I've been recently drowning in neverending streams of videos on a side of preachers and faith on YouTube to learn more about the truth and instead gotten myself to be confused on whether Once Saved Always Saved or Calvanism is the right one to go about to uphold and believe. Because parts of both arguments make sense whenever I pass a comment in reply to the one I'd have just read before above I thought concluded or confirmed my last thoughts but they're both very smart(?) in reasoning on the counterargumentative stance and I can't discern from the two.
They've simultaneously called each other out on their beliefs that "that's of the devil" and it's not my desire to want to be on the wrong path ending up in the lake of fire from being deceived by Satan's wolf in sheep's clothing.
I know I need to indulge in the word of God as first priority but I chose to research on some matters (alot of matters way before coming onto this such as the right bible translation which I'm having trouble with finding the right one since I read all bibles are corrupted from the original message. Now I know why they say Satan is so good at twisting it up; it wasn't an exaggeration and I feel like I'm always fooled yet still am thankful for my eyes being opened even just a little) when I came across the strings of videos on youtube with all the comments and arguments attached below the video but I'm just lead into confusion more and more, day by day, hour by hour.
The one time salvation bit where only the blood of Christ who died for our sins and already paid in full and how no one man can take it away and the calvanist bit where it implies there needs to be evidence of fruit shown from believing in Jesus have scriptures pertaining to/backing up both sides of the claim is why I'm confused. Even though people defending the OSAS argue in sin man is still saved because of our title of being a sinner in the flesh the salvation being received and sealed through a one time blood of Jesus on the cross makes complete sense. I mean even the first part where man is never not going to be in sin no matter what thus that makes being still a sinner even when saved makes sense opposed to the other argument in calvanism where it's stated you can't be saved in that you're going to go to heaven in just that alone. I know calvanism supports good fruit as evident from salvation but I'm not trying to see which is correct so I can either choose to not produce good fruit or produce good fruit; I know spirit of the believer automatically yields good results but.. (At this point I don't really get it at all; it's how confused I am) I'm trying to seek the concrete truth so I'm furthermore not mixed up on anything before going on.
Please can my brothers and sisters here help me in this guild if you have any information or powerful discerning spirit I'm trying to learn some of these things I'm confused about. I know I'm flawed in my understandings therefore I'm at total ease with learning and humbling myself to the true knowledge of a right believer in leading me down the right path. Much thanks and God Bless!
If you'll allow me to shed some important light on a very important matter...
Calvinists and Arminians, and everyone in-between, tend to label others as "heretics" or holding to doctrines "of the Devil". Both sides of the debate will go so far as to say that the other side isn't saved. It's a classic case of human arrogance and pride, or simply not understanding the Gospel.
There are several subjects of study in Christian theology. Their names are: Theology Proper (study of God), Doctrines of the Scriptures (inerrancy, infallibility, reliability of the Bible), Angelology (the study of angels and demons), Anthropology and Harmartiology (the study of man and sin), Christology (the study of Jesus), Soteriology (the study of salvation), Pneumatology (the study of the Holy Spirit), Ecclesiology (the study of the Church), and Eschatology (the study of the end times).
There are three circles, if you will, in Christian theology. These circles are Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary. Generally, people put the above categories into one of the three circles. These circles demonstrate the importance the doctrines have in the faith.
Primary: Theology Proper, Anthropology and Harmartiology, Christology, and some Soteriology
Secondary: Doctrines of the Scriptures, Pneumatology, and some Soteriology
Tertiary: Angelology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology
Now of course, individual Christians will list certain categories in other circles. This is where the problem is, and why the debate over something such as Eschatology is so fierce. But a lot of people will generally agree to the way I've listed them. When we look at Jesus' teachings and the book of Acts, we really find the central doctrines, the core of what Christianity is. When you look at the Gospels and Acts, you will notice that most of the discussion is centered on the Kingdom of God, sin and repentance, Jesus' death, Jesus' resurrection, and salvation.
This is important. It is important because it demonstrates what the apostles thought was most important. Additionally, the early creeds helped to demonstrate what was most important. That is, who Jesus is (God), what Jesus did (died for your sin and the sin of others, and was resurrected--the resurrection is the most important doctrine in Christianity), what Jesus will do (He will return), what man is and why man needs Jesus (man is made in the Image of God, man is sinful, man needs redeemed).
You will find a lot of debate in Christianity. But unless someone is claiming something like "Jesus didn't rise from the dead", or "Jesus didn't really die for sin", salvation is not threatened. It's not threatened because such things as eschatology and certain nuances of soteriology may be important, but they're not foundational to salvation or to the truth of Christian faith. You don't have to believe that the Bible is inerrant. You can believe in evolution.
