Since the heart is wicked, how can it turn to Christ?
- Thread starter Bob8102
- Start date
You wrote:
"I encourage you to ask your pastor if it is OK that a person can accept Christ multiple times. I think he would say "no". I doubt that that he would even give an exception to one who has OCD."
Even I do not say that one can accept Christ multiple times. One can TRY to accept Christ multiple times; I and plenty of other people do this. But if one does really accept Christ one of those times, he or she is saved. The other acceptings of Him are meaningless.
You wrote:
"As far as the verse you quoted, it was from a letter that Paul wrote to the church in Philippi. Now, according to the Reformed evangelical teaching, no one is a Christian just because he goes to a church. And yet Paul is writing that he is confident that God has started a good work in all who attend that church and will complete His work on every who attends that church! But if that is the case, then a person is saved just by going to church!"
I don't see your logic here. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a person is saved just by going to church.
You wrote:
"Instead, I think you are reading way too much in the word 'confident'."
In Romans 8, Paul says he is "persuaded" that nothing can separate Christians from the love of God. When Paul says things like "confident" and "persuaded," he is writing the word of God under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Those words carry the same weight as "I know." You disagree with this; that means we have conflicting paradigms.
You wrote:
"And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ,
Philippians 1:9-10
"Why would Paul have to pray for them to be pure and blameless on the the day of Christ if God will absolutely complete His work in them?"
I would take this in two ways. One, they will be pure and blameless in the day of Christ, because God will complete His work in them. It is kind if like saying, "May grace be with you" to a Christian, when the speaker knows full well that grace is always with a Christian. Two, the Bible talks about the possibility of some believers being ashamed at Christ's return. It talks about the judgment by Christ of all believers. This is not a judgment to determine level of punishment in hell, as is the great white throne judgment of all non-believers. At the judgment seat of Christ, believers will be given different amounts of REWARDS in heaven. The Bible says all believers work will be judged, to determine how worthwhile it is. If someone's work does not pass the test, they will suffer loss, it says, yet they themselves will be saved. It says some will be saved, alright, 'yet as through fire.' So, Paul is praying that these believers will pass the test and not be ashamed at Christ's return and His judgment of believers.
You wrote:
"Christ died not only for us Christians, but also the non-Christians."
This is one of those issues of the Bible and Christianity that is very tough to figure out. Only God knows the answer, just like only God can understand the Trinity. Obviously, as you said, if one does not receive God's gift, they are not saved. I tend to think that Christ only died for the sins of believers. As someone once asked, "Do you think that one drop of Christ's blood was wasted?" But others may disagree. We can argue but never figure it out.
You wrote:
"That is only your interpretation of biblical theology."
As opposed to your interpretation.
You wrote:
"He died for the Christian who was once enlightened, who once tasted the heavenly gift, who once shared in the Holy Spirit, who had once tasted the goodness of the Word of God and then who has now turned away from Him (Hebrews 6:4)"
Of those who, for a long time or permanently, turn away from Christ, some are really saved and some aren't.
BTW, I have at least temporarily stopped going to my Assemblies of God church and returned to another church I used to go to, whose denomination I am not sure of, but which is related to Redeemer Church in Manhattan. This has nothing to do with the doctrine of eternal security. It has to do with women. I choose not to explain further.
Upvote
0
BTW, the church I attended last Sunday was started by Redeemer Churh(es) in Manhattan. Redeemer was helped to start by Tim Keller, who is with PCA: Presbyterian Church in America.
Upvote
0
packermann
Junior Member
- Nov 30, 2003
- 1,446
- 375
- 71
- Faith
- Catholic
- Politics
- US-Republican
I hate to say this, but that is not the Reformed evangelical position. Subsequent faith that Christ came into you life is evidence that your previous acceptance of Christ is real.
I am not saying that the Bible teaches it, or that I believe it. I am saying that this is the implication of what I consider your false interpretation of this verse. I just see it as just words of encouragement. We say this all the time. "Come on you can do it!" or "I have all the confidence in you!" It is giving a pat on the back. Nothing more!
But you say that this is a promise from God. But if it is a promise from God, then the implication is that this means that everyone in that church is going to heaven, and nowhere in the Bible does it say that a person is saved just by going to church (I agree with you that no one is going to heaven just by going to church).
I do not put"persuaded" and "confident" in the same category. Being persuaded is passive. To be persuaded means that Someone has persuaded him, meaning the Holy Spirit.
The Bible was written by humans inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit did not dictate to them. Each Biblical writer had his own writing style. So the Bible has both human and divine authorship. A Biblical writer can be giving his own opinion or words from God.
Here is an example:
Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife.
