ChristiansUnite Forums

Many of the threads in this forum eventually resolve back to a clash of doctrines, notably centered over one thing...that being the gift of salvation.

Some maintain that it is a free gift, and quote appropriate scriptures. Someone else comes along, and uses the words "free gift", or "free", or "gift", then proceed to show conditions to the acceptance of this "free gift", again quoting many scriptures.

For edification and enlightenment, please peruse the following:

Main Entry:   1free
Pronunciation:   'frE
Function:   adjective
Inflected Form(s):   fre·er; fre·est
Etymology:   Middle English, from Old English frEo; akin to Old High German frI free, Welsh rhydd, Sanskrit priya own, dear
1 a : having the legal and political rights of a citizen b : enjoying civil and political liberty <free citizens> c : enjoying political independence or freedom from outside domination d : enjoying personal freedom : not subject to the control or domination of another
2 a : not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being : choosing or capable of choosing for itself b : determined by the choice of the actor or performer <free actions> c : made, done, or given voluntarily or spontaneously
3 a : relieved from or lacking something unpleasant or burdensome <free from pain> <a speech free of political rhetoric> b : not bound, confined, or detained by force
4 a : having no trade restrictions b : not subject to government regulation c of foreign exchange : not subject to restriction or official control
5 a : having no obligations (as to work) or commitments <I'll be free this evening> b : not taken up with commitments or obligations <a free evening>
6 : having a scope not restricted by qualification <a free variable>
7 a (1) : not obstructed or impeded : CLEAR (2) : not being used or occupied <waved with his free hand> b : not hampered or restricted in its normal operation
8 a : not fastened <the free end of the rope> b : not confined to a particular position or place; also : not having a specific opponent to cover in football <a free safety> c : capable of moving or turning in any direction <a free particle> d : performed without apparatus <free tumbling> e : done with artificial aids (as pitons) used only for protection against falling and not for support <a free climb>
9 a : not parsimonious <free spending> b : OUTSPOKEN c : availing oneself of something without stint d : FRANK, OPEN e : overly familiar or forward in action or attitude f : LICENTIOUS
10 : not costing or charging anything
11 a (1) : not united with, attached to, combined with, or mixed with something else : SEPARATE <free ores> <a free surface of a bodily part> (2) : FREESTANDING <a free column> b : chemically uncombined <free oxygen> <free acids> c : not permanently attached but able to move about <a free electron in a metal> d : capable of being used alone as a meaningful linguistic form <the word hats is a free form> -- compare 5BOUND 7
12 a : not literal or exact <free translation> b : not restricted by or conforming to conventional forms <free skating>
13 : FAVORABLE -- used of a wind blowing from a direction more than six points from dead ahead
14 : not allowing slavery
15 : open to all comers
- free·ness  /-n&s/ noun
- for free : without charge
synonyms FREE, INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN, AUTONOMOUS mean not subject to the rule or control of another. FREE stresses the complete absence of external rule or condition and the full right to make all of one's own decisions <you're free to do as you like>. INDEPENDENT implies a standing alone; applied to a state it implies lack of connection with any other having power to interfere with its citizens, laws, or policies <the colony's struggle to become independent>. SOVEREIGN stresses the absence of a superior power and implies supremacy within a thing's own domain or sphere <separate and sovereign armed services>. AUTONOMOUS stresses independence in matters pertaining to self-government <in this denomination each congregation is regarded as autonomous>.

Main Entry:   1gift
Pronunciation:   'gift
Function:   noun
Etymology:   Middle English, from Old Norse, something given, talent; akin to Old English giefan to give
1 : a notable capacity, talent, or endowment
2 : something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation
3 : the act, right, or power of giving
synonyms GIFT, FACULTY, APTITUDE, BENT, TALENT, GENIUS, KNACK mean a special ability for doing something. GIFT often implies special favor by God or nature <the gift of singing beautifully>. FACULTY applies to an innate or less often acquired ability for a particular accomplishment or function <a faculty for remembering names>. APTITUDE implies a natural liking for some activity and the likelihood of success in it <a mechanical aptitude>. BENT is nearly equal to APTITUDE but it stresses inclination perhaps more than specific ability <a family with an artistic bent>. TALENT suggests a marked natural ability that needs to be developed <has enough talent to succeed>. GENIUS suggests impressive inborn creative ability <has no great genius for poetry>. KNACK implies a comparatively minor but special ability making for ease and dexterity in performance <the knack of getting along>.


What is the upshot? That those who use the words "free" and "gift", and then attach conditions to it's acceptance are semantically challenged, intellectually dishonest and spiritually hobbled by their own intellect.

What part of "FREE" and "GIFT" don't you understand?

 :)
Now you're talking.

A good summary and it is interesting you decide to go to man's definitions of terms rather than address the scriptures referenced in those posts.  Not only that, but it is not even clear what man you rely on or consider as authoritative for your definitions as this is important in determining any hidden biases.  

But the main issue you fail to recognize is how ethnocentric your analysis is.  If you step back for a moment you may be able to see how it focuses on the English definitions of English translations of mainly Greek terms.  In other languages you would not be able to make the same literal argument you make here and an argument that cannot cross the lines of various languages is not a logically sound one.  

Finally, as I show below the Greek terms translated as free in the English translations of the scriptures does not mean precisely the same as the literal spin you attempt to put on it in your analysis.


If you do an actual study of the word free in the New Testament you will see that it is only used 31 times some of which can be argued do not refer to salvation even indirectly.

You will also see that the Greek terms translated as free in the New Testament are;

eleurberoo meaning to liberate and not necessarily with out conditions. (Strongs 1659 used 18 times)

and

eleurberos meaning unrestrained again not a position that necessarily is with out conditions. (Strongs 1658 used 6 times)

and

charisma when refering to a gift (often translated as free gift) but more precisely meaning divine gratuity or deliverance from danger.  so we see the free is inserted by the translators, which is fine as long as one understands it is not a rigorous, literal meaning of the English word free. (Strongs 5486 appears only twice in Rom 5:15 and Rom 5:16)

The other five times the word "free" appears in the KJV of the New Testament it is inserted by the translators without the Greek even having a word present to be translated.

So it is clear the literal use of the strictest definition of the English word free is never intended or supportable by the Greek, it was just the best word the translators had for the purpose and therefore your careful but seriously English Anglo-Saxon biased analysis is not applicable.

Lastly, even in American English usage a gift can have conditions upon it to retain it and not change it from free to merited or earned.

If I give a child a helium balloon and tell them to hold on tight and don't let go there is suddenly a condition on their keeping the gift.  But these conditions do not make the gift any less free - ask any caring loving father or their child and they will tell you.

If I give a child a helium balloon and tell them to hold on tight and don't let go there is suddenly a condition on their keeping the gift.  But these conditions do not make the gift any less free - ask any caring loving father or their child and they will tell you.

In the case of a balloon, if the child lets go it is lost FOREVER! Not to mention the fact that a balloon, if kept, will lose air and be useless.  I'm guessing you don't have any kids? I've never known a parent to give a balloon as a gift!


What part of "FREE" and "GIFT" don't you understand?

Amen!  :D

Do you really assume that if you point out minor issues in an example you disprove a contention?  Just because you don't think of a balloon as a gift does not mean it is not one.

Ok what about a puppy that the parents tell the child to look after and not let out of the house, or a kitten, or a check they are told not to rip or lose,  etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Beside I don't know how rich you were growing up but I received a balloon from my parents as a gift - it went really well with the drum I got with the picture of the Quaker on the front.  :)

Do you really assume that if you point out minor issues in an example you disprove a contention?  


