Pimping Jesus: consumerism and the red-light gospel

[Jac3510]

Well, if the question is just to tell who is living a godly life and who isn't, I think you are right--or at least, the Scriptures you pointed to are completely applicable it seems to me--that simple observation should be enough. People who are living in sin are clearly not living a godly life. Peter, Paul, the entire NT, and probably everyone on this board would heartily agree that such a lifestyle is not appropriate for anyone, much less a Christian. Christians ought to live a separated life--not in a monastic sense, of cousre, but in a sanctified sense.

Of course, if you want to be philosophical about it (or even very theological), everyone ought to live the sanctified life. The Moral Law applies to everyone, not just Christians. That, actually, is part of my problem with the original article. Really, what is the differnce in an atheist who lives a moral life and a Christian who lives a moral life? Let's not be so silly as to say that atheists can't be moral. They can. Have we, then, made Christianity to be absolutely nothing more than a reiteration of what everyone ought to be anyway?!? Clearly it is so much more than that!

But clearly it is also at least that! So, again, it seems to me that calls to morality, while they are biblically, theologically, and philosophically based and ought to be encouraged, are to be distinguished from the call to live a godly life. Basic morality is baseline. It's the starting point, not an end in and of itself. The fact that some Christians never even get started shouldn't be viewed as proof of their unregenerate nature anymore than an atheist's solid morality should be viewed as proof of his regeneration! But an immoral lifestyle should be recognized for what it is:

1. Immoral - and thus punishable by all the standards of general revelation
2. Ungodly - and thus punishable by all the standards of special revelation
3. Immature - and thus falling short of both the grace and rewards of the sanctified life

Your thoughts, then?

[jlay]

Why must people assume that whever they don't see progressive sanctification, there must have been no justification?

For me it is because of the Bible. Jesus' exhaustive warnings regarding tares among the wheat, and wolves amongst the sheep.

"Therefore whoever is IN Christ is a new creation. The old has gone, the new has come."

I KNOW there are desires in my life that are birthed of God. Not because I am a 'better' Christian than some other guy, but because God has done a work in and through me. I see a process of hating what I used to love and loving what I used to hate.

Luke 9: 62
Jesus replied, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God."

Examine yourself to see if you are IN the faith. 2 Cor 13:5

Pauls letters, James, 1 John are constant reminders full of such warnings.

[Jac3510]

Why must people assume that whever they don't see progressive sanctification, there must have been no justification?

For me it is because of the Bible. Jesus' exhaustive warnings regarding tares among the wheat, and wolves amongst the sheep.

"Therefore whoever is IN Christ is a new creation. The old has gone, the new has come."

Rather than offer my view of this verse, I'll just point out that whatever it does mean, it can't mean that sanctification is necessary. For one thing, it doesn't even say that. You are extrapolating that from the text. In the second place, I'm sure you recognize that Christians can still sin, even though "the old is gone." Now, if the new creation is capable of sin, as your interpretation would seem to require, then where do you get the idea--from THIS text--that the new creation can only sin a little, and that it will get better and better? May I submit to you that such an idea is completely foreign to scripture and, rather, is one you have imported from other verses misunderstood, and that, in fact, Paul is dealing with something else entirely?

I KNOW there are desires in my life that are birthed of God. Not because I am a 'better' Christian than some other guy, but because God has done a work in and through me. I see a process of hating what I used to love and loving what I used to hate.

How is that different from an atheist who has good desires? Why is it that for Christians, good desires are from God, but for atheists, they aren't?

Luke 9: 62

Jesus replied, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God."

I don't see anything here about Christians necessarily doing good. I see them as not fit for service in the kingdom of God . . . so, they won't serve in the Kingdom of God. What makes you think that means they aren't saved?

Examine yourself to see if you are IN the faith. 2 Cor 13:5

Look at the second part of the verse you quote:

"Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?"