What is most important to Christian faith and practice is this: You are a sinner who deserves death and you are an enemy of God, Jesus lived a perfect life and died in your place for your sins, that you might live and be a friend of God, Jesus was resurrected to show that eternal life will be granted to you and that His payment for your sin was accepted by the Father, and that Jesus will return to restore the world and to resurrect believers into glorified, physical bodies, that they might live in communion with God forever and ever. That is the Gospel.
So the debate between Calvinists and Arminians, while important, isn't near as important as the Gospel. So when Calvinists and Arminians condemn each other to hell, what they're really doing is putting their theological differences before the Gospel. They either don't understand what the heart of the Gospel is or they are proud and demand that they have their way when it comes to theology.
Do not be afraid. If you love Jesus and you trust in His sacrifice, recognizing that you are a sinner in need of God's grace, and that Jesus came back from the dead, you will be saved. Can you lose that salvation? If somebody leaves the faith, were they ever really saved to begin with?
Here's what is most important: Always put your faith in Jesus to the very end.
Amen, sister. Theology matters; truth matters. I believe that. I think my brothers and sisters do, too. I think we disagree, sure, but we should be able to do so in a loving way. That can be a difficult thing for sure, as I can say from my own experience, whether ways I've been treated by my brothers and sisters or ways I have treated my brothers and sisters. Glad you popped in to mention that to this brother (and hopefully, the rest of us can take from what you say as well).
Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2015 5:29 pm
Scarlet_Teardrops
Thank you for reminding, of the real plain reason why Jesus died on the cross. It hit me in the heart and simply, that we should seek out His presence to the best of our ability rather than dissecting with the knowledge that's ingrained in our minds. I know in the end, Jesus is peace and love and has forgiven all of everyone's sin by dying the way He did for each and every all of us. I was and am afraid, even when in the back of my mind I know it's Jesus and without Him being there in the first place, representing what He's did from all-saving grace, nothing blooms and stands in its place upright the way we think it would, but that it not even matching up to the image of His solid love being formed on the cross anyway. Argh, I cried again.. I agree I have to put my entire faith in Jesus or I wouldn't be in touch with His Being/spirit at all. I'm getting so caught up in the mix with the end times gib that I'm not relying on Him as my eternal savior. He can be my One and Only--nothing else is needed. Thank you for opening up the eyes of my heart. Seek out His Presence in me/feel his love, and never ever lose it! This is faith and seeking His love because you believe.
mkjhgfdrsetfyguhm
Offline
cristobela Vice Captain
Offline
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 4:30 am
Micah Seven Eighteen
cristobela
Micah Seven Eighteen
eastern youth
cristobela
Thank you for placing me on the right page, for sure I think it's easier the way you clear-grasp explained and showed for me to be able to fully comprehend with quotes from the bible and their right definitions presented in whole truth of light. I feel I'm starting to renew my faith in Him and yours seems to be the honest answer that has no added confusion that I may trust and move forward with. I have the page of your source bookmarked. Thanks so much. I'll be going off on this foundation to strengthen the bond with Him that gives no doubt as to whether I have the truth. I'm so content!
Also much thanks for clearing out the other problem of trouble finding a translation. First I thought just KJV, and had looked into it before that it's derived from the textus receptus but people use strong's concordance and interlinear to study alongside it as well. This seems like it's what I need to do to completely understand the gospel. I'm so relieved now thanks for the testimony and reply!
I'm sorry you feel that way. You should be careful to accept what seems to be strong argumentation so quickly. She may have written a lot, but there isn't much substance behind it. She hasn't addressed the issue in Romans 8 by any means: _
Romans 8:28-30
28And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. _
This text clearly shows that those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of Jesus Christ. If someone doesn't become conformed to the image of Jesus, they must not be one of the ones talked about here. Those who were predestined to become conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, He also called, and those whom He called, He also justified.
She might say that someone can be called and not justified, but the text says the opposite of what she says. She's jumping outside of the context of the text itself and going to another text with a different context and then placing that text into Romans 8, making it contradictory. This is called eisegesis, and is not a sound principal of interpretation.
Those who were called not only are justified, but those who are justified are also glorified, which would be our state in Heaven. Those who are justified cannot fall away and lose that justification, because they also must be glorified. We have to study the text itself in it's context, rather than attempting to undermine the clear teaching of Scripture by jumping someplace else with a different context, taking a text from there, and then inserting it into the other place to make it say what we want it to say.