I'm trying to point out that Christ is the gift that keeps on giving! Much better than any balloon! :D

I agree but that does not mean that a gift cannot be free if there are conditions associated with accepting it, which was my point.

I thought you were trying to address my point - instead it appears we were arguing across each others points.  I accept your point and until I see an argument addressing mine I will assume you agree with it.   ;D

 
Thank you.
First, the scriptures referenced do not contain the words "free" or "gift". Secondly, they have been addressed before (by others), while the scriptures that do reference free and gift have been ignored by you. Tit for tat.
 
 

Ahhhh....an oblique character assination fallacy coupled with an intimation of unjustifiable bias. Rofl.
Merriam-Webster.....and if you care to delve more deeply, every major dictionary of the English language carries the same information, albeit in different orders. Are you accusing all dictionary publishers of hidden biases?


A perfect expression of what I meant when I said "semantically challenged". What you fail to recognize is that when speaking (or writing) in English to another, and using specific terms to explain something (such as free and gift), then one automatically chooses to abide by the defining terms of those words. If you want to converse in Greek, then speak in Greek. Besides, the analysis is "Christocentric", not ethno.

 

In other languages (some) the same literal argument can be made, and you fail to prove that it can't. Further, it is incumbent on you to prove your contention that "an argument that cannot cross the lives of various languages is not a logically sound one", which you fail to do so here.


Interesting spin. Let's just examine some usage.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
charisma
1) a favour with which one receives without any merit of his own
2) the gift of divine grace
3) the gift of faith, knowledge, holiness, virtue
4) the economy of divine grace, by which the pardon of sin and eternal salvation is appointed to sinners in consideration of the merits of Christ laid hold of by faith
5) grace or gifts denoting extraordinary powers, distinguishing certain Christians and enabling them to serve the church of Christ, the reception of which is due to the power of divine grace operating on
their souls by the Holy Spirit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rom 5:16 And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift:
dorema
1) a gift, bounty, benefaction
for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift (charisma) [is] of many offences unto justification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rom 5:17   For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift (dorea) of righteousness (dikaiosune: the state of one acceptable to God) shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.

Isn't it interesting that the context and usage of both free, and gift, is exactly (literally) as originally postulated?

Further, in the other instances involving the use of "free"
eleutheros
1) freeborn
a) in a civil sense, one who is not a slave
b) of one who ceases to be a slave, freed, manumitted
2) free, exempt, unrestrained, not bound by an obligation
3) in an ethical sense: free from the yoke of the Mosaic Law

the primary context and usage is parallel to definition 2 (free, exempt, unrestrained, not bound by an obligation.

 
Your following example, which I suppose is your attempt to prove this assertion, is interesting. And, as noted before in another thread, the difference would be two fold. First, it's "...interesting you decide to go to man's definitions of terms..." to make a point. At this juncture, it would appear to be somewhat hypocritical on your part. Nevertheless, consider....if I were a caring and loving father, like my Father in heaven is, then I would securely tie the balloon to the child so that there would be no chance of them letting go of it, thus assuring their continued happiness with the balloon I gave them.


Thanks for the instruction, but being a grandfather 14 times over, I don't need to ask either a child or a neophyte father how to give a balloon....or any other gift....which by definition, is freely given.

It is not free. Jesus Christ paid for it. We accept the gift when God's word calls us to faith through hearing and believing.

Is accepting the gift through believing a condition? Is hearing?  ???

Ollie

When one gives a gift there is usually a receiver of the gift.

To receive a gift one must accept it or he will not have it.

Giving a child a balloon means the child miust reach out and take it or the child can refuse it by not reaching out for it.

Is the reaching out and taking the gift a condition of receiving it and having it?

Is the refusal of the gift a condition of not receiving it and not having it?

Do conditions make it any less free since Christ already paid for the gift?

How does one accept a free gift without reaching out and taking it.

Perhaps we need to define "conditions".

Ollie

PART 1 OF 2


I didn't see you reference any scriptures at all I dug them up for myself.  And I have never been presented with them as an argum,ent for the other side of the issue otherwise I would have addressed them.  So I can hardly be accused of ignoring them.   As for other having addressed the scriptures my side of the discussion have offered you forget to mention that each time has been unsuccessful, so I would hardly rely on them to show prove your case unless you are willing to accept that level of failure.


Not at all I am just trying to get you to show your sources as I know from experience on forums that all kinds of misrepresentations are passed off as facts as if from reputable sources when in reality they are from biased sources.  I have no problem with Webster (though you claim that " every major dictionary of the English language carries the same information" is an unknowable fact) but this issue is important as will become clear later in your post when you rely on just such a biased source as I was originally concerned with.


Nonsense.  When discussing technical issues one is often required to go beyond the common usage of English terms.  No self respecting scientist discusses lightning based on Webster's definition or the one in common usage.  If you want to discuss interpretation of  scripture using only English then you do not understand the scriptures at all.  The scriptures are inerrant as written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in their original languages.  The scriptures in English were translated by men and are therefore not inerrant.  In fact since there is no one to one correspondence between the two languages the translators are forced to use dynamic equivalence and other mechanisms to get the meaning of the text across.  The minute you let the translators determine the meaning before one even gets to read the text you allow for bais to enter into the process.


You may think it is but if you want to argue the logical meaning of a text and require that discussion to occur in your language with your preconceived notions of what terms mean then, you are centering it on your own culture and ethnicity.


The burden of proof is not on me to show that the same literal argument can be made – that is your burden, unless of course there is no validity to my claim that logic requires arguments to cross line of language, which brings me to the next point.

You are right I did not prove that "an argument that cannot cross the lines of various languages is not a logically sound one" because I thought it was a well known fact to all (much like not proving the law of gravity to anyone).  Logic is a mathematical symbolic discipline it is not language dependent.  I could prove this symbolically though I do not have the means to transmit the symbols to the forum nor do I expect most readers here could follow them, so I will attempt to show what I mean through an example.

Suppose there is a language that has one word for snow.  Call it language A.  Suppose language B has two words for snow. Finally suppose language C has seven words for snow.  Now a text is written in language A and translated into language B and C by different translators.  The translators for language B end up with some instances of snow of type 1 and some of type 2 sprinkled through out the text due to dynamic equivalence.  Translators for language C end up with all seven varieties of snow mentioned in their translation for the same reason.  Readers of the text in language C come to the conclusion that there were all seven forms of snow present in the text and thus conclude something about the weather patterns necessary to promote those snows, while readers in language B do the same thing for the two forms of snow in their translation coming to a different conclusion about the weather patterns behind the scenes.  The truth is neither can be sure because there is not enough information contained in the original text and so any logical argument is hampered by the vagueness of the languages and their differences.  Logic is about concepts not the words used to express them, so it must be language independent.

END OF PART 1

PART 2


Again you do not provide your source for these definitions – clearly it is not Webster this time and so I am willing to guess that it is a Protestant theological dictionary and therefore biased in its definitions.

Be that as it may, even the definitions you pull from it prove nothing concerning the issue at hand.  The issue is not whether salvation is a gift as both sides say that it is, nor whether salvation is free as both sides say that it is, nor whether salvation can be merited as both sides say that it cannot be.  The issue is whether a free gift can have conditions placed on it and can those conditions be such as to not constitute meriting the gift thus rendering it other than free and other than a gift.  This analysis of Rom 5:15 does not address this final issue except where it assumes (based on the internal biases of the authors of the dictionary) that it is based on faith (alone) and is appointed.  Neither of which have anything to do with the literal Greek terms they pretend to be translating.