Now, translate "in you" more appropriately as "among you." (Note the plural 'you.') Do you see what the text is actually saying? This has nothing to do with the assurance of salvation, and everything to do with whether or not the believers there are believing and practicing apostolic Christianity.

Pauls letters, James, 1 John are constant reminders full of such warnings.

Paul's letters tell us that Christians may fall away so bad that they have to be destroyed by God. That doesn't seem like someone necessarily going through the sanctification process. Is Paul contradicting himself? If not, how can you say that all justified people will be sanctified in this life when we have his own statements on people who have actually gone in the exact opposite direction they were supposed to? We've talked about James to death on this board. Suffice it to say that it has NOTHING to do with justification in the salvific sense. 1 John is about tests of fellowship, NOT tests of salvation.

Against all this, you have both the Scriptural arguments I've presented here and elsewhere, the logical inconsistencies, etc. The bottom line is that a person's works tell you absolutely nothing about a person's salvation or lackthereof--not others, and not your own. Christians are not guaranteed sanctification. That is something that happens ONLY if we live by faith. To say anything else forces you into the original paradox I first suggested. You either end up a Pharisee or self-loathing wretch.

[ageofknowledge]

I am self-loathing not pharisuuuuutical.

[Jac3510]

At least you aren't a self-loathing Pharisee . . . convinced that you don't know if you are good enough to be saved and that no one else is, either! *shudder*

[ageofknowledge]

At least you aren't a self-loathing Pharisee . . . convinced that you don't know if you are good enough to be saved and that no one else is, either! *shudder*

Imagine the intensity of inner conflict that must go on in such a person.

[jlay]

How is that different from an atheist who has good desires? Why is it that for Christians, good desires are from God, but for atheists, they aren't?

I'm not talking about what the world calls good. I'm talking about the desire to grow in the things of God. Things that are birthed by God. Things that are at odds with my fleshly nature. An atheist can appreciate a sunset. His ability to appreciate is from God. He just doesn't recognize this.

Now, translate "in you" more appropriately as "among you." (Note the plural 'you.') Do you see what the text is actually saying? This has nothing to do with the assurance of salvation, and everything to do with whether or not the believers there are believing and practicing apostolic Christianity.

Not seeing that, but I'll examine. This isn't my first dance with this, nor is it yours. I am well aware of the arguments from your perspective.
It is just when I read the scripture, straight up, I can't make this jive.
I would never say that works are in and of themselves THE evidence of salvation. Jesus pointed that out clearly. 'many will say to me on that day......."
But we also know that he said a tree is judged by its fruit.

1 John is about tests of fellowship, NOT tests of salvation.

I am aware of your interpretations, but that are many who disagree vehemently and have solid positions rooted in scripture. I tell you what. Link me to some solid exspotion on 1 John regarding this position, and I'll gladly check it out.

[B. W.]

...The bottom line is that a person's works tell you absolutely nothing about a person's salvation or lackthereof--not others, and not your own. Christians are not guaranteed sanctification. That is something that happens ONLY if we live by faith. To say anything else forces you into the original paradox I first suggested. You either end up a Pharisee or self-loathing wretch.

It looks like too me that jlay is saying clearly that sanctification happens ONLY if we live by faith...

So I'll add - if by faith - would not this be what we are called too examine?

I also see that jlay is stating that an inner work is where the change occurs and not an outer work only - if that makes sense... (A transformation of one's Character as 2 Peter 1:2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 states as the progression of change)

You are right, it is sad and I would add also tragic, that no one can tell a Christian from an unbeliever. No one wonder the non-believing world calls Christians hypocrites. If that is all there is too the gospel — just believe and its okay to live like the devil then the world is filled with Christians and people who do not realize they are.

Bible does speak of the hallmark of the New Covenant as the circumcised heart. Should we give up and say that in order to avoid being called Pharisee's by the Scribes of the modern Church we do nothing but sit on our blessed assurances and continue to sin? Or should we start learning to overcome the individual sins — and be free and live as an example of Christ working in us.

