Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Turning from sin and conversion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
    I can imagine that most, if not all, who put their trust in Christ for salvation have at least some intention of following him. That seems like a natural thing. However, having an intent to follow someone at one moment doesn't preclude the person from getting frustrated and losing that intent later — which could result in serious sin. We aren't saved from actually ceasing from sin. We certainly aren't saved from just having an initial intent, which could later change, and which might not even result in cessation of sin. Instead, why shouldn't we just use the condition that the Bible actually lists? The condition that the Bible lists is belief. If you start adding things — even if they are seemingly innocuous things that pretty much everyone may do anyway (such as an initial intent to follow) — you risk distorting God's word. At the very least, you allow your theology to become confused.
    I feel like you are just trying to pick a fight, trying to find something wrong with what anyone says. Either that or you are just way too legalistic.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
      If you believe on Christ, he will do his best to change you whether you intend it or not. But salvation is based on neither. Salvation isn't based on intention, or on obedience. It is based on faith.
      Salvation is by no means based on faith alone. Of course, you may be able to find a passage that says "saved by faith" without some other factor being stated to play a part. Good luck with the search. You could probably find one that says "justified by faith" without other factors being mentioned.
      Flatly - the only thing that saves a person in the final analysis is God's loyalty, but you'll find plenty of passages to tell you that God is not necessarily loyal to people who are disloyal. You will also find at least one passage that says God will be loyal even when we are disloyal.

      Jesus spoke plainly, directly, and for the most part confined himself to a one issue at a time (when he was teaching his disciples). For example -
      Mark 3: 33B Τίς ἐστιν ἡ μήτηρ μου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί [μου]; 34 καὶ περιβλεψάμενος τοὺς περὶ αὐτὸν κύκλῳ καθημένους λέγει, Ἴδε ἡ μήτηρ μου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί μου. 35ὃς [γὰρ] ἂν ποιήσῃ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, οὗτος ἀδελφός μου καὶ ἀδελφὴ καὶ μήτηρ ἐστίν.
      Which leaves the question to be answered: Who among the saved are NOT brothers of Christ?
      When the rich young man asked "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" - Jesus did not say "only believe" - what did he say? And what does this indicate regarding those who have no inheritance in heaven? Do they perhaps INHERIT an eternal life somewhere else?
      Does "not all who call me Lord, Lord will enter in" have something to say about what should be done? and here the contrast between calling (or saying) and confessing becomes readily apparent.

      Does Paul contradict Jesus? No - he addresses complex issues without breaking them down piece by piece. He addresses people who are already familiar with the gospel. But his words, addressing complex issues, are easy to mangle so as to make them fit with a preferred viewpoint. That doesn't come as news - Peter said as much:
      2 Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

      It is not possible to properly understand Paul without the gospel as a foundation. But people who either disregard or don't know the gospel will insist on trying to teach from Paul's writings.
      Last edited by tabibito; 04-17-2019, 10:24 PM.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
        No, turning from sin is not an essential part of conversion. But it is strongly encouraged.

        Hebrews 12:7-8 [KJV]
        If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
        For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
          I have known for a while that Tabibito is not a real Christian. He overtly preaches works[-]salvation. You [Sparko] are a real Christian (as far as I can tell), but you are confused and somewhat watered-down. In contrast, Cow Poke basically agrees with me, but he just doesn't like being mean to anybody, and he dislikes me.
          For my part, I flatly reject your ‘Free Grace’ (FG)* understanding of the doctrine of salvation. If for this reason you judge me to be a be non-Christian, it is of little account to me.

          I do believe that there are genuine Christ-followers who do adhere to FG, but the system itself is fraught with problems that can potentially spiritually endanger persons who firmly subscribe to it.


          * Representative of this view are theologians such as Zane C. Hodges and Robert N. Wilkin. For those who might wish to familiarise themselves with the ‘Free Grace’ brand of theology, see the following link: <https://faithalone.org>.
          For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
            I can imagine that most, if not all, who put their trust in Christ for salvation have at least some intention of following him. That seems like a natural thing. However, having an intent to follow someone at one moment doesn't preclude the person from getting frustrated and losing that intent later — which could result in serious sin. We aren't saved from actually ceasing from sin. We certainly aren't saved from just having an initial intent, which could later change, and which might not even result in cessation of sin. Instead, why shouldn't we just use the condition that the Bible actually lists? The condition that the Bible lists is belief. If you start adding things — even if they are seemingly innocuous things that pretty much everyone may do anyway (such as an initial intent to follow) — you risk distorting God's word. At the very least, you allow your theology to become confused.
            set free.jpg... ...from sin.jpg
            Last edited by tabibito; 04-19-2019, 03:02 AM.
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              But preaching the word brings the power of God to grant repentance and faith, is my view. And repentance is a life-long virtue, said Spurgeon, as is faith ("I have kept the faith", said Paul). So there is room enough for our willing response.