Again this addresses only the points shared in common by the two sides (that salvation is a gift and it is free) it does not address the issue of conditions that do not merit.  Such a condition is know to the authors as they require faith as a mean to accepting the free gift and they do so without considering that it in some way makes the gift not a gift or in anyway affects its freeness.


Again not discussing the issue of conditions or lack there of on the gift, only identifying it as a gift so it has little to offer in this discussion.


Actually the only reason you think it is exactly literally both free and a gift is because it is and both sides agree to that point.  But that is not what you originally postulated.  You claimed that if it were a gift and free that there could be no conditions on it.  None of the "usages" you choose for your analysis addressed that issue in the slightest.

I will tell you what is interesting about the last verse you referenced.  The phrase you included in brackets "[the free gift came]" is there because it does not exist in the original Greek at all.  There are no words in the text to correspond to them.  They were inserted by the authors to bring out the meaning of the text as they saw it.  This is the danger of arguing the meaning of a complex text without referring to the language it was originally written in.

END OF PART 2

PART 3


Again this is most likely from a Protestant theological dictionary and therefore reflecting their bias especially in the area you have bolded.  It would be interesting to see you come up with a similarly strong definition of the Greek term from a secular Greek dictionary.

Still even your strongest definition does little to bolster your argument as the conditions of following Christ as our shepherd are no more or less obligatory than our having faith in Him.  If you believe that faith is obligatory then you feel salvation is not a free gift either if you adhere rigorously to your own definition.


If you note I am not using a definition to prove something I am using an example and as we both know an example cannot be used to prove anything only to illustrate or illuminate to help someone else see your side of the discussion.  So no I am not being hypocritical, by requiring you to abandon man's definitions and focus on Christ's as you try to prove things while I use examples to help you understand things. but thanks for your concern.


Since you saw this answer posted before I suspect you saw the clear rebuttal to it which I provided at the time.  I would only tie the string of my latest gift to the child's wrist if it was my intention to take back the gift I had given earlier – that of free will.  But nice try at ducking the issue.


Do you really expect us to believe that every time you gave a child or grandchild a balloon you tied it to their wrist?  If you did at least admit you have seen other parents give their children balloons without tying it to their wrists.  When you saw this happen did you think to yourself there goes another child earning their toy balloon?  Or when you later saw a balloon floating against the ceiling did you think to yourself there must be another unworthy child who could not earn their balloon?  Nonsense!  

The bottom line is - Gifts can be given freely with conditions associated with them that do not constitute merit or earning of the gift.

END OF PART 3
END

Ollie said: Quote: "There's no such thing as a free lunch."
annonymous corporate business person

It's free to you and me. :)
When I get a gift for my daughter, I have to pay for it - but it's free to her (other than knowing and acknowledging that her father worked to pay for it, and showing love and gratitude in return...)
 :)

Yes it is free but there is still a condition on receiving even the gift of laughter - one must understand the humor in order to laugh at it.  Does this understanding mean one merits the laughter or earns it?  No!  Is is a condition of laughing?  Yes!

Michael, are you saying that God's love is conditional? What the gift of salvation means is that if someone gives us a gift and we don't open it, it is of no use to us. But that does NOT mean the gift wasn't free at all! If a person isn't saved by Jesus's death, then what was the point of it? Again, for the unmpteenth time, good works are a RESULT of the Holy Spirit, not the PRE-REQUISITE. Jesus said that none of is good. So how in the heck can we earn salvation, unless, of course, you don't believe Jesus's words.

No I am not.  God loves us all even those who evetually do not properly accept the free gift.  he loves us by He will miss us because those who do not properly accept the gift will be condemned to Hell.


My point exactly, or to extend the metaphor if we open the gift and use it and then later get bored with it and find other more worldly things more interesting and in the end abandon or lose the gift then when we are asked at the last judgement - Where is that salvation I gave you?  We will have to tell God we don't have it any more.  This is what happens in the story of the guests at the wedding who does not have the wedding robe and is cast out into the street with the dogs.  (Matt 22).  I don't know if you are aware of this but the custom in Israel was for the father who is throwing the wedding feast to provide the robes.  So the beggar (who was brought off the street when the other guests turned him down) had no excuse other than because he neglect this free gift and did not use it.  The wedding is of course the Church's marriage to the lamb (salvation), the father is of course our Father (God), the wedding robe is of course the robes we are given washed in Jesus blood (righteousness) and the beggar is us.


First we know a person isn't saved just by Jesus death or else everyone would be saved.  So Jesus death was to make salvation possible, it ushered in a new economy of salvation where we understand God wants mercy not sacrifice, that we recognize that trying to fulfill the letter of the law in a legalistic way cannot merit us salvation, instead we are to fulfill the spirit of the law through love as Jesus taught us.  This is true belief in Christ and it entails works of loving obedience.


And for the umpteenth time, yes good works are the fruit of the spirit working through us, but only as we allow it to happen and cooperate with His grace.  You have to be careful not to confuse grace and faith.  Grace precedes good works so good works cannot precede grace and/or be a prerequisite.  But faith does not necessarily precede good works (though sometimes it does as we continue to do good works after we belief of course).  A good example is repentance (or turning ones life around).  This must precede faith as one cannot believe in a savior until one realizes that one needs a savior and that cannot be until one recognizes that we are sinful and repent of that sin.  That repentance comes after grace and before faith and it is a good work (something good that we do through our own free will).


But this is a not literal statement that we can do no good becauseyou will note that he included Himself in that group.  The Son is a separate person from the Father in the Trinity and if only the Father is good (which is what a literal interpretation requires) then the Son is not good and we know that is not true.  So a strict literal interpretation is not what is intended.  So even though by nature we are not capable of good, once we are given the free grace of God we can do good.  The first thing we do when our free will begins to cooperate with this grace is to seek God and that in and of itself is a good thing.

 ;D

I'm so happy that Catholics are believers in Christ and that Christ's spirit is able to rest on them, that I don't mind that they think they have to work out their salvation with fear and trembling.  In actuality, Paul's whole point of the Free Gift in my interpretation is that Christ wanted us to come to Him in love which requires freedom.  This weekend I had to sit and listen to someone give me this spill about human behavior and why it is so.  Its sickening and disgusting the arguments that non-believers make in order to justify their behavior.  Not only that but the SPIRIT that non-believers have is almost death to the soul because it sounds so hopeless and hateful and yet they're convinced that they're so right.  Actually, that Bible says it is a dead soul and it feels like it because it is so filled with hate and hopelessness, it almost drowned me.  I'm sure if I didn't have Christ in my  heart it would have reached out and killed my spirit.  How miserable it is to sit next to and listen so someone that's so hurt and hateful, and angry and hopeless that suddenly it feels entirely like death.?  I'm not sure but that's what it feels like, but it was heartbraeking to have to listen to it and know that there's no way to fix it.  God will have to do that.  Their only hope is to find Christ which is the WAY the TRUTH and the LIFE.  I'm sorry but many Catholics have the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE living inside of them, whether or not they think they have to work out their salvation in fear and trembling.  When you deal with non-believers and then come to the Christian forum and start dealing with different denominations, then oh my gosh, our disagreements seem so petty.  I still have harsh words against folks that try to get power over other folks by using the word of God, and what not and having people living out a religion and not have the Way the Truth and the Life inside them is still worth arguing over.  The point is do we have Christ's life living inside of us?