The atheists and non-believers can do good deeds and works but they do not have Christ in them setting them free. Should we avoid doing anything that proves we have been changed from within because atheists and non-believers can do good works too?

++++++

I'll pose a challenge (for everyone inculding myself):

John 21

After spending time with Christ, seeing all the miracles, healings, learning from the Word, being charged with the great commission what do the disciples do (John 21:3)?

Went back fishing. Soon Jesus appears again and confronts them all through Peter. In John 21:15 Jesus ask a question and in this question an interesting word is used that is translated in most text as the English word “these”. It is a plural word but it means “these (sorts of things).”

Jesus asks, “Simon Son of Jonah, do you Love (Agape) me more than these (sorts of things)?”

In other words —Peter and all, do you Love (Agape) me more than these (sorts of things) going back fishing — that old comfortable lifestyle you all are so used too?

Peter responds — “Yes Lord — you know I love (Phileo) you.”

Two Greek words are used to translate into love. Agape love while being the sacrificial love also contains within its meanings: steadfast enduring love, a loyal love that gives all to the beloved, etc..

Phileo Love is the highest form of human love. It has a wide array of meanings ranging from feeling affection for, brotherly love, love between comrades who have gone through the same events and bonded. It also can mean the Human love that says, a brotherly (sisterly) love that is earned — reciprocated between people (I feel affection and bond because you gave me so I return the love…)

Jesus asks, “Simon Son of Jonah, do you Love (Agape - love me with steadfastly, loyally, sacrificing all for) me more than these (sorts of things) going back fishing — that old comfortable lifestyle you all are so used too?”

I think, we like Peter would answer: “Yes Lord — you know I (Phileo), feel fond for you at Church, in the prayer closet, etc, love you like a brother because of what you have done for me and the blessings you give, etc… love you.”

And Jesus asks a second time: "Simon Son of Jonah, do you Love (Agape - love me with steadfastly, loyally, sacrificing all for) me more than these (sorts of things) going back fishing — that old comfortable lifestyle you all are so used too and more than the blessing I give is that what you love is based on?”

During the third question: Peter's heart was cut — grieved because Jesus asked him if he only loved him due to the fond feelings of affections, blessing he received, love his (Peter's) works more than Christ's, loved fishing those old ways of life one was used too more than Christ.

Peter — saw it. His answer should become ours: “You know all things, that I Love (the love that makes one loyal, steadfast to You (Christ) no matter the trials and storms, a love that sacrifices all (These sorts of things) for the one loved so much that I lay down my life for you more than these sort of things that had me bound.”

Yep, we can live and go back fishing in the old life we always known. Jesus will keep asking us questions until we hear realizing what sorts of things keep us from feeding the Sheep.

So as Christians — unlike atheists and non-believers — we have Christ asking us questions, challenging us to move beyond 'these sorts of things' we always do that enslave us in diverse and misleading ways.

From this we can feed the sheep with our lives by dispensing the bread of life ( who is Christ) by how we live and conduct ourselves. If you want to remaining fishing — go ahead and trapped you'll be. Jesus will keep asking…

“Simon Son / daughter of Jonah, do you - with that steadfastly loyally sacrificing love - agape me more than these (sorts of things) going back fishing — that old comfortable lifestyle you are so used too?”

Till you see…

If by faith we are sanctified and since faith worketh by love — then do we Love Christ more than these?

Galatians 5:6

One kind of message teaches — stay the same — keep fishing. Another teaches how to Love Christ. By a tree's fruit you know if a tree is good or bad. If Christians remain looking like the world — is that a bad thing or good?

Haunting - Love me more than these... said Jesus to Peter and us all...
-
-
-
(PS — note for Jac — this is not aimed at you for any ulterior motive or point — just a challenge for anyone who reads including myself)

[ageofknowledge]

B.W., my response to your post is:

[B. W.]

