Ordinances...

[jeffC]

Christ's sacrifice paid for the sins of the whole world, believer and unbeliever alike.

If His blood paid for unbelievers' sins, they would not be condenmned.

Jesus Christ has paid the price for the sins of everyone once for all, this included both believers and non-believers. All are debtors now to him; He determines the terms of salvation, i.e. how to receive a remission of sins. Who is the sinner that if he repented his sins are not covered by the atonement? Christ suffered once (1 Pet 3:18). Are you saying that there are those for whom it is impossible, not that they won't and God knows it, but that it is impossible that they be saved even if God overturned their free will? This does not sound like the atonement described in the Bible: "16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." To me, the concept of limited atonement is an affront to the mercy of God and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and one of the worst man-made doctrines to escape the mind of man.

that [Jesus] by the grace of God should taste death for every man (HEb 2:9)

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world (1 Jn 2:2).

For it pleased the Father that in [Jesus] should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven (Col 1:19-23).​

One should not conflate the receiving a remission of sins with the notion of an infinite atonement. The offer is extended to all, but Christ "being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; (Heb 5:9)" Remission of sins is given permanently at Judgement to those who endure to the end (cf. Heb 10:26).

John 3
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Not possible. God doesn't pay for our sins with the blood of His Son and then decide to condemn us in spite of that blood.

God has "paid" for the sins of everyone once for all, this included both believers and non-believers. Already His sacrifice could cover the sins of unbelievers; Haven't I mentioned Heb 10:26 enough for it's message to be driven home?

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,


"there remaineth" apoleipo {ap-ol-ipe'-o}
Strongs #620
1) to leave, to leave behind
2) to desert or forsake
​

The above verse directly contradicts your statement. We ourselves make whatever choices result in the loss of forgiveness. We distance ourselves from God, not the other way around.

Does a mother warn her child that the fire will burn and then allow the child to be burned?

Do you believe then that all will be saved?

 

[jeffC]

Faith is a gift of God. It doesn't die.

Faith is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22). The Spirit is with us if we walk in the Spirit, i.e. keep the commandments (Gal 5:16). As we taste of the Spirit of Truth, of course faith increases. If we ignore the Spirit of Truth what happens to faith?

Faith is belief, as such it is also rooted in our free will. If faith is solely a gift from God, why do some have strong faith and others weak faith? Is God a respecter of persons? We have an element of control over our own faith.

Faith must be kept (Rev. 14:12). Paul sent Timothy to the thessalonians to see if they still had faith (1 Thes 3:5).

Faith can be parted with (1 Tim 4:1).

Faith can be overthrown by the wiles of the devil (2 Tim 2:18).

Faith comes by hearing, believing, and obeying the Gospel Rom 10:16-17.

Faith is tried, i.e. tested; why is something tested? Peter teaches salvation is the end of faith, and comes after the trial of our faith (1 Pet 1:7,9).

We must hold fast to faith without wavering (Heb 10:23). What is the alternative? "to sin wilfully." (Heb 10:26). " Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him."

Faith can die. James 2:
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.​

John 7
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Philippians 1
6Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

Until when?

Again, by ones free will it is possible to reject the promises of Him who is always faithful. Paul is confident that the Philippians will endure to the end because they have previously indicated by their actions that they are willing to do so. Further, his confidence to the group in general may not have applied in each individual case.

Romans 5
1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Romans 8
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.


God doesn't save people for only a week.

Salvation is not realised until after the final judgement. Yes salvation will last forever, but we are judged by all of our works, not just one.

The question I asked is how does one know they are saved such that they will never fall away?

Because I read my Bible and am constantly reminded.

Are you saying that no "Christian" who read his Bible daily confident in his salvation has ever fallen away?

I note that your actions and choices here are what you say reminds you personally. The hearing of the word does bring faith, as you know. Likewise, one who chooses not to read the Bible frequently does not have that source of support for his faith.

How would you or I know who fervently believes besides ourselves? If someone falls away it is obvious that they didn't fervently believe.

