Atheists are hard to convert

[neo-x]

If I am an imperfect being, I fail to see how it's arrogance to state that I am unworthy to be in His presence unless I am 100% clean. And if I've done things INTENTIONALLY to prevent cleanliness, then why exactly should God extend his hand to me if I keep slapping it away? Forgiveness is a tricky thing -- even God cannot do it until we ask Him to.

Exactly my point.

My problem lies with the assumption that we can just accept Christ and then do nothing about it. This alone is the major issue I have with predestination, and many people believe they can act however they want once they've "accepted Christ". Trust is one thing. Presumption is another.

Agreed. This is the inherent problem with predestination, the basic thing is, once you are saved, you are saved. Nothing can avert it, nothing. If I say, sin, then you say no sin is big enough to override grace, if I say, disobedience, then you say well "TRUE Believers" won't sin that much. It is self contradictory. In all of it, while you are abiding by grace, you are also saying that no matter what you do, you are sealed. This is just too much of presumption. I have nothing against the idea that God can and does forgive when we sin, I however still believe that we can outright walk away from God, lose our inheritance and this become lost, sin too much, do not repent and become sinners AGAIN, BY CHOICE after coming to Christ. The problem with predestination is, it can't have both grace and good Christian conduct together as a rule because people violate it all the time. So it says you are safe because it has to say it under any circumstance and by definition people can and do violate it all the time.

[neo-x]

Neo, I've never tried to bond good works. You are imposing your assumptions over what I am saying. I never said a person can lose their salvation by sinning.

Yes, you are J, when you say that grace is not a license to sin, you are indirectly saying that we ought to do obedience. Yes , you never said a man can lose their salvation by sinning, you said, such a man is saved to begin with, that is if he turns away from God.

Sorry Neo, but ultimately you are doing what you accuse me of doing. You are saying who God can save. That the actions on the outside are your window to their heart and whether or not God has abandoned them. That God is limited by our actions. I agree God sees the heart. And He knows if that person truly received Christ.

What I am saying, is all to often we take for granted just what salvation is, and is from. We forget how offended the religious people were at the cross. The idea that vile, filthy sinners could be completely forgiven. A question Paul obviously had to deal with.

J, if you agree with me that God will see the heart of each of us, when we are due to receive our full inheritance, then we have no more conflict here. I am not against the idea that filthy vile sinner can be completely forgiven, my objection is, remaining a filthy vile sinner, after coming to Christ, is a no-brainer by your view. To remain sinning after being bought by Christ and thinking that this is somehow okay to sin and not fight it, cuz we sin all the time, is not ok.

But a heart which no longer listens to the spirit will ultimately wander away.

I don't disagree that people wander away. Our disagreement is that you see them as lost, and condemned. I trust God when He says He won't lose one, and will keep us till the day. It also impunes the work of the HS in a believer. (Eph 1:13)

No, not always, J, as I said before, there is no formula, and as you rightly said, there is no line. People can come back, only God knows our hearts and knows our intentions. But I do think that people who take the idea of grace as indeed a license to sin, are seriously risking it. I even gave you some scriptures, in the last post. I am sure, God waits for us to be sanctified, made holy, day by day. But if someone is in Christ and his heart has wandered away to a point where sinning is not even to be felt sorry for, cuz he is "saved" then I believe he might have lost it already. Then contention between us is not this, but the idea that you think a "true" believer will never do that. And I think even true believers can be led astray.

Going back to Matt 19 won't hurt a bit, J, if God asks you to do that, wouldn't you do it? If he'd ask me, I'd do it.

I would never be so bold as to make a claim. But if you think you would then feel free to boast. The real question is would you be lost if you refused, or failed?

Why, J? According to you, If a believer is effectually called, is saved and sealed, not by any act but by grace and grace alone, then doing something which God commanded is not boasting in anyway at all. It is simply obeying, I don't see any boast in there. After all, it is the spirit of God, which makes us do good works as part of our faith, doesn't it? and we can not change God's plans, he is not limited by our decisions. So where is the boast? You are doing what you were supposed to do.