1 Corinthians 7:25-27
Paul is giving his own personal opinion. His own personal judgment, not God's judgment, is that if you are not married then you should remain unmarried.
This has nothing to do with conflicting paradigms. It is not a Catholic view as opposed to a Protestant view. I learned this in a very conservative, evangelical, Protestant seminary.
In my 15 years as a Protestant evangelical, I never heard a Protestant say "May the grace of God be with you", and I never said it. But I hear it all the time only in a Catholic Mass.
Here is the verse:
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
2 Corinthians 5:10
It says "whether good or bad". I do not think that we will be receiving rewards for doing bad. So we all will be rewarded or punished based on the things we have done, whether good or bad.
Fire is pretty painful. To go to heaven but through the pains of purgatory seems to fit this verse.
Just to make it clear, I am NOT saying that everyone is going to heaven.
How can one who was once enlightened, who once tasted the heavenly gift, who once shared in the Holy Spirit, who had once tasted the goodness of the Word of God not be really saved?
Only a saved person can be enlightened. Only a saved person can be shared in the Holy Spirit. Only a saved person can have tasted the goodness of the Word of God.
I can relate to you being a church-hopper. I was one when I was a Protestant. It was amazing that I could never find a Protestant church that was the right fit for me, in spite of there being thousands of Protestant churches.
Upvote
0
As to the warnings in Hebrews, you wrote:
"How can one who was once enlightened, who once tasted the heavenly gift, who once shared in the Holy Spirit, who had once tasted the goodness of the Word of God not be really saved?
"Only a saved person can be enlightened. Only a saved person can be shared in the Holy Spirit. Only a saved person can have tasted the goodness of the Word of God."
In his book, "Stop Asking Jesus Into Your Heart: How To Know For Sure You Are Saved," Pastor JD Greear has a 20-page chapter entitled, "If Once Saved, Always Saved, Why Does The Bible Seem to Warn Us So Often About Losing Our Salvation?" I won't cover the whole chapter, here. But it has a section called "The Most Difficult Bible Passage," about Hebrews 6:4-6. He writes:
"This passage is difficult on multiple levels. Not only does it sound like it is possible to 'fall away,' but if you do so you can never come back! What are we to make of it?
"A General Warning, Not an Individual Diagnosis.
"First, it is helpful to realize that the author is giving a general warning to a congregation, made up of both genuine and superficial believers, not diagnosing any one person's spiritual state. He is also not attempting to specify the mechanics of salvation.
"'Being enlightened' and 'tasting of the age to come' and 'partaking of the Holy Spirit' are more descriptions of the movement as a whole than they are certifications of any one particular person. Everyone who was a part of that movement shared in these things, at least on some level.
"In every congregation, there are people who get caught up in the movement without experiencing true conversion. They get excited, learn the songs, pray the sinner's prayer, get baptized, and maybe even get involved in the mission, but these never translate into a deep, personal embrace of Jesus Christ. Over time, their enthusiasm fades.
"What does he mean by 'impossible to renew them to repentance?' The writer, bewildered by the failure of some of his readers to go all the way with Jesus, says, 'If you have seen the glory of Jesus and been convinced of the truth of His resurrection, only to return intentionally to your sin, what else is left for me to say? What :greater argument" is there left to use? What could possibly be more "convincing" than Jesus' death and resurrection? In other words, what's left to say that could move you to repentance?
"In the verses that follow, he explains that hearing the gospel is like rain falling on a piece of seeded farmland (6:7-8). If after being properly seeded and watered only thorns and thistles grow up, what else can you conclude but that the soil is worthless? In the same way, if hearing the gospel only produces thorns of rebellion in your heart, what else can be done? The preaching of the gospel is God's source of resurrection life. If you are immune to it, there is no other tool God can wield.
"Movements gain followers. some are true believers; some simply get swept up in the show and excitement. Only time will reveal the difference."
JD Greear has a note in the back of the book on this:
"In the writer's 'congregation' there is undoubtedly a mixture of both genuine and insincere believers, such as you would find in any church congregation. This is not to imply that we allow known unbelievers to function as members in a church, but that there is often simply no way to know who is truly saved and who is posing. See C. Adrian Thomas, 'A Case for Mixed-Audience with Reference to the Warning Passages in the Book of Hebrews' (New York: Lang, 2008), 184-85. Peter O'Brien says, "It is evident that some had been truly converted and had genuinely appropriated Christ's saving work for themselves. How many and who they all were, the author does not know exactly. But he addresses the whole congregation on the basis of what he has observed, and urges them to hold firmly to their confession of faith in Christ, their Christian hope without wavering, and their confidence in God (Heb. 3:6, 14; Heb. 4:14; Heb 6:18; Heb 10:23). Significantly, even when the author refers to those who commit apostasy he uses the third person plural rather than the second (e.g., 'those WHO have once been enlightened...and WHO have fallen away (Heb. 6:4-6), and does not explicitly identify them with his listeners. Though some are apparently in great danger he does not assert they have committed apostasy. The warnings, like the divine promises, are intended to prevent this from happening.' See Warning Passages Ahead."