You have identified a reason why one can never judge another. This is not the scenario, however. It is not obvious that because one does not believe fervently NOW he never did. Is it your position that it is impossible for one to think that he fervently believes if in fact he will fall from grace at some future point?

 

[Rescued One]

Faith is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22).

And Who gives us the Spirit?

If we ignore the Spirit of Truth what happens to faith?

If God gives you faith, I am confident "he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ."



Those who have not experienced the new birth do not know the Spirit of Truth. In order to recognize the Truth a person has to be regenerated. Flesh gives birth to flesh but the Spirit gives birth to Spirit.

Faith is belief, as such it is also rooted in our free will. If faith is solely a gift from God, why do some have strong faith and others weak faith?

1 Corinthians 12
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Faith must be kept (Rev. 14:12). Paul sent Timothy to the thessalonians to see if they still had faith (1 Thes 3:5).

Could Paul see the hearts of those who gathered with the Saints in Thessolonica? Paul was not omniscient.

Faith can be parted with (1 Tim 4:1).

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;"


Ephesians 4
30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Powers and principlaties cannot separate us from God. Seducing spirits can't either.

Romans 8
26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Faith can be overthrown by the wiles of the devil (2 Tim 2:18).

"Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some."

1 John 2
19They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Faith comes by hearing, believing, and obeying the Gospel Rom 10:16-17.

"But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

John 6
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Obedience follows faith; it doesn't precede it.

Faith is tried, i.e. tested; why is something tested? Peter teaches salvation is the end of faith, and comes after the trial of our faith (1 Pet 1:7,9).

Because it brings about our sanctification. I have been saved, I am being saved, I will be saved.

Are you saying that no "Christian" who read his Bible daily confident in his salvation has ever fallen away?

What is a "Christian" and why did you put it in quotation marks?

 

[Fit4Christ]

Sorry, I didn't follow your metaphor.

Sorry, it should have said "It's possible that everyone but the Master Physician cannot detect it, though"

Let me try to clarify. In your scenario, you have two people allegedly secure in their knowledge of salvation, yet one of them falls away. I say that's impossible as written, as the Bible guarantees all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. God knows our motives and the condition of our hearts. It's possible that only the Master Physician (Christ) knows that persons true heart, motives, and intentions, and all others can be deceived. 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.

For a Biblical reference, look at Judas. He was a disciple. He was sent out with the 12 and the 70 to spread the good news and perform miracles. Yet, at the end, he was given over to the desires of his heart. The other disciples were clueless on his "heart condition" and probably assumed he was "saved". But Jesus knew his real heart.

I hope that clears it up.

 

[Rescued One]

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world (1 Jn 2:2).

So do you believe unbelievers are saved?

Or is the propitiation for not only [us Hebrews], but also for [the sins of Gentiles from every tongue and nation throughout] the whole world?

 

[Orontes]

Reply part I

OK, I have a better sense of where you are coming from.

The Bible is the final word because through it we have come to know of the Gospel of Christ.

I'm going to play off of the use of final. There are two difficulties here: the first involves conflating a text with coming to know the Gospel of Christ. This is by no know means exclusive to any text. A simple example would be the Day of Pentecost where those gathered came to know Christ before there was any Bible. Second, how does a particular text bringing one to know the Gospel of Christ equal any finality? Based on this standard, if any text, say the Gospel of Matthew, brought one to know the Gospel of Christ then the additional Gospels would be superfluous? If so, then this undercuts the Bible as a whole. If not, then additional scripture cannot be rejected. Finally, how do you know any text appealed to does in fact bring one to know the Gospel of Christ? For example, why the Gospel of John and not the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas? Your not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox I take it, so why do you depend on the compilation of scripture from a Tradition you reject and rejects you?

I use the NIV and KJV Bibles, I believe these Bibles to be the word of God.

Why should any agree with you? If you don't hold that any need agree with you then that undercuts any authoritative appeal.

How else can one be saved other then a belief in Jesus Christ. Salvation to me means being saved from spiritual death, which Christ promised for those who believe in him.