Another point to ponder:

We teach in our churches salvation by grace through faith is all we need to enter the kingdom of heaven. This is absolutely true. What follows after first believing? In some quarters it is taught that sanctification is optional — important but not that important we constantly are told.

This reminds me wearing only one shoe. We are told that all we need to do is believe and thus just put on the right shoe, the left shoe is optional because it hints at being works oriented. Thus, Christians go hobbling around on one shoe. In light of this is what is found in the bible stated in the following verses:

Eph 1:11, “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will…” ESV

God works all things according to the counsel of his will just as the Lord says in the following verses.

Isaiah 46:10, “…declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose…” ESV

Isaiah 55:11, “…so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it…” ESV

Then the bible reveals something, an attribute of his will — purpose for us after we first believe:

1 Thessalonians 4:3, 4, 5, “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, 5 not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God…” ESV

The will of God is our sanctification! So therefore, if the Lord's counsel stands, causes things to succeed and accomplishes his purposes in the things which he sends (Jesus Christ); then, how can we in good conscience say that sanctification is optional?

Sanctification works based or inner cleansing?

Jesus stated in Mark 7:20, 21, 22, 23 - the principle that is what comes out of a person that defiles us. The work of sanctification is an inward work that removes those things we love more than Christ, that enslave us, keeps us hobbling around, weak, weary, seldom finding rest.

The outward works of the law, doing good deeds, can lead to deception because such legalism alone means nothing when the inside of the vessel remains corrupt. The process of sanctification pushes out our corruption one sin at a time and as a result, good works follow in due time.

The mark of a true Christian, or as Ann Coulter terms as a Christ Christian, is one who lives balanced. He or she wears two shoes. The Peace with God that Salvation brings is on the right and the left shoe is the Peace with God that comes through sanctification. Without two shoes, you'll stumble around with sore backs and aches and pains being results. Cripples for Christ instead of overcomers set free indeed!

Over the years, as well as what I have gone through myself living this “Christian thing,” I have noticed that the Lord works with us, like it or not, cleaning us up. Since sanctification is so oft taught as an option, we end up having to learn the hard way. He is doing his will and purpose despite our ignorance. Are we not being taught to resist the Lord placing the shoe of sanctification on our left foot? Optional - really???

As a result we discover that the flesh wars against the Spirit, struggles ensue within are intense, we travel from one crisis of faith to another with maybe a few victories sprinkled in. We fail and through our failures in the war between flesh and spirit we slowly learn to rely on God's grace kicking and screaming: no I like wearing only one shoe!

You ever tried putting shoes on a resisting baby? The second shoe is usually the hardest to put on. But once on, it is not so bad and the babe quiets down. Likewise, we learn we need two shoes and that the second shoe is not so bad after all.

From this we find our Faith becoming strengthened. We find ourselves overcoming and comfort. Where we step is now protected from the dangers of the world! The Lord's will is our sanctification as he wants us to be his people, a royal priesthood proclaiming his praises how he called us out of darkness into his marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9).

However, when we teach sanctification separate from salvation and optional, we do injustice to new believers. They do not know what to expect and when the inward work begins, they are taught — this is optional; but is it?

2 Timothy 2:19, “But God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity." ESV

So what marks the true believer in Christ from a do gooder atheists, or a pious religious performing person? It is the mark of sanctification. The Lord cleaning us up through our failures so we learn to know him and trust in his grace that saves and instructs us to say No to sin and Yes to God. It transforms us to be a reflection of His Character and extension of his nature wherever we are at.

We were sealed by the Holy Ghost and brought at a price. One hallmark of being a Christ Christian then is learning from failures and changing 180 degrees from the way we used to be. We need to wear two shoes of the gospel of peace. You may not be able to tell us from those of others faiths and beliefs, or even a good deed doing atheist, but what is important is that God does. He knows...