Upvote
0
packermann
Junior Member
- Nov 30, 2003
- 1,446
- 375
- 71
- Faith
- Catholic
- Politics
- US-Republican
I notice that you did not explain it in your own words. Instead to quote from this pastor word for word. And yet this Pastor is not someone whose authority I myself recognize. So why should I believe just because he wrote it? Would you be impressed if I quoted from the pope? Of course not! You do not recognize the pope's authority, so I would not quote from him!
I can only think that your quoting from an authority I do not recognize was only because you yourself cannot understand his explanation. It seems to me if his explanation was simple enough to understand then you could have explained it in your own words.
A passage is difficult when it goes against one's theology. But there is always a way to twist a passage to fit into one's theology - although it is difficult.
Bob, the Protestant Reformation was based on the premise of the perspicuity of the Holy Scripture. Perspicuity means that the Bible is clear to understand. Martin Luther once that the Bible is so simple to understand that we do not need the Church to read it - a simple ploughboy could understand it. But this Pastor admits that this passage is "difficult on multiple levels". How can this be? How can the Bible be simple to understand and yet be difficult on multiple levels in some passages?
But for a Catholic, this passage is not at all difficult. It says what it means.
I do not see how that matters.
How can anyone be enlightened be possible without God enlightening him?
He is getting away from the text. It says "who once tasted the heavenly gift, who once shared in the Holy Spirit". How can that not be a deep embrace of Jesus Christ? The passage does not say "who seemed to once tasted the heavenly gift, who seemed to once shared in the Holy Spirit". Why did Paul give no indication that he was talking only about false Christians? If this Pastor is right, then he would be a better communicator than Paul, who wrote with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But how could that be?
Don't you see how this is your root problem? This Pastor says you can see the glory of Jesus and be convinced of the truth of his resurrection, but these are false experiences, and later on you will fall away - and NOTHING would ever move you to repentance. So how do you know that your past experience with Christ is genuine? How do know that you will not fall away in the future? This is exactly how you feel!
You will always have doubts as long as hold to this. If you cannot become Catholic, at least become a Wesleyan Methodist. John Wesley said that am I assured of my salvation now, I might fall away tomorrow, but I know for certain I am saved now. I take one day at a time. It is what they teach at AA - just take one day at a time.
By holding onto the certainty of tomorrow you are not even certain of today.
Wait a minute! You quoted Paul's letter to the Philippians ("And confident of this, that He who began a good work in you shall complete it on the day of Christ"). You used that verse to prove eternal security. But would not the church in Philippi consist of true and false Christians as well? So how can Paul be confident that He who began a good work in FALSE CHRISTIANS shall complete it on the day of Christ?
He is reading much too much into Paul using the third person plural.
If he is not explicitly identifying with his listeners, then why make such a big deal about listeners consisting of true and false Christians?
Not only that, but later on Paul uses the first person plural:
If we deliberately go on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no further sacrifice for sins remains, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume all adversaries
Hebrews 10:26-27
So here Paul includes his listeners as well as himself! If Paul or any of his listeners deliberately go on sinning (fall away), there is only fearful expectation of judgment and raging fire.
Upvote
0
You wrote:
"I notice that you did not explain it in your own words. Instead to quote from this pastor word for word. And yet this Pastor is not someone whose authority I myself recognize. So why should I believe just because he wrote it? Would you be impressed if I quoted from the pope? Of course not! You do not recognize the pope's authority, so I would not quote from him!
"I can only think that your quoting from an authority I do not recognize was only because you yourself cannot understand his explanation. It seems to me if his explanation was simple enough to understand then you could have explained it in your own words."
I could have explained it briefly in my own words. But you would just write off MY words in an instant. Of course you don't believe Protestant scholars: you're Catholic!
You wrote:
"A passage is difficult when it goes against one's theology. But there is always a way to twist a passage to fit into one's theology - although it is difficult.
"Bob, the Protestant Reformation was based on the premise of the perspicuity of the Holy Scripture. Perspicuity means that the Bible is clear to understand. Martin Luther once that the Bible is so simple to understand that we do not need the Church to read it - a simple ploughboy could understand it. But this Pastor admits that this passage is "difficult on multiple levels". How can this be? How can the Bible be simple to understand and yet be difficult on multiple levels in some passages?
"But for a Catholic, this passage is not at all difficult. It says what it means."