I mean, If I die while speaking a lie, I will be bloody, responsible for it before God. He will decide what should be done. You just piratically put an adulterer into God's holy presence, because he had been saved some times ago, wow. So even if he did adultery, died in the midst of it, it doesn't matter. You are claiming something and you are not willing to accept the implications it presents. Is there no such thing as Justice before God

Let me get this straight. So you are NOT trusting that Chirst dealt with ALL sin at the cross? "He saved us and called us to be his own people, not because of what we have done, but because of his own purpose and grace. He gave us this grace by means of Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, " 2 Tim. 1:9

J, did Christ dealt with all future sin so that we can sin easily without feeling accountable? or because that we do not sin, and try our best not to sin. Of course we will sin, but are we viewing the grace and mercy extended to us as something of a deal by which we can always do what we like. I mean you can say, grace is not a license to sin, but what is there to stop it? We are sealed forever, no amount of sin can part us.

Here is the problem J.

1. You are saying that we are saved and sealed in Christ forever, nothing can change that.

2. you are saying, grace is not a license to sin. But you are also saying that even if you keep on sinning to no matter what degree, it has no dangerous consequences, except discipline by the Lord.

Well, there is obviously a huge gap here. You should not sin, but even if you do, you are saved, even if you do it abundantly, you are saved, you can do all you want, you are still saved. That is the logical outcome. And it doesn't take rocket science for a teenager to view it this way. If you are saved, then you are saved. Drink all day, screw all night, who cares. Oh! you don't think it should be like that, well why? If you say that it is necessary for salvation, you are violating your own claim, so you will have to concede that that in your view, obedience does not really matter, it is not even essential, and if it is, it can be overlooked, there is no real consequence to it anyway.

This line of thought makes obedience to God, a joke. I mean you are obedient, good. You are disobedient, no big deal, you are still saved. This is an excuse J, not a solid life in the Spirit.

You can list all the absurd scenarios you like. Either Christ was the propitiation for sin, or He was for only some of it. Either faith in Christ is what places one inot the body of Christ, or religious performance is what does it. You think you can mention these uncomfortable scenarios, but a beleiver is either trsuting Christ, or He is trusting His own will power and sourcing to 'stay' saved..

These "absurd scenarios" are serious questions on accountability, which you are so easily sliding by. You think even nuking a city will not revoke salvation, sleeping with someone's wife ain't gonna revoke it, sinning to unknown limits can not revoke it. Well, now that you look at it, it looks just assertions to back up claims, J. This is the point where you can say nothing else to defend your view. My absurd scenarios will all be answered by one thing "still saved". What can I say, I seriously disagree.

Just because you are saved, does not mean, you have a "no questions asked" pass to heaven. That is absurd to think and justify. You are responsible for your actions.

1 Corinthians 6:9 There are passages in the Bible, Brother Danny which say that a man can lose his salvation, like this one"
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders"

He we are again equivocating salvation and the Kingdom. Paul talks about salvation a lot, but where does he mention it with the 'Kingdom.'
Just apply your interpretation across the board . Gal 5:19,20,21; Eph 5:5, Rev. 21:8 Are you making the cut?

So you think one can make it, even with all that is forbidden in these verses? quite a claim, J.

PS: I had written a more complete response but the browser crashed, so just summing up my points, here.

[jlay]

Yes, you are J, when you say that grace is not a license to sin, you are indirectly saying that we ought to do obedience. Yes , you never said a man can lose their salvation by sinning, you said, such a man is saved to begin with, that is if he turns away from God.

NO sir, you are discounting the entirity of what I said. I said one possibility is that a person was never saved to begin with. You are using the terms "turn away from God." Yet, I would assume that any time you sin, you are turning from God. How many times a day do you and I 'turn away?' And how many times a day do you lose and regain your salvation.

To remain sinning after being bought by Christ and thinking that this is somehow okay to sin and not fight it, cuz we sin all the time, is not ok.

This is always the error people arguing your side make. That being that we are saying it is "Ok to sin." Oddly, Paul was forced to deal with this same objection.

People can come back, only God knows our hearts and knows our intentions.