We can Argue All Day

Those of us who have learned the hard way that we need to wear two shoes instead of one come to have learned that the Lord is with us and in us — seeing all we do. From this, it is he who orders our conduct aright. We may fail but we can run to the throne of grace to find the help we need.

Does a good deed doing atheist or a pious religious do gooder run to the throne of grace to find help in time of need or do they instead rely on earning favor through deeds used to buy ones way to favor or worldly esteem?

We are his workmanship so that the Lord works through us the quality of his character so we can do his good works (deeds) through us in a living way. This is not an option. It is a way of life.

We can argue all day long that one cannot tell a Christian from a pious performing religious person or a do gooder atheist to concluded from this that sanctification is merely optional. Yes, the devil certainly can mimic angels of light in works too. Because of this, it does not mean that we cannot tell who is a child of God verses a child of the world.

A child of God is being transformed because the right shoe was placed on his / her feet first and then the left. Sanctification is part of the total parcel of salvation and not an option. So the mark of a true Christian is one who learns that he or she needs to wear two shoes.

Over the years I meet a few who do. They have failings and lapses? Yes! Have some backslide for a season or two? Yes! Yet they overcame and there is something unexplained about them, a quiet ambiance that no atheist or pious performing religious person can ever have. From them we learn from them what Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 1:4.

By B. W. Melvin
Author: A Land Unknown; Hell's Dominion
Copyright Protected
Posted here with my permission
-
-
-

[Jac3510]

I'm not talking about what the world calls good. I'm talking about the desire to grow in the things of God. Things that are birthed by God. Things that are at odds with my fleshly nature. An atheist can appreciate a sunset. His ability to appreciate is from God. He just doesn't recognize this.

Sorry. That sounds really nice and fluffy, but it is too nebulous. What is "the things of God"? Morality? Clearly not, because atheists can do that. The Golden Rule? Again, clearly not. Desire to know the will of God? No, because Muslims desire that. Desire to know Christ? No, because Mormons know that. Desire to produce the Fruit of the Spirit? Sorry, I don't know any atheist who doesn't want to be kind . . .

These are nice words here, but ultimately, I don't see any connection to reality. Human beings--ALL human beings--want to be righteous for the simple reason that they are made in the image of God. Fallen though they may be, all humans want that. It is part of what it means to be human, not part of what it means to be a Christian.

Not seeing that, but I'll examine. This isn't my first dance with this, nor is it yours. I am well aware of the arguments from your perspective.
It is just when I read the scripture, straight up, I can't make this jive.
I would never say that works are in and of themselves THE evidence of salvation. Jesus pointed that out clearly. 'many will say to me on that day......."
But we also know that he said a tree is judged by its fruit.

And in the context of that, the "fruit" is that of the false prophet. Reading the text "straight up," what makes you think that the fruit is behavior? Isn't the fruit of a false prophet his doctrine?

Reading the text straight up, can you show me ONE place in Scripture ANYWHERE where it says that all true believers will do good works and/or be santified in this life? Because I can show you lots of Scriptural examples of true believers who didn't/weren't.

I am aware of your interpretations, but that are many who disagree vehemently and have solid positions rooted in scripture. I tell you what. Link me to some solid exspotion on 1 John regarding this position, and I'll gladly check it out.

For staters, try this: Finding True North in 1 John. It's also interesting to note that Robert Law, who popularized the "Tests of Life" view of 1 John, actually ADMITS in his commentary that 1 John 5:13, which provides the entire exegetical basis for reading the whole book as a test of salvation, refers contextually to the immediately preceding verses and not the whole book. He just decides to apply it to the whole book anyway. I'll get you more after you go through that one if you want.

edit:

See this as well. It is a paper I wrote on a different subject but addresses the question of 1 John as well. It is important to read beside Niemela's paper linked above. Funny thing, actually . . . if you force the test of life view on 1 John, I can show you that you have to believe that the resurrection is not part of the Gospel . . . you'll see that in the paper I wrote, which will be published in two or three places next year. The stakes are rather high on this, my friend

[jlay]

Fallen though they may be, all humans want that.