Lets celebrate that we have Life.  I do believe in the Free Gift interpretation so that no one will boast.  But I also beleive in working out our salvation in fear and trembling because every single day of our lives we have choices.  I know we can't lose our salvation, but we can stop saving souls by getting our Word choked out of us by the cares of this world.  When we die to Christ we can bear much fruit or we can bear no fruit.  What does it say about folks that bare no fruit, they'll be chopped down and thrown into the fire.  Does it mean that they weren't "Saved"?  Yes, then it does mean that.  But you could go through the whole motions of church and learn a whole bunch and call upon the name of the Lord, and then have the Lord tell you "I never knew you." because you weren't saved.  So much then for a free gift if you didn't really take the gift.  In that case, hey, maybe there's is a point to working out your salvation in fear and trembling, which is making sure you actually reach out for the free gift.  The opportunity to do that is a free gift.  And all of the saved will never be perfect on this earth.  Christ's knows our hearts and our weaknesses.  One other thing I know is that Christ forgives us for not knowing everything or understanding everything.

Peace

Michael,
How can someone get bored with the Holy Spirit if is brings incredible joy, peace, love and thanksgiving inside him? Or haven't you felt the fruits of the spirit yet? Ever since i received the Holy Spirit, worldly pleaures ALWAYS cause conflict in me because the Holy Spirit CONVICTS me, which is what Jesus said it will do. Or don't you believe Him?

How can someone POSSIBLY lose their salvation? It's impossible! Salvation means that one's soul is saved. His soul is either saved or it's not! If he thinks he loses it, then that means that means his soul is NOT saved. Which is it? It's one or the other. That's what the term salvation means! It's just like someone saving us from death in a raging river, for example. He either saved us or we died.  He can't have both saved us and NOT saved us. It's impossible.

What you're saying, Michael, is that WE SAVE OURSELVES and that God and Jesus aren't as powerful as we are. In Romans, Paul said; "It does not therefore depend on our own desire or effort, but on God's mercy." I believe him, you do not. The notion that we can do ANYTHING without our Father is the sin of pride and comes from the devil. It also disagrees with Jesus's words when he said; "I can do nothing without my Father." You are giving credit for people's salvation to men, not God which is pride, and disobeying the first 2 commandments. God is MUCH STRONGER THAN WE ARE.  Whatever leads me to humility and not pride is from the Holy Spirit. Jesus gave COMPLETE credit for everything he did to God. You give it to men!!

I have felt the gifts of the Holy Spirit but so had those who are discussed in the scripture verses below and they lost their salvation.

2Pe 2:20  For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2Pe 2:21  For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
2Pe 2:22  But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.


Yes but sometimes as the above scriptures show people need more than conviction, sometimes they ignore the voice of the spirit and rebel.  Nothing in the verse to reference through your own paraphrasing rather than quoting it exactly says anything about the conviction of the spirit keeping you from falling away.

Why is that you refuse to quote God's word in your posts anyway?  Is it because you know if you lay your personal interpretations side by side with God's word everyone will see that you have gotten it wrong?



No those two options are not the only two just because you say they are.  Salvation is a process.  One can also truly be initially saved but not endure and not acheive final salvation which is determined at the last judgement.  Why else would God tell us that we must endure to be saved and be given the crown of eternal life or don't you believe Him?

Mat 24:13  But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Mar 13:13  And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Jam 1:12  Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.


Perhaps you would like to show me in scripture where salvation is defined as you say it is.  Or do you require people to take your word over God's for definitions too?


Your logic is once again flawed just like it was in your last analogy.  We can be saved from the raging river and truly be saved and yet ten minutes later slip right back in and drown.  So we lose our life that was saved at one time.  So no it is not impossible.  I suggest that you stop trying to develop your own logical approach to this (you are not any good at it) and read the verses from the word of God that people have referenced for your consideration.



No I am not saying that - where did I ever say anything like that.  You are just putting words in my mouth.  I have always said that God saves us through His grace that was made available through Christ's sacrifice on the cross and that we accept that free gift through a living faith one that cannot be separated from works.  What we are talking about is the acceptance part of the relationship.  If we could save ourselves then we would not have needed the fgift to be offered and that is not anything I have ever said was true.  


I do not know what translation you are quoting from or even if your are using one and not just quoting your own paraphrase but the word "depend" does not even exist in the New Testament (neither does the word "effort") so I cannot find the verse you are supposedly referencing to show you the true meaning of it.  If you are going to reference scripture to bolster your case t elast provide the verse reference so people can check if that verse really exists or that is says anythign like you claim it does.  I believe God's word but unfortunately I have learned not to believe yours.


I never said we could do anything without the Father - you are once again twisting my words to suit your purpose.  I said we had to have grace before we could even seek God.  But our works and our faith do come from us in the sense that our free will must cooperate with that grace.  We have a free will - God gave it to us - or don't you believe Him?  If we didn't have to cooperate with grace then we would all be saved - but we are not all saved - or don't you believe Him.


No I am not giving credit to men for our salvation and I have never said anything like that either.  You need to stop lying about people on this forum it is unchristian.

Michael,
I'm afraid i can no longer argue with someone who disagrees with so many of Jesus's words yet calls himself a Christian. Jesus said that his true sheep CANNOT be snatched out of his hand. You disagree with Him. Jesus said that many will call him 'Lord" yet will NOT enter the kingdom of heaven. He also said there will be many false prophets. A false prophet is not a true prophet. Jesus said, "My sheep listen to my voice."  Any "former" Christian who is obviously NO LONGER listening to Jesus's voice which would obviously not make them His true sheep, now would it? Otherwise, you're saying that Jesus is lying. If you truly want to be a Christian, Miachael, then you need to go to HIM and his words for eternal life, rather than to other human beings who have as many interpretations as there are people in the world. It is no coincidence that the catholic defenders on this forum don't understand what a persoanl rrelationship with christ means, disagree with so many of his words. You guys have been taught that in the church. It's not your fault but again, if you really want to know the truth, go to JESUS and HIS words!

Actually the Holy Spirit told us to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:" 1 Peter 3:15  But I understand if these Bibel verses I am referencing are hitting to close to home making you uncomfortable with your doctrine and need to avoid the issue.  I just hope someday you have th courage to read the word of God that people put in front of you.


No I disagree with you interpreting us walking awya as us being snatched from His hand.  The two are different and it is not in your power to make them the same.


Notice how conveniently you cut God's word into pieces, the verse goes on to say that those who will go to heaven are those who do the will of His Father.  This means that your denial of works playing a role in salvation is contrary to scripture.  I am sorry you do not believe Him to the point of actually delete His words to make a point.

Matt 7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.




Once again to prove your point you cut God's word into pieces so you can ignore the parts that don't agree with your doctrine.  This verse you reference goes on to say that His sheep follow Him.  It is not enough to hear His word anymore than the hears of the law will be justified, but you have to follow Him just as those who are doers of the law are justified (Rom 2:13).


John 10:27  My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:


I do go to His word - I am not the one making claims without supporting them with scriptures - you are.  I am not the one misrepresenting the other persons case - you are.  I am not the one quoting part of a verse when the rest doesn't support my case - you are.  I do not rely on other peoples interpretation I offer my own, you on the other hand are afraid to have you interpretations appear next to God's word.


You should try not to judge other peoples understandings and worry more about your own.