Does saved from spiritual death mean going to Heaven then? I'm going to assume that is what you mean. The crux of the above is belief. What does belief mean? Does this mean a simple assertion Jesus is Lord? Does this mean actions on the part of the supplicant are also required? If assertion alone is all that is needed then the vast bulk of the Bible is unnecessary. A single sentence could suffice. I of course, reject any such view as incoherent. Rather, I hold that one must be a willing participant in their own salvation which includes a pursuit of the good.

As far as proof goes, you need not bother putting together "proof" because I know that the teachings Christ handed to us are sufficient for salvation.

How do you know this?

Really? I was not aware of any other book that followed the life of Christ more thoroughly then accounts in the Bible written by his Apostles. I am interested to hear which books they are.

'More thoroughly' and 'more' are not necessarily the same. I took you question about more teachings to mean: in addition or additional. In that sense, I would add the Book of Mormon as one simple example. As far as thoroughness is concerned: the four Gospels are the most thorough account of His life. As far as the Gospel is concerned: that would include a great many books to which I would add again the Book of Mormon. Have you read the Book of Mormon? If not, then any dismissal seems premature.

You will have to show me where the contradictions are located for me to believe that revelation and the written word of God will contradict one another.

You have not understood the point I made. Recall this statement of yours: "God would never contradict himself nor allow anyone whom was speaking a revelation to contradict something he previously revealed." This is what I responded to. There are examples of God being challenged and even changing even after He had committed to a course of action. One example:

"[SIZE=+0]And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." - Exodus 32: 7-14[/SIZE]

Change, even Divine change is noted in text. As far as the text conforming to revelation or the will of God: how do you know it does? In short, what separates your claim from the Muslim with the Koran?

Do you understand what hyperbole means? It means excessive: from the Greek it literally means to over throw, as in miss the mark. A hyperbolic accusation would mean an accusation that is over the top and thereby unjustified by definition. To argue Christ used hyperbolic accusations would suggest something other than perfection. You may want to reconsider your position before you entrench too deeply.

Here is the meaning of hyperbole takin for Dictionary.com

A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.I am no english master but I think that Christ was using an exaggeration ( did the men really have a plank in their eye?) to make sure that his point go across. However, I will admit that a metaphor was also being used.

I do believe that Christ used extreme examples in speech to make people understand what he was saying and really feel the weight there of.

The Dictionary.com definition does not take away what I explained particularly as it relates to a hyperbolic accusation. I don't think your Luke 6 quote is hyperbole but metaphor. If it were hyperbolic accusation then Christ has exaggerated another's error. How would that be just?

This is interesting. Elijah is OK because he unleashes fire to consume over a hundred guys, but Joseph Smith is condemned because he wounded three and two eventually died. I thought your argument was about prophets using violence. Wouldn't the consistent tact be to condemn Elijah because he didn't meekly submit?

The fire was from God, not from Elijah. You appear to have mistaken the event as something Elijah did according to his own power.

My comment does not concern the source of the fire, but who unleashed it. This was Elijah. The point remains: why is Elijah given standing for killing over a 100 guys while Joseph Smith is condemned for two? Elijah doesn't seem particularly passive.

Why would I folllow someone whom I do not to believe to be chosen by God? Would you follow someone whom was not chosen by God? You judge me as being closed minded, as if I have claimed to have set the standards of what a follower of Christ should be and what a prophet should be. I have established what I belief according to what the Bible has spken of.

It isn't a question of who one follows, but arbitrary judgments. You consider Elijah a prophet and so are wont to condemn any of his actions. I assume the same applies to Abraham, Moses or any other Biblical figure. You don't consider Joseph Smith a prophet and so are quick to condemn. Since you chose Elijah let me give you another example besides the killing of the 100 guys:

And (Elijah) went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. 2 Kings 2:23-25

Is this OK? My guess it you'll say yes. This means Elijah can curse little kids to be torn apart by bears for name calling but Joseph Smith is condemned for defending himself when attacked by a mob that had already killed his brother. This is why you perfectly illustrate the larger point of the article.

 

[Orontes]

Reply part II

I believe that if it is truth and the man truly is a fool, then you are not violating it. The usage would most likely determine whether or not it is in violation of the Second Greatest Commandment. For a definent answer you can ask God.