I just don't see how you can say that. If someone can lose their salvation, then the bible says it is IMPOSSIBLE to come back. (Heb 6:6)

And I think even true believers can be led astray.

As do I, and the scriptures agree that even the 'elect' can and will be decieved. However, being deceived and losing salvation are something you are equivocating. All I am saying, is that in this extreme scenarios you mention, that I (that's me, myself) would call into question whether someone committing genocide ever was born again in the first place. Calling into question, and saying they were or were not is different. This question often comes up with Judas.

Why, J? According to you, If a believer is effectually called, is saved and sealed, not by any act but by grace and grace alone, then doing something which God commanded is not boasting in anyway at all. It is simply obeying, I don't see any boast in there. After all, it is the spirit of God, which makes us do good works as part of our faith, doesn't it? and we can not change God's plans, he is not limited by our decisions. So where is the boast? You are doing what you were supposed to do.

You can try to package it any way you want. I am not a Calvanist, so not sure what you are driving at here. I know the pit from which I was rescued. I have seen the failings of Peter, and seen my own in my walk. I am not going to boast about something saying "I know I would." Unlike many, I work in missional endevours and I see first hand the challenges and areas where one must walk in complete faith.

We are sealed forever, no amount of sin can part us.

That is just how radical grace really is. (Rom. 8:38-39)

This line of thought makes obedience to God, a joke. I mean you are obedient, good. You are disobedient, no big deal, you are still saved. This is an excuse J, not a solid life in the Spirit

It makes obedience and act of love, and not a performance based relgious substitute. It is the difference in being sourced by God, and sourced by will power.

[Byblos]

People can come back, only God knows our hearts and knows our intentions.

I just don't see how you can say that. If someone can lose their salvation, then the bible says it is IMPOSSIBLE to come back. (Heb 6:6)

Just one clarification I'd like to make on the subject. This (the above) assumes that one has salvation in order to lose it, when in fact if one does not believe in OSAS then one believes in a moral assurance and not an absolute one. In other words, one cannot lose what they do not have to begin with. Salvation/sanctification is attained through staying the course and not merely ping-pong-ing it back and forth. It is a process, not a one-time event (or 2-time, or n-time).

[RickD]

My friends, we really need not look any further than Matthew 7:22-23: "Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity".

StMonica, I'm afraid we do have to look further than one specific verse, that you claim makes the case that a true believer, sealed with the HS, can lose his salvation. One verse taken out of context, doesn't make a case for losing salvation, when there are many more that are God's promises of absolute assurance.

Saying "depart from me" does NOT sound like guaranteed salvation, especially since it's geared towards those who claim Christ as their saviour Note he said "many". He did not specify what kind of people they are, but we can assume, based on the people speaking, that they would claim themselves to ultimately be followers of Christ.

Of course they claim to be followers of Christ. That doesn't mean they ever were true believers in Christ.

My problem lies with the assumption that we can just accept Christ and then do nothing about it.

When we accept the gospel of Jesus Christ, we are then sealed with the HS. Then the HS begins His work in us. God is the one doing the work, not us.

This alone is the major issue I have with predestination, and many people believe they can act however they want once they've "accepted Christ".

Predestination is biblical, StMonica. Maybe you're having difficulty with the Calvinism definition of predestination. I also don't agree with that definition of predestination. There is a freedom that comes with realizing one is accepted by God, because of His grace, and we can't sin our way out of God's grace. That enables us to live according to the Spirit, instead of the flesh. God is doing the transforming in us. We aren't transforming our behavior. If we feel we have to transform our behavior, to maintain salvation, then that is nothing but a works based salvation.

Rick, to clarify, I've mentioned before that water baptism isn't necessary to be "baptized". I even gave the example of "in an emergency" a lay person can baptize without water, with simple words.

You're still claiming that baptism, by human hands, is necessary for salvation. Whether water is used or not.

Followers of Christ presume His Mercy & His salvation all the time and act according to their own desires and will. I can't tell you how many Christians I've met who say they are "saved", believe that since they've accepted "Christ as their personal lord and saviour" and then proceed to party, use drugs, sleep around, and even worse things. Not only is that completely stupid, but it's hypocrisy at it's finest. Do you really think God will be pleased with these people using his name, wearing his cross around their necks and proceeding to disgrace not only themselves, His creation, but Him as well?