So what Jesus really meant according to you, Miachael, is that we CAN be snatched out of His hand? How can the Holy Spirit in  us drive out the Holy Spirit? Or do you think that we and the devil are stronger than God's spirit? You obviously put more faith in the devil than in God. There are 2 forces in this world, God and satan. We are either coming from one or the other. NONE of us is bigger than either one. What is God is God's and what is the devil's is the devil's. The devil is the ruler of our flesh and God is the ruler of our spirit. Once the Holy Spirit enters us, it has VICTORY over the devil in us. That is why NO ONE CAN SNATCH US OUT OF HIS HAND. But those who try to 'muster up" on their own without the Holy Spirit do NOT have the power of the holy Spirit to keep them in the vine. They, as Jesus said; "honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me." Do you even have a clue to whom Jesus is referring in those passages?

And what do you think the will of His father is, Michael? Jesus tells us what the work of God is; "to believe in the one He sent." That means that we believe that Jesus is telling us the truth because he IS the truth. Jesus did not say that a list of good works is the way to heaven. He said HE IS THE WAY TO HEAVEN, only HIM. Good works COME Him, not from our sinful nature!

Again, Michael, those who NO LONGER listen to His voice OR follow Him CANNOT be His true sheep, now can they?

Why do you insist on misrepresenting peoples positions?  Does it make you feel good to lie about them?  No I said we are not snatched out of His hand we are allowed to walk away because God gave us free will and does not want to force us to love Him as it would be a meaningless love.


The Holy Spirit in us does not drive us out it is out free will choice.  


Your mistake is in assuming there are only two forces at work here the Holy Spirit and Satan.  There is a third our free will - a gift from God - we can still use after we are saved.  That is why we still sin after we are saved.  if it was just the Spirit in us and Satan you would be right but that is not the case so you are wrong.


Yes He is saying that those who do not abide in Him will be fruitless because they do not have God's grace by which to accomplish good deeds.

But lets see how do we abide in Him?

John 15:10  If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Oh yes by keeping His commandments and I have shown you before that means fulfilling the spirit of the law through love.


Once again you base your doctrine on one verse in isolation.  Lets look at another to give us the full story instead of requiring God to express His entire plan and wisdom in one small verse.

1 John 3:23  And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

Now since the verse you reference John 6:29 and the verse I reference 1John 3:23 cannot contradict each other so the extra part in 1 John 3:23 (because it is true) must be an extension or supplement to John 6:29 so John 6:29 is true but not complete - so you formed your doctrine off of an incomplete statement - so your doctrine has to be wrong.


Yes but note this time you include the whole verse which includes following Him.  That is more than just faith that is works.  Following Him is required and it is works.  Faith alone does not save - so we have to accept the free gift through works too.

Just because a gift is freely given doesn't mean it's freely recieved.  If I put a stack of $100 bills on a table and have a sign that says "Take one bill if you want it".  That still requires the person recieving the money to take it. (S)he doesn't get the money unless (S)he takes it.  

Michael,
You do not realize that you are saying that our "free" choice is more powerful than the Holy Spirit. My you have a high opinion of your power! I believe God is MUCH more powerful than all of us. You obviously do not. This is the crux of our disagreements. I know my interpretation is correct because it's from humility, a fruit of the spirit. Yours is from the sin of pride. Until you receive the Holy Spirit, you're right, you do not have victory over the devil inside you and can therefore walk away form your beliefs at any time. No wonder you have such little faith that you're saved! Jesus said he would never abandon me and he never has. He brings me closer to Him everyday. You, on the other hand, take credit for becoming closer to God instead of giving it to the power of the Holy Spirit. That is again, the sin of pride. But I do not think you are as powerful as you would like to think you are. Sorry.

No - what you believe is that God gives us a gift (free will) but then in effect takes it back by fighting against that gift.  Do you really think God is that dishonest with His gifts?


You never offer interpretations (you seldom even offer scripture references though you claim to value scripture so much) so I cannot say whether they are from humility or not.

You are either flat out lying when you say i don't quote scripture, or your blind. One or the other. I quote JESUS's word all the time! You value the apostle's words more than Jesus because you rarely quote jesus. I don;t even think you know his words! You certainly know the catholic doctrine better than the gospels!

How did I say that God takes back the gift? It is you who are saying that when you say we can lose our salvation! Talk about twisting words! The way free will works is just like a parent/child relationship. It's a paradox. A parent creates an environment in which his children feel 'free" to make their own choices. They think they are acting freely when in reality, it is the parent who creating the environment which allows him to do so. We, as parents, can step in any time and change his options. That is the way God treats us. This interpretaion combines both the statements that Jesus makes that "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." (Another scriptural quote). "God hardens whom he wants to harden and has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy." (Another scriptural quote). "It does not, therefore, depend on man's own desire or effort, but on God's mercy." (Another scriptural quote). These appear to indicate that we have no free will. Yet jesus also says that we have no excuse which appears to say that we do have free will. Do these statements contradict each other? By your interpretation, they do because your interpretation EXCLUDES the first 3 quotes. My interpretation incorporates ALL those quotes. All any of us can do is respond out of our own understanding which is what the bible means by free will. But that does not mean that God is not in charge of whether we come to Him or not. All that means is that we are UNAWARE of God's intentions just like a child is unaware that his parents know what he is up to. God is in control of the universe, Michael, not you or me.

I have pointed out repeatedly (alomost in every post of yours where you either parphrase the word of God to make it fit your doctrine (which I don't count as quoting Jesus) or you make verses up out of thin air (again I don't count this as quoting Jesus) or you are using some non-standard translation which doesn't come close to accepted translation (which I have asked you about and you refuse to answer) or you quote snippets of verses without even listing the book and verse number so no one can verify where that came from (which I don't count as quoting Jesus).  The few times you do quote Him you don't attempt to offer the interpretation of the verse your doctrine relies on out of fear that it will be obvious to all who read it that the interpretation doesn't match the scriptures intent.


I very definitely value Jesus words most of the list of things one must do to accept the free gift (that I posted and you ignored) were Jesus' words.  In fact I often challenge people and indeed right now challenge anyone (including you Heidi - are oyu up to it - do you believe Him?) to prove the idea of salvation by faith alone from the words in red alone.

But as for valuing the Apostles words equally with Jesus' I would say I am guilty of that - because the words of the Apostles in the New Testament are not their own but those of the Holy Spirit who inspired them.


Its easy since they are based on the Gospels and their is no conflict or contradiction between them.


I was talking about the gift of free will that you imply God takes back by forcing us to stay in His hand.  God doesn't force us to do anything and if we try to leave He will not fight us to stay.  So we are not more powerful than God when we leave His hand and we are not being snatched away either.  We are leaving of our own free will and God is letting us go because He does not want us to love Him by force as that is not a true love.


You don't have a good understanding of free will if you think it is just that we "feel" we are free.  That would be a phony freedom and a phony gift is that the type of gifts you think God gives.  You are verging on deterministic predestination now and if that is the case then nothing we can do affects our salvation, we are either going to be saved or damned and NOTHING we do makes any difference, not faith , not works, not witnessing NOTHING.  If that is your doctrine it makes God out to be arbitrary and a tyrant.


I recognize the first two though  you were too lazy to provide the book and verse references.  They are John 6:44 and Rom 9:18 but this one is not one I can find in the scriptures as the words depend and effort do not exist in the New Testament.  I asked you about this in a previous post so you could direct me to the verse you claim to be quoting so I could explain its meaning in the context it is found, but you did not answer me.  This is typical of your ploys - quote badly mangled verses from some non-standard translation without providing the book and verse so the context cannot easily be researched so as to make it as hard as possible for others to review if your doctrine matches God's word.  If you want to reach people you should be doing everything possible to make it easy for people to check your doctrine against God's word not the reverse.