I see.

I was pointing out the fact that a prophet is more likely to raise a man from the dead then to try and protect him from dying by slaying others.

This is a fact? What do you base this on?

Did he surrender himself when he knew the mob was coming to kill him, stepping through the door arms raised, preventing the gun fight? It is my understanding that it takes two or more parties to fight.

Do you reject the idea of self defense? Do you see it as a sin? Unless you are a pacifist and further condemn self defense as sinful then the above is not compelling. If you do hold the two notions mentioned we can explore them. We could start easy like with Abraham's participation in the Battle of Kings: how can that be justified? It's not even mentioned as self defense.

I think a wolf is more likely to attack when it is cornered then a sheep. Just my own opinion though

Actually, just about all animals will defend themselves when cornered. Usually when using the metaphor wolf, it suggests a predatory behavior, a hunter etc. To say Joseph Smith was a predator while defending himself seems odd.

I illustrated my point in the directions to the link in question. There is no mention of a gun or JS shooting people in that link. If I were able to post links on the matter I would no doubt be able to post many stories of Joseph Smith death that mention nothing of Joseph Smith shooting 3 men. Fact is fact.

What a particular website(s) says isn't at issue. What is at issue is whether the Church is involved in a cover up. Since the Official History of the Church which you yourself referenced includes details of the very thing you claimed is covered up then the charge seems baseless and perhaps another example of hyperbolic accusation.

I have grown weary of judging the actions of Joseph Smith. I do believe his actions speak louder of what type of man he was then anything he has ever said but God is to be his judge.

Good! A step closer to the Christian model.

I dislike debate, but sometimes it feels like the only way to reach people. Especially when the debate focuses on words alone, such as fool and hyperbole. I feel there is no room for a true spiritual debate when you are talking to someone who wants to strain, dissect, and examine every word you say, all the while missing what you are really saying.

If you are going to make charges then you must be prepared to defend them. You shouldn't expect to be able to make blithe accusations without repercussions. If you do not like applying a small degree of rigor to your statements that is your own affair, but do not assume accusations alone constitute a justification.

As far as what your really trying to say: is that something other than an attack on Joseph Smith which comes down to he was brazen enough to attempt to defend himself?

The Sermon on the Mount is beautiful and Christ would no doubt have you and I united, not debating words. However, I do not appreciate being called bitter and any accusation I have made I have backed up with examples.

I have not called you bitter. I did suggest moving beyond acrimony and accusations of other faiths. It doesn't look like your are going to follow this advice. As far as accusations: I don't think you have backed up anything. What you have done is demonstrate a partiality that was the very point of the article you attacked. Alas.

 

[ZealouS]

I do not currently dont have the time to make 2 hour pots every night or else I would further defend myself. So naturally I cannot defend myself in the manner I would like. However, I will take the time to defend God's word since I feel it is on trial here and was on trial in the article that was posted.

Christ promised that those obey his commands will live forever. The two things that he commanded were to "Love God" "Love your neighbor as yourself". So basically Christs purpose was to bring love to us. Since the Bible holds these teachings in all 4 of the Gospels and in the epistles there after, those who follow the words of Christ found within the Bible will recieve salvation. Hence the words of Christ, found in the Bible, are indeed all the instruction we need on whom to turn to for salvation.

To believe that belief is not accompanied by action is incorrect. If one truly believes in Christ they will atempt to follow in his footsteps. I assure you that belief is enough but true belief will be accompanied by action, not mere words. How can you truly believe Jesus Christ is your personal Lord and Savior and not follow him? I dare say it is impossible.

Now as far as Elijah goes, he was a prophet who was being ordered by men who were sent by the king. They were to serve as a demonstration that no earthly ruler was to command a prophet of God. The fire that fell from heaven was from God, hence if God had not sent it, none of the men would have been died. This was God protecting Elijah.

In regards to the bear mauling, this was actually Elisha that cursed the youths. The youths were cursing him, the God's representative, and calling him a baldhead. This was a insult since hair was a symbol of strength and vigor among the ancient jews and by the youths cursing, they were showing the city's disdain for God's representative. Furthermore, Elisha cursed them (he didnt harm them personally) and the animals, under the command of God, came and mauled the youths.