10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."[c]

Jac you are a smart guy. Of that I have no doubt. You are also condescending, arrogant and a know it all. It is one thing to debate theological differences. But to take the regenerative and transformative experience of my own testimony and reduce it to fluff? Well....

[Jac3510]

Whether or not people seek God has nothing to do with their desires for righteousness. You've read C.S. Lewis. I don't know a SINGLE person who doesn't want to be good, kind, gentle, patient, and expect the same from others; do you?

My question is practical. Show me ONE thing in your entire litany of "things of God"--things which I have no doubt you do, in fact, experience--that a non-Christian is incapable of experiencing or at least desiring.

As far as being condescending or any of your other less than kind descriptives, forgive me. I didn't see anything that was anything of the sort. Further, I didn't reduce your testimony to fluff. I said your description of the the phrase "things of God" is fluffy. It's no different than when people ask, "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" They may THINK they are asking a rational question, but when you inspect the meaning of the words, you find out that they don't mean anything at all--they are on the level of "married bachelor" or "square circle."

Now, you made a specific point: that unbelievers cannot experience the things of God, and that Christians--ALL Christians--experience them, which was your basis for answering MY question as to how we could possibly say that if someone doesn't progress in the Christian life then we can conclude they haven't been justified. I don't see how it is at all arrogant to question your premise. You used a nebulous term--"the things of God." I am asking you for clairification. What exactly are "the things of God" of which you speak, these desires to which you refer, that you are capable of experiencing that non-Christians are not?

I'll leave the name calling to you, my friend. I've had too many sleepless nights with my wonderful, if not perpetually hungry, daughter to have my mind enough about me to take any offense. In the meantime, I will wait on you to address the substantive points in my previous posts.

God bless

[jlay]

Whether or not people seek God has nothing to do with their desires for righteousness. You've read C.S. Lewis. I don't know a SINGLE person who doesn't want to be good, kind, gentle, patient, and expect the same from others; do you?
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
Yes, I do. I work with Inner City kids. Many revere being bad. Being a murderer a thief, a gang banger. A guy who knocks up a lot of girls. Being good, kind, and gentle is the opposite of what they revere.

My question is practical. Show me ONE thing in your entire litany of "things of God"--things which I have no doubt you do, in fact, experience--that a non-Christian is incapable of experiencing or at least desiring.
To know and do his will. To love Him. To see others won to Christ. To know His Word. To die to self.

As far as being condescending or any of your other less than kind descriptives, forgive me. I didn't see anything that was anything of the sort. Further, I didn't reduce your testimony to fluff. I said your description of the the phrase "things of God" is fluffy. It's no different than when people ask, "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" They may THINK they are asking a rational question, but when you inspect the meaning of the words, you find out that they don't mean anything at all--they are on the level of "married bachelor" or "square circle."


Now, you made a specific point: that unbelievers cannot experience the things of God, and that Christians--ALL Christians--experience them, which was your basis for answering MY question as to how we could possibly say that if someone doesn't progress in the Christian life then we can conclude they haven't been justified. I don't see how it is at all arrogant to question your premise. You used a nebulous term--"the things of God." I am asking you for clairification. What exactly are "the things of God" of which you speak, these desires to which you refer, that you are capable of experiencing that non-Christians are not?
Actually I said unbelievers CAN experience the things of God. They just don't know who to credit.

I'll leave the name calling to you, my friend. I've had too many sleepless nights with my wonderful, if not perpetually hungry, daughter to have my mind enough about me to take any offense. In the meantime, I will wait on you to address the substantive points in my previous posts.

God bless

Jac, just because you are more covert and clever with your words, doesn't mean you aren't name calling. I'm just being candid. Everybody needs to get knocked down a notch my friend. Thank you for the link. I have begun reading Finding True North. Not sure this exactly addresses what I'm talking about.