No they only contradict your interpretation of them based on your understanding of free will and your taking the verses out of context.


Sorry but to say that God give us free will butit is not really free (that He is pulling all the strings behind the scenes and we only think we are free) makes scripture and God out to be a liar.

Free will and predestination are a difficult and complex topic and one that deserves its own thread and if you want to start one I will be glad to participate, though I have seen you reason and doubt you are up to it.  But for now I will only summarize that man has free will and who is or is not predestine to be saved is a reflection of what God knows not what God does.  He knows all things in all times because to God there is not time, that is an artificial concept made up by man.  So God knows who will and will not properly accept the gift and thus determined (it only seems pre-determined to man who thinks inside of the time dimension) who will and will not be saved based on this knowledge.  Man is still free to act inside of the time dimension and do as he pleases.  God does play a role in hardening those who are unrepentantly going down the wrong path or helping those (showing mercy) who try and try but screw up so that they with His help eventually find their way.  That is all those verses are discussing and they fit in fine in my doctrine and interpretations.

I can't prove that salvation is by faith alone to someone who doesn't understand the things of the spirit just like i can't prove that Jesus exists to people whose eyes God has blinded, Michael. If you don't see the irrationality of deciding how many good works save a person, then you cannot understand why that is false. But I'll give it a stab. Romans, 8:1-2, "For there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus because the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death." it's right there, Michael! He said NOTHING about works. We are no longer condemned once we receive the Holy Spirit!!!!! Good works come FROM that! Romans, 7:15, "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do i do not do, but what i hate to do." Does that sound like a person who WANTS to sin? Paul admits right there that he CANNOT help himself. Romans, 7:24-25, "What a wrteched man I am! Who will reescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God-through Jesus christ our Lord!" Again, he said NOTHING about works and in fact, says the opposite; that he CANNOT do what is right but thanks be to Christ who saved him from "this body of death." Matthew, 17, "Do not think that i have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Then the note in my bible agrees with my interpretation which is that Jesus was angry at the Pharisees for obeying the letter of the law while ignoring it's spirit, which is what you do, Michael. Theydidn't undertsand that and neither do you. My bible goes on to explain that Jesus preaches a righteousness that comes only through faith in him and in his work.

Romans, 8:13-14, "For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if BY THE SPIRIT, you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because THOSE WHO ARE LED BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD ARE SONS OF GOD." That is my whole interpretation. It is the spirit that covers our sins, not our own effort, Miachael. It is the SPIRIT that saves us, not our own good works. It is the SPIRIT that gives us life that never goes away which makes it eternal. It is the SPIRIT inside of us that is the kingdom of heaven within us. You truly do need to read the whole book of romans because paul talks about being saved by the spirit all over the place. Without that knowledge, you will misunderstand where good works come from and why they come.

 

Oh so you only witness to people who are already saved in your eyes?  Why bother they are already saved?  Do you only preach to the choir too?   ;D ;D ;D


I hope you mean you will try to explain the "irrationality of deciding how many good works save a person" (which I already accept by the way because I do not claim that - that is just your misrepresentation of my doctrine - in other words your lies about me).  I do not hope that you mean you are trying to prove salvation by faith alone from the words in red because you start out with a reference to Romans which is by Paul and is not the words in red.


First, to be in Christ one must be a true believer and that entails following Christ which is of course works.  We know this because Christ tells us how to abide in Him.

John 15:10  If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Second, this is not speaking against works of love as it clearly speaks of the law of the spirit of life (which is fulfilling the spirit of the law through love).  We know this because earlier in this same letter Paul teaches that very point.  Apparently you missed that point as it laid the ground work so you could properly understand this verse.

Rom 7:6  But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Paul illuminates this further in 2 Cor 3:6

2 Cor 3:6  Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

and back in Romans once again Paul teaches just what satisfies the spirit of the law.

Rom 13:8  Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:9  For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Rom 13:10  Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Do you know what it means when God says He desires mercy not sacrifice?

Matt 12:7  But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

It means we are to fulfill the spirit or intent of the law not the letter.

Again it is not wise to build a doctrine on one verse as it never tells the whole story.  To get the whole story we need to look at the other teachings of Paul and the rest of the writers of the scriptures and review them together.  


Yes as Christians we are aided by the Holy Spirit within us to resist, but there is still a war going on between our spiritual selves and out carnal selves.  That is why we still sin.  But that does not excuse us from these sins, we must still repent of them and confess them.

1 John 1:9  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

So if because of our free will we are still responsible for you sins, the we are also responsible in part (through our free will cooperating with grace) for our good works too.


Your verse reference is wrong it is not Matt 17 it is Matt 5:17.  Once again you interpret the verse in isolation and out of context hiding the true meaning.

Look at the continuation of the story to see

Matt 7:12  Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Where the spirit and intent of the law is revealed and it is stated that we can fulfill the law (just as Paul teaches and I showed above) through works of love.


WHAT?  I have been saying all along that we have to fulfill the spirit of the law through love and now you want to accuse me of saying we have to fulfill the letter of the law?  You really have to stop lying about my position.


I don't care what the comments in your Bible (which you have yet had the courage to identify the translation used) says about your strange doctrine.  Show me in scripture where it says faith alone.  You cannot do it except by pulling verse out of context or interpreting them in isolation.


Yes through the help of the Holy Spirit we mortify the deeds of the flesh and if we do that we live.  This is talking about works, our works, works we do with by cooperating with grace, and because we do these works, as a loving obedience to the Spirit, we properly accept the free gift an thus have life, we are saved.  This verse supports my doctrine not yours, where is faith alone in that verse?


I have read Romans completely many times.  You need to reread it and put your mind around the entire book at once instead of interpreting verses in isolation.  I agree we are saved by the Spirit as longas we cooperate with it and the grace God gives us.  But Paul also makes this clear in Romans speaking at length about the necessity of works and fulfilling the spirit of the law not the letter just as we both see Jesus teaching to the Pharisees.  Which is what I have been saying all along.

Oh, so I finally quote words OTHER than the ones in red and you chastize me for quoting the rest of scripture? I'm quoting the words you're more familiar with than Jesus's words because you have made it clear that you don't believe his words, which is PRECISELY why I'm using Paul's words to back Christ's words up!

Are you interested in listening to Paul's words or just attacking me? If so, I turst that you will discuss Paul's words instead of replacing a discussion with an attack.

Michael, when you finally stop concentrating of WORKS you will begin to do them. Most of my life is spent volunteering and giving my money away. But funny thing, I don't concentrate on works. My works come from the incredible joy of my salvation and thankfulness that I am no longer condemned. Sadly, you do not have that knowledge. You do what the Muslims do; hope and pray that one day they will be good enough to get into heaven. I already have heaven inside of me in the form of the Holy Spirit and it is GLORIOUS! That's why I'm so thankful. I feel sorry for you that you don'thave that. it's a wonderful thing. But i keep witnessing precisely because i don't know whom God is calling and whom He is not. But belief comes from the Holy Spiit inside of a person and I have no power over who has received it and who has not. There comes a point when I realize how resistant some people are to the Holy Spirit and how fultile it is to keep trying to convince them of things they can't see. that's when jesus said we are throwing pearls to swine. But you probably don't believe Him there either.