StMonica, did King David lose his salvation? Do you realize what sins the bible says he committed?

I'm not talking about someone who is religious, a truly faithful person, who, though they still sin, do everything possible to act according to the will of God.

Someone who does everything possible to act according to the will of God, and believes his salvation relies on that, is still relying on his works, instead of Christ.

My point was that if we do NOT act in this way, religious, not religious, merely spiritual, whatever the semantics you want to use, is that is a presumption and abuse of God's mercy which He will not tolerate. God will not be mocked.

That's a heavy burden to carry, StMonica. One that God never intended for us to carry. Give your burdens to God. He can carry them for you.

[RickD]

Neo-x wrote:

I however still believe that we can outright walk away from God, lose our inheritance and this become lost, sin too much, do not repent and become sinners AGAIN, BY CHOICE after coming to Christ.

Neo, when we accept Christ, and are adopted as sons, into God's family, God becomes our Father. No matter what we do, He will always be our Father. Our relationship with Him may suffer, but He can never disown us. Just like our own child can sin, and walk away from us, but he will always be our child. No matter how many times our children may say "You are not my Father", that doesn't make it true. My son will always be my child, even if he doesn't acknowledge me. How much more does that mean when God says He won't disown us?

[Byblos]

Neo-x wrote:

I however still believe that we can outright walk away from God, lose our inheritance and this become lost, sin too much, do not repent and become sinners AGAIN, BY CHOICE after coming to Christ.

Neo, when we accept Christ, and are adopted as sons, into God's family, God becomes our Father. No matter what we do, He will always be our Father. Our relationship with Him may suffer, but He can never disown us. Just like our own child can sin, and walk away from us, but he will always be our child. No matter how many times our children may say "You are not my Father", that doesn't make it true. My son will always be my child, even if he doesn't acknowledge me. How much more does that mean when God says He won't disown us?

But what does that have anything to do with our choice to walk away? Like the prodigal son who chose to walk away, his father remained his father but as far as the father is concerned the son was dead. He only became alive again when he returned to the father and was welcomed with open arms as heir and son.

[jlay]

Salvation/sanctification is attained through staying the course and not merely ping-pong-ing it back and forth. It is a process, not a one-time event (or 2-time, or n-time).

Obviously this would be a huge point of disagreement. A believer is baptized and sealed into the body upon believing. (Eph 1:13) That doesn't negate a progressive sanctification. But that is a far cry from saying salvation itself is a process. And Byb, nothing personal but that is one reason I wholly reject the RCC.

But what does that have anything to do with our choice to walk away? Like the prodigal son who chose to walk away, his father remained his father but as far as the father is concerned the son was dead. He only became alive again when he returned to the father and was welcomed with open arms as heir and son.

Really? That's how you view the parable? First, the parables are meant to convey relational truths about Israel from Israels' Messiah. The father was watching for the son. Who watches for a dead person? Israel is a good illustration. God said if they kept His covenant they would be blessed. If not they would suffer. But never, never, not once did God say He would disown, or abandon His people.

[RickD]

Neo-x wrote:

I however still believe that we can outright walk away from God, lose our inheritance and this become lost, sin too much, do not repent and become sinners AGAIN, BY CHOICE after coming to Christ.

Neo, when we accept Christ, and are adopted as sons, into God's family, God becomes our Father. No matter what we do, He will always be our Father. Our relationship with Him may suffer, but He can never disown us. Just like our own child can sin, and walk away from us, but he will always be our child. No matter how many times our children may say "You are not my Father", that doesn't make it true. My son will always be my child, even if he doesn't acknowledge me. How much more does that mean when God says He won't disown us?

But what does that have anything to do with our choice to walk away? Like the prodigal son who chose to walk away, his father remained his father but as far as the father is concerned the son was dead. He only became alive again when he returned to the father and was welcomed with open arms as heir and son.

Byblos, Where does the bible say "as far as the father is concerned the son was dead."? Luke 15:20 says:But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion for him, and ran and [j]embraced him and kissed him.