Hence, God was the defender of the prophets, not their own abilities or strengths.

Your quote from Exodus is indeed interesting, however I do see harmony between those verses and the rest of the Bible. Moses interceded on behalf of the people of Israel, just as Christ interceded on behalf of all mankind. Hence, there is no conflict between this verse and the rest of the Bible. I believe your question was, why can't revelation and the written word conflict. I have yet to see your proof that they can and I think it is silly to try to find such proof. God is entitled to change his mind but I do not see how the verse supports the fact that revelation and the written word will conflict with one another.

Your statement about me moving closer to following the Christian model implies a judgement that I have not been acting as a Christian. I would like to add that you know nothing of me personally and only know of the side of me which fights against what I believe to be false.

Christ guide us,
Jed

 

[Orontes]

However, I will take the time to defend God's word since I feel it is on trial here and was on trial in the article that was posted.

No, God's word isn't on trial, just attacks on other faiths (namely Mormonism) and the partiality by which it is demonstrated.

Christ promised that those obey his commands will live forever. The two things that he commanded were to "Love God" "Love your neighbor as yourself". So basically Christs purpose was to bring love to us. Since the Bible holds these teachings in all 4 of the Gospels and in the epistles there after, those who follow the words of Christ found within the Bible will recieve salvation. Hence the words of Christ, found in the Bible, are indeed all the instruction we need on whom to turn to for salvation.

If the two Divine injunctions to love are all that is needed then they are first found in the Torah. Note:

"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Deut. 6:5

"Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord" Leviticus 19: 18

If that is all that is needed then the New Testament can be dispensed with all together.

To believe that belief is not accompanied by action is incorrect. If one truly believes in Christ they will atempt to follow in his footsteps. I assure you that belief is enough but true belief will be accompanied by action, not mere words. How can you truly believe Jesus Christ is your personal Lord and Savior and not follow him? I dare say it is impossible.

If belief is enough then what's the point of actions?

Now as far as Elijah goes, he was a prophet who was being ordered by men who were sent by the king. They were to serve as a demonstration that no earthly ruler was to command a prophet of God. The fire that fell from heaven was from God, hence if God had not sent it, none of the men would have been died. This was God protecting Elijah.

The text doesn't say the death of the 100 was to demonstrate no earthly ruler was to command a prophet of God. The larger point remains: killing a hundred people is more than two. You have no problem with the larger number but do with the smaller number. This despite comments about surrender, and being a lamb and a prophet being more likely to raise the dead etc.

In regards to the bear mauling, this was actually Elisha that cursed the youths. The youths were cursing him, the God's representative, and calling him a baldhead. This was a insult since hair was a symbol of strength and vigor among the ancient jews and by the youths cursing, they were showing the city's disdain for God's representative. Furthermore, Elisha cursed them (he didnt harm them personally) and the animals, under the command of God, came and mauled the youths.

Ahh, Elisha I had forgotten. Even so, I knew you would have no problem with the prophet bringing bears to tear up a bunch of kids for calling him names, but still condemn Joseph Smith for attempting to defend himself from his murderers. This is the partiality of the article exemplified.

Your quote from Exodus is indeed interesting, however I do see harmony between those verses and the rest of the Bible. Moses interceded on behalf of the people of Israel, just as Christ interceded on behalf of all mankind. Hence, there is no conflict between this verse and the rest of the Bible. I believe your question was, why can't revelation and the written word conflict. I have yet to see your proof that they can and I think it is silly to try to find such proof. God is entitled to change his mind but I do not see how the verse supports the fact that revelation and the written word will conflict with one another.

You missed the point of my questions and comments. I thought I pointed it out with this: "If the text admits Divine variance then why wouldn't that be the case beyond the text as well?" but I guess I wasn't clear. The point was if the text demonstrates Deity changing then what is to say Deity cannot change outside the confines of the text as well?

