saying “Lord Lord” is not sufficient – there must be some qualifiers to the statement that “ all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved,” which was my original point.

No, the verse is a continuation of thought. I agree that saying "Lord Lord" is not sufficient. Hence my point, they had a heart condition and did not truely believe. Endurance had nothing to do with it. "Many will say to me on that day..." (that day being Judgement Day) meaning they "endured to the end", but were denied entrance. Why was that? A heart condition perhaps??

I dare say it is only the interpretation of the Bible which you have been sold on that is inaccurate. A doctrine that appears to be supported by some verses but blatantly contradicts others is not a sound doctrine.

I like this! Pot calling the kettle black. I find this highly amusing. First, the lds have a qualifier on the Bible (as long as it is translated correctly), yet you are telling me that my interpretation of said Book is in accurate. Secondly, "blatantly contradicts others is not sound doctrine" - you mean like the lds versions of polygamy, baptism for the dead, and the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit? Your statement is full of hypocrisy.

God from the beginning has demanded obedience. To say that obedience is not a requirement is what would make God a liar, which is of course impossible. Christ's life death and resurrection provide the end of faith – salvation for all those that obey (1 Pet 1:9, Heb 5:9).

All God wanted from the beginning was for His creation to love Him with all our hearts, minds, bodies, and souls. And to love each other. For 2000 years since Christ, we still haven't been able to do that. Yet, God still loves us. Why?

You focus a lot on obedience. How obedient do you have to be? 100%? 10%? 99.9%? Where is the line drawn?

yes, this is my point.


In the parable of the sower, the ground will be fertile or not based on our own choices. If we permit the weeds to overgrow the true seed, one's faith is overcome. This is not for fault of the seed, which is good.

Curious, what role do you see yourself in in this parable?

Please clarify for me: do you believe that all will be saved? What is your answer to my question?

Not all will be saved. Only those who respond to God's call through His son Jesus Christ.

"Who can know their own heart and future as the Lord does?" We can. The Bible gives us clues and self-examination points and assurances. The Holy Spirit convicts us. He will never leave us, nor forsake us.

and why is it called judgment? Our accountability will put us on the right or left hand of God.

Those whose names are already written in the Lamb's book of Life are in the club. Those whose names are not, aren't. The judgement is if your membership card is valid.

Are you saying that our accountability before God will somehow effect the outcome of our judgement? Like if you have a really good argument and God says "you know that's a good point. I didn't think of that one."??

Rev. 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

If God sees your name in the Book of Life, you get the free pass to eternal salvation. What were your works to be judged by? The only one that mattered is if you believed in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. All others are mute. Those whose names were not there, but thought they had earned their way there, then say "Lord, Lord" and get their appointed toasty reward.

Matt 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.


Read the rest of Matt 25. Verses 34-46 do not mention the condition of calling on the name of the Lord, but give plenty of conditions specifying works.

Um, no, they are examples of that "love your neighbor" thing, which is an expression of that "love God with all your heart, mind, body, and soul" thing.

I disagree with your characterization of how I view the Bible. I view the Bible as inspired, and accept all of its teachings as profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

While that may be true, you still need 3 other books (one of which is highly suspect) to call scripture. And you need to call the Bible and God a liar ("I will never leave you nor forsake you" Heb. 13:5) for your religion, based on the alleged "apostacy" of Christianity, to be valid. Forgive me for doubting your sincerity as to the validity and authority of the Bible.

As far as Biblical relativism goes, perhaps you would care to answer Orontes' inquiry on how one can conclude that the Bible is the absolute authority without begging the question.

No thanks, I'll pass this time.

Regardless, your response did not address my position.

I've never said we are not to be accountable to God with our lives. God's grace overrides all our accountability. I was accountable for the sins I committed in the past, until I asked for, and received by His grace, forgiveness. I am accountable for my sins now and in the future to repent and seek His forgiveness, which God's grace will cover then, too.

I hope that addresses your position.

I agree this topic would take us off course. Perhaps I should have resisted the temptation to include it. But I wanted to give an example of a doctrine which traditionally has been accepted as salvific in orthodox Christianity that has been sidelined by the zeal of those emphasizing grace. The baptism topic has been discussed before by others, but I find it interesting enough to explore. Perhaps when this discussion has wrapped up.

I may find myself participating in that one as well.

To be precise, I'm calling OSAS unsound and unbiblical teaching, despite it's warm and fuzzy exterior. The contradictions are real, clear, and frequent. If you want to address this in more detail, most of the scriptural basis for my position is in my discussion with Phoebe. You can start there for your rebuttal. You'll have the advantage of knowing what my positions will be!

That by which you call OSAS, I call the lds religion - "unsound and unbiblical teaching, despite it's warm and fuzzy exterior". We both have our opinions. I'm not here expecting you to denounce your religion and come to Christ without it. The Holy Spirit will do that, if it is according to God's will and purpose for your life.

Thank you for your prayers – they are always appreciated I'm confused as to your position on my judgment, however. I call upon the name of the Lord Jesus, and I believe that He died so that all may be free from the bondage of our sins. Since your stance is that there are no extra qualifiers for salvation, how will my interpretation of His Word affect my judgment?

You say there's more to His word than just the Bible. Your religion requires you to uphold its prophets, past and present. If you believe you need to give your account for these beliefs before God to somehow effect your salvation (maybe to which kingdom level??), good luck with that. The Bible tells me otherwise.

 

[jeffC]

I've considered them and do not see what you claim to be seeing. If you'd like to look at them in context, I'm game.

The Bible does provide qualifiers – they're As much as I am tempted to continue in our point by point rebuttals, I think our discussions will be more relevant if we stick to examining OSAS in light of scripture passages. I've started a new thread here. If there is any particular point from your latest post that you'd like me to respond to, I'd be happy to. But I think that the important considerations will resurface as we examine our respective interpretations of the Bible.