This all boils down to, "are there true and false conversions?"

[Jac3510]

Yes, I do. I work with Inner City kids. Many revere being bad. Being a murderer a thief, a gang banger. A guy who knocks up a lot of girls. Being good, kind, and gentle is the opposite of what they revere.

Great. Inner city kids are just as human as suburban kids and cultured adults. Their sin nature is no worse or better than yours or mine or anyone else's. As far as them "revering" the things you do, tell me how they want to be treated. Do they want to be murdered, stolen from, etc.? Of course not. Then, take it a bit deeper. WHY do they, for instance, join a gang? Because they want to be accepted. Every "hard" thing they revere is an attempt to fill a very real--and righteous--desire.

Now, let's take that even further. Let's say that in YOUR case, these people really have no desire to do right (contrary to Romans 2:14ff). Fine. Are you saying that EVERYONE reveres being a murder, thief, gang banger, etc.? Obviously not. Then the fact that some people don't proves my point. People desire righteousness.

To know and do his will. To love Him. To see others won to Christ. To know His Word. To die to self.

Muslims don't want to know God's will? Muslims don't love God? Mormons don't want to see people won to Christ? They don't want to understand His Word? Atheist husbands don't want to die to selves for their wife?

Actually I said unbelievers CAN experience the things of God. They just don't know who to credit.

Fine. That doesn't have anything to do with my point. Observe, again, the exchage:

How is that different from an atheist who has good desires? Why is it that for Christians, good desires are from God, but for atheists, they aren't?

I'm not talking about what the world calls good. I'm talking about the desire to grow in the things of God. Things that are birthed by God. Things that are at odds with my fleshly nature. An atheist can appreciate a sunset. His ability to appreciate is from God. He just doesn't recognize this.

The issue I addressed is the nature of the desire. Not their origin. If we are to loo at people and say that they are or are not saved based on their behavior, then all we have to look at is the action. I asked how our actions or desires are different from an atheist's. The answer is that they aren't, beyond the fact that we know WHERE they come from. But surely you recognize that there are Christians who are not trained in theology who don't understand that their desires come from God. And surely you recognize there are non-Christian theists who are perfectly capable of crediting God with those same things. So, any way you cut it, none of this answers my question, and my original challenge still stands.

If we are to to say that a person who is not being progressively sanctified has not been positionally justified, on what basis do we differentiate the nature of their works from our own? What can we point to in our actions that cannot be also found in them?

Jac, just because you are more covert and clever with your words, doesn't mean you aren't name calling. I'm just being candid.

If you say so, J. So, in essence, you are doing the very thing that you accuse me of, only more forcefully . . . and yet, if what I am doing is somehow wrong, yet it isn't for you? Forgive me if I am a bit confused by the double standard. Perhaps that is why Jesus had the whole "do not judge" command . . .

Everybody needs to get knocked down a notch my friend.

Well, I'm glad that you believe that you are the person who is qualified to decide not only who needs to be knocked down, but that you also get to decide what "notch" each of us should be at! And if you have achieved THAT level of maturity and wisdom, then I should certainly submit to absolutely everything you are saying, because I assure you that I recognize that I'm nowhere near that level myself. Forgive my arrogance, sir.

Thank you for the link. I have begun reading Finding True North. Not sure this exactly addresses what I'm talking about.

It goes a long way in establishing that First John is not a book which offers tests for salvation, but rather it should be read as offering tests for fellowship.

This all boils down to, "are there true and false conversions?"

No, it doesn't. I believe there are false conversions. Plenty of people think they believe the Gospel when in fact they have believed something Jesus never said, i.e., turn from all your sins/ask Me into your heart/give your life to Me, etc. and you will be saved. It boils down to whether or not all Christians will necessarily be sanctified. I contend not all will, that such is a matter of abiding in faith.