We are "AIDED" by the Holy Spirit? just a little help from God and the rest comes from OUR power? Again, Jesus said; "I can do nothing without my father." I will repeat; "I can do nothing without my father." I'll say it one more time, Michael, "I can do nothing without my father,' I;m sorry that you don't believe Him there either.

You are interpreting MT., 5:17 exactly the way my bible says the Pharisees interpret it. The very fact that it mattered to you if i got the verse number right clearly shows that you don't understand the SPIRIT of the law, only the letter which was the point of this whole passage! Jesus also says in that passage to be as perfect as the Pharisees but then also says that with man it is impossible to be perfect but with God, all things are possible. He also says that the Phriasees will not enter heaven. What do you think makes us perfect before God, Michael? Us or Christ's blood?

I have shown you that we are saved PURELY by Christ's death through the passage I quoted to you in Romans 8. "For there is NOW NO CONDEMNATION for those who are in Christ jesus..." Do you know what condemnation means, Michael? You first have to understand what that means before you can understand salvation. Salvation is the opposite of condemnation. It is the remdy for it! That phrase says it all. So does Jesus's when he said that ternal life is knowing Christ. There is NOTHING in either of those phrases about works. ZERO. But you don't believe him, so I'm showing you more. But i now clearly see that you don't believe jesus and there is honestly nothing i can do to open your eyes. Only God can do that. Until He does, this conversation is going nowhere.

It's funny how when you want to attack my motives or intentions you make it a point not to quote what I said because then anyone could see that you are lying about what I said.

Here is what I said - I hope you mean you will try to explain the "irrationality of deciding how many good works save a person" (which I already accept by the way because I do not claim that - that is just your misrepresentation of my doctrine - in other words your lies about me).  I do not hope that you mean you are trying to prove salvation by faith alone from the words in red because you start out with a reference to Romans which is by Paul and is not the words in red.

By that I meant I hoped you intent wasn't to rise to my challenge of proving that salvation is by faith alone fromt he words in red because you were starting out all wrong - quoting from Paul as you were.

I suspected you were trying to prove that it was irrational to believe that you could decide how many good works save a person (an irrationality which I already accepted - but then I never claim you could - that claim was just more of your misrepresenting my position).


That is once again a false witness of my position.  Are you ever going to stop lying about what I say and actually respond to any of the proofs and scriptures I have referenced that express my point?


If God is calling and they can't refuse because they don't really have a free will (they just think they do) then witnessing makes no difference.  You doctrine is no logical and is not supported by scripture.

If we have no free will then Adam and Eve and everyone else who sinned had to sin.  In your doctrinal view of the world they had no choice.  In your doctrinal view of the world it was actually God sinning through them.  You make God out to be the author of sin.


No belief comes from grace and our free will cooperating with it.


I do believe that people can be resistant, but I believe it is them who are being resistant, not God being resistant through them to His own word.  Your doctrine is not even self consistent.


Note it says we can do nothing without the Father.  It does not say that we can do nothing once we have the Father.
Without the grace from the Father we can do nothing.  But the flip side is when we get that grace from the Father then we can do something.  When we cooperate with grace we can accomplish things.


Actually he says that our righteousness must exceed the Pharisees, and that is possible.

The Pharisees tried to live to the letter of the law which of course they could not do, so they could not fulfill the entire law as they would slip in one point and if you fail to do one point ofthe law you fail to do the whole law.

But Christ taught us a way to fulfill the entire law, by fulfilling the spirit of the law through love.

Mat 7:12  Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

So our righteousness can exceed that of the Pharisees.


No that verse does not say that - you are mixing up verses and context again because you are not using a Bible and out of pride are relying on your memory, which so far has let you down badly.


Neither, Christ's sacrifice infuses us with righteousness and makes the free gift available.  It is up to us to respond to the grace that comes from God to accept the free gift through faith and works.  Then we must endure and at the end have our works tried by fire so those which are not perfect are burnt away.  If your doctrine was correct there would be no need for the trial by fire mentioned in 1 Cor 3 :11-15

1Co 3:11  For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1Co 3:12  Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
1Co 3:13  Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
1Co 3:14  If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
1Co 3:15  If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

If we were made perfect by His blood there would be nothing to burn away and we would suffer no loss.  Your doctrine does not agree with scripture once again.


No you did not!  Your interpretation was flawed and I showed you the proper interpretation of that verse at the same time clearly pointing out where yours was wrong and yet you never addressed my interpretation.  Why is that - why do you never address the answers given to you?  All you can do is parrot back the same thing you said before.  Is it because you have no answer to proper interpretation.


Yes I understand condemnation.


You can't see anythign in those verses about works because you have been indoctrinated not to.  What does it mean to you to know Him?  I answered the question for you - now answer it for me.  Can you know Him with out knowing His message?  Can you truly know His message and not follow it?  Can you truly believe in Him and not follow Him?

Michael,

YOU ARE WRONG. YOU ARE INCORRECT.  YOUR OWN PRIDE has mislead you.

The Lord tells us that neither height nor depth nor this nor that will keep grasp you out of the hands of Jesus once the Father gives them to him.  You think that YOUR hand is stronger than the hand of Jesus WHO loves you???  You think your own hand can separate you from the Love of God.  You think you can rip yourself out of the hand of Christ??  Then you have a pride issue.

You belong to Christ and you aren't going anywhere.  

peace

No I am sorry you are wrong.

Once Saved Always Saved is an incorrect doctrine.

If you read the whole thread you will see I have offered ample proof to that fact.  To save me having to repost them I would ask you to go back and do the reading and respond to those posts I made which include the verses proving we can lose our salvation.  If you can show me where I am incorrectly interpreting the scripture I would like to see it.


Please reference verses when you want to claim the scriptures say something.

I assume you are referring to the following:

Rom 8:39  Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This says that God will always love us.  He will love us but he will miss us if we choose to leave Him.  


It is not pride to realize that God doesn't want us to be forced to love Him, that is not true love, so there is no way He is going to force us to stay if we don't want to.

I don't have to be stronger than God because He is not going to resist my leaving if I decide I want to go.  He will protect me from being dragged away by someone else, but He is not going to kidnap me.

Micheal,

You want the Lord, its obvioius to me because all you do is spend your time talking about the Love of your life.  That Lord has stated that He wants you.  What's the problem?  You think if Satan and his principalities comes along and hands you a problem that is beyond your hardest dreams and you sleep with some woman named Bathsheba and kill off her husband and then lie about it, or something of that nature going to separate you from the love of Christ?

Micheal,  You're missing the whole point.  Those that seek will find.  you've sought, you've found.  Christ will in no wise cast you out even if you sin, you will miss Christ and you will come back.  You want each other. You were made for each other.  He has loved you with an everlasting love.  You belong to Him.  You're correct in what you wrote above, but that interpretation is for folks that really are seeking God with their lips and their hearts are far from him.  Are you saying you have saught God with your lips and your heart isn't in it?

If you heart is in it, and God's heart is in it, and He has loved you with an everlasting love, do you think He's going to cast you out.  On what grounds will He cast you out.  Do you think the cross doesn't cover what you might do wrong.  

It were one thing if your heart wasn't in it.  Is your heart in it?

Maybe you haven't understood the concept of love.

 :)

Think if this.  The Bride is in love with her groom.  The groom is in love with His bride.  Jesus doesn't like divorce.  Life is hard and there will be problems.  Nobody is perfect.  And yet for those that truly love, Jesus wont let them go.