              Blessings,
              Lee
              If God "grants" repentance and faith, it's not a "willing response". I agree that preaching the Word is an effectual call to repentance and faith; where I disagree is when the word preached is argued to be irresistible to some and utterly powerless for the rest.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                If God "grants" repentance and faith, it's not a "willing response". I agree that preaching the Word is an effectual call to repentance and faith; where I disagree is when the word preached is argued to be irresistible to some and utterly powerless for the rest.
                Kinda reminds me of a TULIP.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  If God "grants" repentance and faith, it's not a "willing response". I agree that preaching the Word is an effectual call to repentance and faith; where I disagree is when the word preached is argued to be irresistible to some and utterly powerless for the rest.
                  I believe that God's purpose is indeed that all repent, and that his word will accomplish its purpose (Isa. 55:11), that we may hope that God will grant repentance to everyone.

                  Originally posted by Cow Poke
                  Kinda reminds me of a TULIP.
                  Only I pronounce it TU-IP! No limited atonement...

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  Last edited by lee_merrill; 04-19-2019, 09:28 PM.
                  "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Kinda reminds me of a TULIP.
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    Only I pronounce it TU-IP! No limited atonement...
                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    There is a group that penetrates just about all denominations to which he seems to be an adherent.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      Salvation is by no means based on faith alone. Of course, you may be able to find a passage that says "saved by faith" without some other factor being stated to play a part. Good luck with the search. You could probably find one that says "justified by faith" without other factors being mentioned.
                      Flatly - the only thing that saves a person in the final analysis is God's loyalty, but you'll find plenty of passages to tell you that God is not necessarily loyal to people who are disloyal. You will also find at least one passage that says God will be loyal even when we are disloyal.

                      Jesus spoke plainly, directly, and for the most part confined himself to a one issue at a time (when he was teaching his disciples). For example -
                      Mark 3: 33B Τίς ἐστιν ἡ μήτηρ μου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί [μου]; 34 καὶ περιβλεψάμενος τοὺς περὶ αὐτὸν κύκλῳ καθημένους λέγει, Ἴδε ἡ μήτηρ μου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί μου. 35ὃς [γὰρ] ἂν ποιήσῃ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, οὗτος ἀδελφός μου καὶ ἀδελφὴ καὶ μήτηρ ἐστίν.
                      Which leaves the question to be answered: Who among the saved are NOT brothers of Christ?
                      When the rich young man asked "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" - Jesus did not say "only believe" - what did he say? And what does this indicate regarding those who have no inheritance in heaven? Do they perhaps INHERIT an eternal life somewhere else?
                      Does "not all who call me Lord, Lord will enter in" have something to say about what should be done? and here the contrast between calling (or saying) and confessing becomes readily apparent.

                      Does Paul contradict Jesus? No - he addresses complex issues without breaking them down piece by piece. He addresses people who are already familiar with the gospel. But his words, addressing complex issues, are easy to mangle so as to make them fit with a preferred viewpoint. That doesn't come as news - Peter said as much:
                      2 Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

                      It is not possible to properly understand Paul without the gospel as a foundation. But people who either disregard or don't know the gospel will insist on trying to teach from Paul's writings.
                      When Jesus was talking to the rich young ruler, His point was that one had to keep all of the commandments perfectly in order to achieve salvation by human merit. If you want to achieve salvation through human merit, then you would have to keep all of God's commandments perfectly. The problem is that we cannot keep all of God's commandments perfectly so receiving salvation cannot be based on our own efforts to please God or to obey God. The rich young ruler did not obey all of God's commandments. He could not keep the commandment that taught that one must love God with all of one's heart, mind, soul, strength, and so on.

                      According to Luke 18, the tax collector went home justified even though he did not do anything good. He realized that he was a sinner and he begged God for mercy.