I don't know what you mean by prove revelation and the written word conflict since all revelation you recognize is written. Based on your own standards this is a false dichotomy. As far as your earlier comment: "God would never contradict himself nor allow anyone whom was speaking a revelation to contradict something he previously revealed." I demonstrated that with Exodus 32.

Your statement about me moving closer to following the Christian model implies a judgement that I have not been acting as a Christian. I would like to add that you know nothing of me personally and only know of the side of me which fights against what I believe to be false.

I can only judge what I read. What I read is partiality and attacks on other faiths. I don't think such is rhetorically prudent as it simply divides or fits the model of love you claimed fealty to earlier on.

 

[Swart]

Faith is a gift of God. It doesn't die.

I thought I had previously debunked this "faith is a gift" business.

At least you didn't quote Ephesians 2:8.

I tried looking for the post but I couldn't find it. Can anyone provide a link?

 

[jeffC]

Sorry, it should have said "It's possible that everyone but the Master Physician cannot detect it, though"


Let me try to clarify. In your scenario, you have two people allegedly secure in their knowledge of salvation, yet one of them falls away. I say that's impossible as written, as the Bible guarantees all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

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

My scenario does not require a discussion on the omniscience of God. The situation I present is manifestly not impossible. 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 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? 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). A doctrine that appears to remove accountability is on the cusp of a slippery slope to relativism. A simple example is water baptism. The Biblical and historical evidence is clear that it was taught as a salvific commandment by the apostles. 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.

 

[jeffC]

So do you believe unbelievers are saved?

No. One should not conflate the receiving a remission of sins with the notion of an infinite atonement. The offer is extended to all and viable for all, but Christ "being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; (Heb 5:9)" Remission of sins is given permanently at Judgement to those who endure to the end (cf. Heb 10:26).

Or is the propitiation for not only [us Hebrews], but also for [the sins of Gentiles from every tongue and nation throughout] the whole world?

Where do you get this from? Scriptural sources please. I have found no indication in 1 john that he makes a distinction between Hebrews and Gentiles anywhere. John wrote his epistle from somewhere in Asia, most likely Ephesus. He was in the land of the Greeks, in the same city with the gentile congregations established by Paul on his missions (Some accounts say that John went to Ephesus before Paul and established congregations there, but later returned to Jerusalem). Most accounts have John living in Asia for about 50 years before he wrote his gospel and epistles. John's audience was not exclusively Jew or Gentile. In fact, the epistle was general not addressed to anyone except believers, in particular those converted by John during his 50 years in the land of the Greeks. The above interpretation is a stretch entirely without merit. This verse and the two others you didn't address show just as plainly that the notion of limited atonement is incorrect as Heb 10:26 and the three other scriptures I presented show that OSAS is un-Biblical.

"And he is the propitiation for not only us [believers], but also for the sins of the whole world [including non-believers]." The atonement is infinite; even the non-believer has the opportunity to be saved. Jesus' hand is stretched out to him as well. Of course one must choose to believe in Him and obey Him to receive remission of sins.

 

[Rescued One]

No. One should not conflate the receiving a remission of sins with the notion of an infinite atonement.

There are not several kinds of atonement. The only ones whose sins are forgiven are believers. The wrath of God remains on unbelievers. The unbelieving will have their part in the lake of fire.

The offer is extended to all and viable for all, but Christ "being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; (Heb 5:9)"

Unbelievers do not obey Him. Believers do.

Remission of sins is given permanently at Judgement to those who endure to the end (cf. Heb 10:26).

God forgives us the moment we come to Christ. Our salvation was purchased by Christ. Our salvation does not depend on us. Christ is both the author and finisher of our faith.

... the three other scriptures I presented show that OSAS is un-Biblical.

LOL. All you've done is ignore the verses I posted.

John 6
44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

We are not saved by our works. We are not saved temporarily. Salvation is eternal salvation. There is no temporary salvation.

"And he is the propitiation for not only us [believers], but also for the sins of the whole world [including non-believers]." The atonement is infinite; even the non-believer has the opportunity to be saved. Jesus' hand is stretched out to him as well. Of course one must choose to believe in Him and obey Him to receive remission of sins.