Not that Jesus is going to kidnap you.  You love the Lord.  You seek to please Him.  You can't spend a day without thinking about Him.  Storms will come and there's bound to come some trouble.  If your heart is in it, then you're saved.  That's "once saved always saved doctrine"

The problem with once saved always saved doctrine is that folks heart isn't in it.  

You know, I know so many people that are calling themselves Christians because they want to have their territry enlarged, like Jabez did.  They call themselves Christians because they want to look good in society.  They call themselves Christians for whatever selfish benefit that calling themselves a Christian can offer.  And they keep the parts of Christianity that they want to keep.  They seek out doctrines that feel good to their ears.  They talk about God all the time because it makes them feel important.  They cast out demons and heal the sick in Christ's name.  They run around doing all sorts of stuff, feeding the poor and doing whatever suits their fancy--but all it is about is themselves.  It never was about Christ and it never was about love.  It was about the honor of men and being part of a croud and promises of getting rich quick and all it boiled down to  was selfish motives.  Then they wake up one day realize that Christianity no longer is benefiting their selfish motives and they leave the church.  Were they ever saved?  Did they ever realize they weren't saved?  Well, if you're in it for selfish motives maybe not because they probably didn't sit around in the secret quiet place listening for God to talk to them.  And if they did, they were probably busy sending up petitions that were all directly related to selfishness.  Never allowing the spirit of Christ to come in and do the work required for a person to love.  That's our free will.

But in your case Michael, I just have this strong feeling that never was the case with you.  So, I think that You can't rip yourself out of the hand of Christ.  You love Him.  He loves You.  The Father promised Jesus He wouldn't lose any of the loved ones that God gives to Him.  You belong to Christ, don't you??

There are those who can spend their whole life in a society that being called Christian benefits their own selfish motives.  They never leave the church.  Are they saved?

I wish it worked that way but the scriptures tell us it doesn't.  There are multiple examples of those who are truly saved losing that salvation.

You would have seen them if you went back and read my previous posts like I asked you to but you did not want to put out the effort so I will post one again.

2Pe 2:20  For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2Pe 2:21  For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
2Pe 2:22  But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Here we see someone who is saved, because they escaped the pollutions of this world, they have knowledge of Jesus which is eternal life (John 17:3), they are righteous, and they are compared to be washed (baptized - washed in His blood).   Yet they still turn from His commandment and end up in a worse state then when they started.  What is worse than being as you were before you were saved?  Being damned with no chance for redemption.


These people who do works for these motives are not doing works of love to fulfill the spirit of the law in response to the free gift they are doing works of the letter of the law trying to merit salvation - they are not true Christians.


Yes, and I hope I never choose this world over Jesus, but I sin and fall short all the time, I just have always been quick to repent and seek forgiveness so far.  But I know I must work out my salvation with fear and trembling (Phi 2:12) and endure to the end to be saved. (Matt 10:22 and Matt 24:13).

One note the reference to Him keeping all the ones the Father gave Him should not be taken out of context to apply to all believers in all times - it was specific to those of His disciples when He was on earth, so it does not support OSAS.

Sweet Sweet Michael,

Why didn't you READ the entire chapter?  Are  you again taking scriptures out of context to prove that Jesus and you could be parted one day.  Unless you are a false teacher, who is out to get gain for yourself by learning the coming to the knowledge of Christ because by teaching it you can get gain, then that scripture doesn't refer to you.  That scripture is referring to the folks that learn all about the Bible so they can teach it so they can get gain.  Their eyes are full of adultry  . . . .  I'm posting the entire chapter and you will clearly see that Peter is referring to these false teachers that were never saved.  Clearly these people came to the knowledge of the Lord for their own selfish motives and they were never saved.    Clearly these guys know the right way because they're teaching it, but do they care to follow their teachings.  Maybe for long enough to get he benefit they need to be considered teachers.  Please read it in context of exactly who Peter is talking about.

2 Peter 2


False Teachers and Their Destruction

1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[1] putting them into gloomy dungeons[2] to be held for judgment; 5if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)-- 9if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.[3] 10This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature[4] and despise authority.
11Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. 12But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
13They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.[5] 14With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed--an accursed brood! 15They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. 16But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey--a beast without speech--who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness.
17These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity--for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. 20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit,"[6] and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."

 :)  I'm sorry I called you sweet.  That bruses some men's egos.  But, you just come across in your posts as someone that's very sweet and understanding...albeit one that just wont budge on his feelings of insecurity in Christ.  That's okay.  Christ is able to keep you whether or not you are able to completely trust in His ability to keep you.

Peace

I don't mind being called sweet I have been called a lot worse.

I have read the entire chapter and did go back and read it again this time as you asked and you make an interesting point.  But it is not necessary that they were not saved just because they were false teachers.  They could have been true teachers who went astray, even you would admit this possibility is easier that losing ones salvation.

If you do not think that these false teachers were at one time saved before they became false teachers, please answer these questions so I can understand how these points are possible.

How could they have been escaped the pollutions of this world and not been saved?

How could they have known Jesus without being saved?

How could they be righteous and not be saved?


How could they end up worse than when they started if they we never saved?  

What is worse then never being saved?

Michael,

First you have to forgive my harsh speech.  Sometimes I wish I were a little more poetic and a lot more fluent in "nice speech" so my words wont seem offensive.  I love to debate.

You have an interesting point.  Even when you read about the profit and the donkey, don't you sometimes wonder who's servant he was.

BRB

I hesitate to enter here, since ya'll are having a very pleasant interchange, but I will try to keep it that way, if you'll allow.

Michael, you said:

Jhn 17:20   Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

I believe that this is pretty inclusive of all believers, and not just those specific disciples, or the only those taught by those disciples.

The "kai pistueo", or "them also which shall believe", is future, active, participle, indicative of a cumulative force of future believers.  

In addition to that, to apply the principle of exclusivity in this instance would also mean application of the same principle to just about everything Jesus spoke to His disciples....which would basically mean that we would then be able to say "it doesn't apply to me"....which in turn would mean that we don't have a cross to pick up...only His disciples.

If you don't mind, I'd like to later make comment on the Peter verses you question.

Don't worry about offending me the only way you can do that is to deny our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and I know you would not do that.

The following refers to 2 Peter 2:20-22


That part of the verse does not describe escaping the drudgery and hardships of everyday life – it describes the pollution of sin, the routine falling to temptations.  It is these pollutions that these false teachers had escaped.  How could they have done so if not saved?


No the verse did not say that they just knew of Him - they knew Him as in:

John 17:3  And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

How could they KNOW Christ and not be saved?


Yet the verse calls them righteous.  That means they must have had the righteousness of Jesus infused into them through accepting Him as their savior.

How could they do that without being saved?


So it is worse off to have heard the Gospel and rejected it than to have not heard it?  How is that possible?  If they heard it and rejected it are they not able to change their mind?  Is that not a better position to be in than to have never even heard the Gospel?

NO! This being worse off afterwards referes to being unsaved, followed by saved, followed by being unsaved again and not having a chance to be resaved.

Heb 6:6  If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.


No, what is worse is being saved and then losing that salvation with no way to regain it.  At least if you were never saved you still have a chance to be saved.



Thank you for your best guess but it just doesn't seem to be a proper interpretation of what this verse says.


But it is not just this scripture alone.  There are many others plus the idea that salvation is a process, it is a race to be run, that we must endure, that we must work out our salvation, that works as well as faith must be used to accept the gift (and where works are they can cease).  I understand that to be consistent those who espouse faith alone must espouse once saved always saved but that only makes it clearer to me that we can lose our salvation.