That doesn't sound like the Father thought of his son as dead. That sounds like the Father was hoping, and waiting for the son to come home, so the relationship would be restored.
The relationship was restored, when the son came back to his loving father. This parable isn't talking about a Christian losing his salvation, then regaining it, when he comes back to God.

[Byblos]

Byblos, Where does the bible say "as far as the father is concerned the son was dead."? Luke 15:20 says:But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion for him, and ran and [j]embraced him and kissed him.

That doesn't sound like the Father thought of his son as dead. That sounds like the Father was hoping, and waiting for the son to come home, so the relationship would be restored.
The relationship was restored, when the son came back to his loving father. This parable isn't talking about a Christian losing his salvation, then regaining it, when he comes back to God.

“22 But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate."

[RickD]

Byblos, Where does the bible say "as far as the father is concerned the son was dead."? Luke 15:20 says:But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion for him, and ran and [j]embraced him and kissed him.

That doesn't sound like the Father thought of his son as dead. That sounds like the Father was hoping, and waiting for the son to come home, so the relationship would be restored.
The relationship was restored, when the son came back to his loving father. This parable isn't talking about a Christian losing his salvation, then regaining it, when he comes back to God.

“22 But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate."

So, you're saying that the son, lost his salvation, then regained his salvation, when he came back to God?

[Byblos]

Byblos, Where does the bible say "as far as the father is concerned the son was dead."? Luke 15:20 says:But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion for him, and ran and [j]embraced him and kissed him.

That doesn't sound like the Father thought of his son as dead. That sounds like the Father was hoping, and waiting for the son to come home, so the relationship would be restored.
The relationship was restored, when the son came back to his loving father. This parable isn't talking about a Christian losing his salvation, then regaining it, when he comes back to God.

“22 But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate."

So, you're saying that the son, lost his salvation, then regained his salvation, when he came back to God?

As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as losing one's salvation as salvation is not actually obtained until the end. One is declared as heir to the inheritance and an adopted son of God but, as in the prodigal son's case, the inheritance was not his until he came back and was found to be alive again. If he did not come back, if he died while still estranged from his father, he still would have died as a son but would not have inherited anything.

Post edit: Note here how the son came back with a repentant heart, undeserving of his father's mercy. He was willing to be treated as a servant, which he found to be better than any place else. It was his father's grace that allowed him to come back as full heir to the inheritance. It was nothing the son could boast about, in fact he felt ashamed. So the son did nothing (no work) to gain his status back, it was a repentant heart due to his father's grace.

[RickD]

As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as losing one's salvation as salvation is not actually obtained until the end.

So, you're telling me that you're not saved?

One is declared as heir to the inheritance and an adopted son of God but, as in the prodigal son's case, the inheritance was not his until he came back and was found to be alive again. If he did not come back, if he died while still estranged from his father, he still would have died as a son but would not have inherited anything.

Byblos, you do realize that most people take the meaning of this parable, as
1)the prodigal son is representative of "repentant sinners"

2) the older son is representative of pharisees, and the self-righteous.

Having nothing to do with a true believer abandoning God.

[Byblos]

As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as losing one's salvation as salvation is not actually obtained until the end.

So, you're telling me that you're not saved?

I'm telling you I cannot be absolutely sure that I will be. I know if I die today, I am. Can I be sure what I will do 10 years from now? No I can't.

One is declared as heir to the inheritance and an adopted son of God but, as in the prodigal son's case, the inheritance was not his until he came back and was found to be alive again. If he did not come back, if he died while still estranged from his father, he still would have died as a son but would not have inherited anything.

Byblos, you do realize that most people take the meaning of this parable, as
1)the prodigal son is representative of "repentant sinners"

2) the older son is representative of pharisees, and the self-righteous.

Having nothing to do with a true believer abandoning God.

Most non-Arminians maybe. But that brings us back full circle to a matter of interpretation and authority where all such discussions will ultimately lead. But just as a quick answer, repentant sinners are not considered dead and the pahrisees were never considered sons.

[DannyM]

Perhaps the Bible and our Saviour's promise is just not enough for some...