Regeneration doesn't depend on man.

Titus 3

3For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

4But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

6Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

7That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.


Ephesians 4
32And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

Our forgiveness has already taken place.

Ephesians 2
4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; )

6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

7That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast.


Jesus paid my debt with His blood!

 

[Rescued One]

a doctrine that appears to be supported by some scriptures but contradicts others is not a sound doctrine.

Do you mean a doctrine such as LDS baptism for the dead?

 

[jeffC]

And Who gives us the Spirit?

The important question is not who, which is rhetorical, but when, why, and how much? And does that Spirit withdraw?

If God gives you faith, I am confident "he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ."

Unfortunately neither your nor Paul's confidence is omniscient. Paul was confident in the Philippians faith because they had demonstrated their willingness to endure to the end (v. 3-5). The word Paul uses for confidence means that he believed, was lead to believe, or had faith that they would endure (strongs #3982). The sense that this was an infallible condition is not conveyed.

Those who have not experienced the new birth do not know the Spirit of Truth. In order to recognize the Truth a person has to be regenerated. Flesh gives birth to flesh but the Spirit gives birth to Spirit.

I do not fully agree with this statement, but my disagreement is not relevant to our discussion. My prior comment refers to those who have been born again. If they begin to ignore the Spirit of Truth, what happens to the faith which is a fruit of that Spirit?

1 Corinthians 12
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

only faith is mentioned as being given, not stronger faith or weaker faith. The strength of ones faith cannot be separated from free will and the choices one makes.

Could Paul see the hearts of those who gathered with the Saints in Thessalonica? Paul was not omniscient.

Why would he have needed to be omniscient? If what you claim is true, any who are "saints" are saved and faithful.

Instead Paul is worried about his believers: 5 For this cause, when I could no longer forbear, I sent to know your faith, lest by some means the tempter have tempted you, and our labour be in vain.

Why might Paul's labour have been in vain with regards to these believers?

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;"
...

Ephesians 4
30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Powers and principlaties cannot separate us from God. Seducing spirits can't either.

But the scripture you quote says that some shall depart. We have here something of a contradiction.

"Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some."

1 John 2
19They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Of course those that left were not one with the body of the church when they left. It does not follow from this that they were never fervent believers - the text does not say that, rather you wish it to be inferred. They would have sung a different tune in the days of their first conversion.

The scripture in 2 Timothy is clear (and independent of the context of a different letter by a different author): there were Christians whose faith was overthrown after they believed.

"But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
...
Obedience follows faith; it doesn't precede it.

perhaps this is not so cut and dry:
John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

A rudimentary belief or faith does come first. But faith cannot grow without obedience.

Faith is tried, i.e. tested; why is something tested? Peter teaches salvation is the end of faith, and comes after the trial of our faith (1 Pet 1:7,9).

Because it brings about our sanctification. I have been saved, I am being saved, I will be saved.

Peter does not say that sanctification is the end of faith; salvation is. you're use of the word "saved" in three different tenses demonstrates that it has different implications depending on what stage of life on is at. How is one more saved than saved?

The ultimate use of the word is "will be saved." until then, one is "saved" only if he by choice remains on the path that brought him the promise; one must endure to the end and not forsake the promise. Only then will the name of the repentant not be blotted out as the Lord says in Rev 3:5.

What is a "Christian" and why did you put it in quotation marks?

I put the term in quotation marks for your benefit, as you had previously indicated that you did not consider an unrepentant person to be christian. Sorry for the confusion.

As for the first question, I consider anyone who believes in the divinity of Jesus and in remission of sins only through Him as deserving of the title Christian; I do not think it appropriate to judge any outward appearance of pride or sin by stripping someone of their right to claim belief in the Son of God.

 

[Rescued One]

The doctrines of the Gospel lead to repentance; they do not teach that repentance is optional.

God leads a person to repentance. Where is boasting then?

 

[jeffC]

Do you mean a doctrine such as LDS baptism for the dead?

LDS do not claim the Bible as the source for the doctrine of baptism for the dead. I know of no contradictions, but this strawman should be addressed in it's own thread. You do claim the Bible as the source for your doctrines, and the Bible has clear contradictions to the positions you posit.