                      Romans 4:1-4 teaches that Abraham was not justified by works. He was justified by faith. This passage also teaches that God justifies the ungodly. Even though a person is ungodly, God can still declare him righteous.

                      Galatians 2:16 teaches that we are justified by faith, not by works of the law.

                      James 2:24 says, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." This verse is not contradicting what I've been saying. James is using the word "justified" in the sense "shown to be righteous." In other words, James is saying that our good works give evidence of whether we are saved. Our good works do not cause us to be saved. Salvation is not received by our good works. We are not saved on the basis of our good works. Our good works are the evidence that we have been saved.

                      A right standing before God is received as soon as we trust Christ for our salvation. When God saves us, He changes us so that we will do good works, but those good works are not the basis upon which we are declared righteous. Good works are the sign that we have been born again.
                      Last edited by Hornet; 04-22-2019, 07:44 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Hornet View Post
                        When Jesus was talking to the rich young ruler, His point was that one had to keep all of the commandments perfectly in order to achieve salvation by human merit. If you want to achieve salvation through human merit, then you would have to keep all of God's commandments perfectly. The problem is that we cannot keep all of God's commandments perfectly so receiving salvation cannot be based on our own efforts to please God or to obey God. The rich young ruler did not obey all of God's commandments. He could not keep the commandment that taught that one must love God with all of one's heart, mind, soul, strength, and so on.
                        I believe a better way to frame the encounter between the Lord Jesus and the rich, young ruler recorded in the Synoptic Gospels is not so much in terms of perfect law-keeping in order to gain entrance into God’s kingdom, but competing allegiances. To whom/what was the rich, young ruler committed? As demonstrated by the mournful departure of the young man from the Lord and his failure to obey Jesus’ counsel to part with his possessions, his loyalty rested not upon God, but mammon. The impossibility of a dual allegiance to God and wealth is explicitly declared by Christ: ‘“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon”’ (Mt 6.24, RSV; cf. Lk 16.13).
                        Last edited by The Remonstrant; 04-23-2019, 07:17 PM.
                        For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                          I believe a better way to frame the encounter between the Lord Jesus and the rich, young ruler recorded in the Synoptic Gospels is not so much in terms of perfect law-keeping in order to gain entrance into God’s kingdom, but competing allegiances. To whom/what was the rich, young ruler committed? As demonstrated by the mournful departure of the young man from the Lord and his failure to obey Jesus’ counsel to part with his possessions, his loyalty rested not upon God, but mammon. The impossibility of a dual allegiance to God and wealth is explicitly declared by Christ: ‘“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon”’ (Mt 6.24, RSV; cf. Lk 16.13).
                          Mammon would of course stand for many things as analogy. The "no man can serve two masters" is broader ranging than mere considerations of wealth. Nor can it pass without notice that, at the first pass, Jesus did not include "sell all you have and give to the poor" in the requirements. That part came only after the second question, "What do I still lack?" - the answer is prefaced with "If you want to be perfect ..." and follows with "give up all you have AND FOLLOW ME." (Matt 19:20-21)
                          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                          .
                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                          Scripture before Tradition:
                          but that won't prevent others from
                          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                          of the right to call yourself Christian.

                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                            I believe a better way to frame the encounter between the Lord Jesus and the rich, young ruler recorded in the Synoptic Gospels is not so much in terms of perfect law-keeping in order to gain entrance into God’s kingdom, but competing allegiances. To whom/what was the rich, young ruler committed? As demonstrated by the mournful departure of the young man from the Lord and his failure to obey Jesus’ counsel to part with his possessions, his loyalty rested not upon God, but mammon. The impossibility of a dual allegiance to God and wealth is explicitly declared by Christ: ‘“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon”’ (Mt 6.24, RSV; cf. Lk 16.13).
                            Do you believe that there is a distinction between how a "declared righteous" status is received from God and the consequence of being born again? Is giving one's allegiance to God the means by which a "declared righteous" status is received or is it the consequence of being born again?

                            Comment


                            • Trying to find without success so far, a scriptural reference showing "declared righteous"
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                Trying to find without success so far, a scriptural reference showing "declared righteous"
                                At least the NET Bible translates Rom 5:1 with "declared righteous", instead of "justified". I'm thinking the two terms are identical in meaning.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X