There is a saying that the gospel is shallow enough for a child to wade in but deep enough for a theologian to drown in. The Bible, being God's word, is both simple and profound.
The Bible has lots of passages that back up "once saved, always saved." For instance, Ephesians 1:13-14. "In Whom you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth; the gospel of your salvation; in Whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory."
It says you were sealed, and that the Holy Spirit within you is the guarantee "until the redemption."
With our dueling paradigms, we can both take some verses at face value and have to go in-depth to explain other verses. We just have different verses that we work with as our foundation. At least the paradigm I adhere to has an internal consistency between the concept of "once saved, always saved" and "once a child, always a child."
You wrote:
"How can anyone be enlightened be possible without God enlightening him?"
If a congregation has both born again believers, who believe with their minds and their hearts, and people not yet born again, who only believe with their minds, then all have some enlightenment. There are different levels of enlightenment.
You wrote:
"He is getting away from the text. It says "who once tasted the heavenly gift, who once shared in the Holy Spirit". How can that not be a deep embrace of Jesus Christ? The passage does not say "who seemed to once tasted the heavenly gift, who seemed to once shared in the Holy Spirit"."
The Holy Spirit can convict one of sin and of the truth of the gospel as part of a process of drawing one toward the true God. But some do not necessarily make it all the way through the process to salvation.
You wrote:
"Don't you see how this is your root problem? This Pastor says you can see the glory of Jesus and be convinced of the truth of his resurrection, but these are false experiences, and later on you will fall away - and NOTHING would ever move you to repentance. So how do you know that your past experience with Christ is genuine? How do know that you will not fall away in the future? This is exactly how you feel!"
Beginning to see the glory of Jesus and convinced of the truth of His resurrection does not necessarily mean that one has made it all the way through to salvation. But these beginnings are not necessarily false experiences. However, one can have what they think is the moment of salvation, the moment of conversion, yet it actually be false, and not real conversion. It's not that you WILL fall away, it's that you MIGHT.
You are right about 'exactly how I feel.' Many people are fully convinced of their salvation. Greear warns that some of these people will, on the last day, hear "I never knew you." Between my OCD and knowledge of the fact that one can think they are saved and not be, assurance of salvation never lasts with me.
You wrote:
"Wait a minute! You quoted Paul's letter to the Philippians ("And confident of this, that He who began a good work in you shall complete it on the day of Christ"). You used that verse to prove eternal security. But would not the church in Philippi consist of true and false Christians as well? So how can Paul be confident that He who began a good work in FALSE CHRISTIANS shall complete it on the day of Christ?"
Paul was no doubt not thinking that false Christians are saved. In addressing the congregation as a whole, he was talking about the real Christians in it.
You wrote:
"Not only that, but later on Paul uses the first person plural:
"If we deliberately go on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no further sacrifice for sins remains, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume all adversaries
Hebrews 10:26-27
"So here Paul includes his listeners as well as himself! If Paul or any of his listeners deliberately go on sinning (fall away), there is only fearful expectation of judgment and raging fire."
"We" can be used in giving instructions to particular people, but not to all. For instance, a parent might say to a child, "If we don't get dressed, we won't look presentable at school, will we?"
You say that "deliberately go on sinning" means become a convert, then fall away. But it just as likely means people who hear the gospel and never really repent.
You have sometimes said something like Protestants believe everything we know should only come from the Bible. I disagree. The word "trinity" does not exist in the Bible, but it is a valid concept based on the Bible. Their is a place for astute, biblical theology. Just like Jesus said you must be born of water and the Spirit, which in your view is a reference to physical water. And Jesus said, "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you." But then He told the thief on the cross, who was neither baptized nor took communion, "today you will be with Me in paradise." So, Jesus contradicted Himself! Unless you take into account biblical theology to realize what His statements really meant.
Let me throw another little curve ball at you. Jesus said that, just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. (Matthew 12:40). But Jesus was resurrected after only two days and two nights. Atheists could use this to say the Bible contradicts itself. What I would say to atheists is that there are a handful of verses, which, taken by themselves, seem to indicate the Bible contradicts itself or is wrong. But they are only a handful; the preponderous weight of the evidence is that the Bible is literally the word of God. The example I would give is: supposes someone foretold the winning lotto numbers every week, 50 out of 52 weeks of the year. Most would say that something supernatural was going on there. But someone who does not want to believe in the supernatural could say, "they are wrong at some points, therefore there is nothing supernatural going on there." But that would be the view of someone looking for an excuse not to believe. They are ignoring the bulk weight of the evidence. Similarly, the claim that the Bible is the word of God, and that circumspect biblical theology is accurate, is based on the bulk of the evidence.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