 

[Rescued One]

I'm going on "vacation!"

 

[Swart]

I'm going on "vacation!"

Enjoy!

 

[jeffC]

There are not several kinds of atonement. The only ones whose sins are forgiven are believers. The wrath of God remains on unbelievers. The unbelieving will have their part in the lake of fire.

I've only been saying that there is one atonement. What you say above is true, but does not deny the notion that the atonement is available to all; Christ's hand is offered to all equally, whether one accepts Him or not.

Unbelievers do not obey Him. Believers do.

And unfortunately some believers stop obeying Him or otherwise cease to believe in Him. It happened in the Bible and it happens today.

God forgives us the moment we come to Christ. Our salvation was purchased by Christ. Our salvation does not depend on us. Christ is both the author and finisher of our faith.

Again, these ideas are true. But this does not change the fact that one must believe and obey Christ to receive the remission of sins that He promises. If one fails to endure to the end, there remaineth no remission of sins.

LOL. All you've done is ignore the verses I posted.

And all you've done is say that Heb 10:26 is hypothetical.

You've admitted that in Rev 3:5 what must overcome is the faith of the saints. Yet you have not responded to any of the following points:

1. Why would the Lord have conditioned eternal life on faith if it was impossible that faith fail as these saints were already in the Book of Life? What was the point?
2. Is dead faith faith that has overcome? You never addressed James 2, where he reiterates 3 times that faith will die without personal effort.
3. The word overcome is in the future tense, thus though these saints are born again, their faith has not yet overcome.

Rev. 3:5 indicates that the names of saints will be blotted out if they do not overcome. This alone refutes the notion that it is impossible to be blotted out. Yet, there are six other cases in Rev 2 & 3 where the Lord makes clear that to overcome means to endure to the end and repent. The context of 3:5 could not be more clear.

You have completely ignored Ex. 32:33 - "And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book."

Your only objection to 2 Peter 2:20-21 is that the verses are really refering to teachers, as if that makes any difference at all. The verse still demonstrates that a converted believer who "escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" renounced that belief and was condemned for it. Not to mention the named examples furnished by Paul who fell away and took other believers with them.

On the matter of our spread into the topic of a limited atonement, there was no substantial response to any of the scriptures or logic that I have presented. This demonstration further weakens your argument of OSAS because the blood of Jesus is equally available to believer and unbeliever alike, if only they repent. There is no such notion that just because Jesus' sacrifice can cover someone, that he is unconditionally saved.

I am not aware if I have purposefully ignored any of your main arguments. I have certainly tried to respond to your analysis and to scriptures when the meaning is clear. However, I can not read your mind so if you feel I have missed a crucial argument, please bring it up and elaborate.

John 6
44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

No one can come to God but by the Spirit of God, of course. This will not trump free will. God will not force us to listen to His call.

We are not saved by our works. We are not saved temporarily. Salvation is eternal salvation. There is no temporary salvation.

No one is suggesting anyone is saved by works. But it is an error to state that they are not necessary. Salvation is eternal, but it is also not final until the Final Judgement. Until then, "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins."

Matt 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Regeneration doesn't depend on man.

This just repeats your prior argument that man doesnt save Himself. I don't disagree.

Ephesians 4
32And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

Our forgiveness has already taken place.

The Ephesians were forgiven for past sins because they repented of them and asked forgiveness from Jesus, believing in Him. What if they sin again? Do they not need to repent? Even if hypothetically the previous sins are erased, will they never sin again? "if one sins willingly..."

Ephesians 2
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Thank you, this is a great scripture to punctuate my point of view. We are saved by grace, absolutely. We are saved by grace through faith - living faith, not dead faith. We cannot be saved without faith. Our faith is not living unless we obey God, keep His commandments, and endure to the end. No man's works give him any right to boast - without grace there is no salvation for anyone; we are infinitely far from any claim to boast. Yet, the conditions Christ has given - faith, repentance, and obedience - require righteous works done of our own free will. Works are necessary though never sufficient.