Be careful. Really scrutinize what other people try teaching you. The Bible has to be the final authority.
Micah, you're falling into the same problem most people have with Paul's epistles: taking one line from a letter of his and making an absolute statement out of it, totally disregarding what Paul says elsewhere. You turn Paul into a hypocrite.
Paul even acknowledged this about his very own letters:
1 Corinthians 5:9-11 (NIV)
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[a] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 5:11 The Greek word for brother or sister (adelphos) refers here to a believer, whether man or woman, as part of God’s family; also in 8:11, 13.
He had to write another letter to clarify what he meant in a previous letter (a totally separate letter—outside of what we know as 1st Corinthians and 2nd Corinthians). Is Paul taking himself out of context? for trying to refer to a separate letter? The danger here: people were making an erroneous absolute statement based on that one phrase of his in a previous letter.
Along that same vein, Calvinists would have us look at Philippians 1:6 (Philippians being a letter written by Paul) and say..."oh, see. you're getting saved regardless once you've been drawn to him / once you've been called"...
Philippians 1:6 (NIV)
6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
But making an absolute statement out of that is unstable in light of what the same Paul writes to Timothy:
2 Timothy 2:12 (NIV)
12 if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us;
You have to resort to theological commentaries "to undermine the clear teaching of Scripture". What Paul communicates, in light of his thoughts, in two separate letters, taken as one: once you've been drawn to God, he's not the one who initiates abandonment: you are. God has full intentions to save you / finish what he started in you / and work on you—but he's not going to force you to finish. That's the comfort of Phil 1:6. God is not the one who abandons first. The same thought expressed in the Old Testament:
1 Chronicles 28:9 (NIV)
9 “And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the Lord searches every heart and understands every desire and every thought. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever.
That's like someone trying to make an absolute statement out of one verse in Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 31:6 (NIV)
6 Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the Lord your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you.”
While disregarding the Book of Joshua and 2nd Chronicles (entirely different books):
Joshua 24:20 (NIV)
20 If you forsake the Lord and serve foreign gods, he will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, after he has been good to you.”
2 Chronicles 24:20 (NIV)
20 Then the Spirit of God came on Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest. He stood before the people and said, “This is what God says: ‘Why do you disobey the Lord’s commands? You will not prosper. Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you.’”
Are you only going to look at Deuteronomy and ignore Joshua and Chronicles because it's another book, another context? God does forsake his people, which he drew to himself and bestowed favor upon once upon a time, but when they forsake God, God forsakes them back. That's the behavior you're trying to encourage in eastern youth (don't take what other books have to say and try to compare it to Paul's letters; don't compare books to books).
Stop your instability.
God is only saving those who stay in Jesus until the end. Just because he called you, it doesn't mean you'll be one of those people who stay in him. Those who don't stay in Jesus after receiving the Holy Spirit—whether that forsaking is immediate, half way, or near the end—all they have to look forward to is God dealing with them faithfully in accord with his word, staying loyal to what he said: they won't be saved. He won't be holding people against their will, to love him against their will, to reign with him despite not agreeing with him. That's illogical. A person that forsakes Jesus is not in agreement with him anymore.
You're totally obfuscating yourself behind a wall of theological terms and philosophical concepts—that do not originate with the bible but with a sect i.e. Calvinism—(and mislabeling what I'm doing as eisegesis) so you don't see the overwhelming pattern in scripture from beginning to end: God calls people out from the world; but not all of them stay with him despite being called, despite God cleaning them up and separating them from worldly ways. It's that simple. Why can't you see that this is what's happening from Genesis to Revelation? That a remnant gets saved will never change: but what does change: the individuals that make up that remnant along the way. Ergo, make sure you don't lose your crown and someone does not take it from you, that no one takes your place at the dinner table. You really shouldn't speak before hearing a matter out; seeing as you ignored my post, you're prematurely saying I didn't address Romans 8 (it took three separate posts, the totality of my response, to address the concept); that is why I could not divide it up into short, individual posts. That is not the way i communicate (nor is it the way Paul communicates; not surprisingly, you have the same attitude towards his letters—here a little, there a little, not the entirety). And instead of believing the truth, that I cannot express myself/the full concept in such short words, you become cynical and say I'm making excuses, and that my form of communicating is something you feel sorry for (insults, nothing of substance). I don't turn Paul into a hypocrite the way I interpret his letters. You do and it's something I'm saving eastern youth from.
The only thing I agree with you on is this:
Quote:
The Bible has to be the final authority.
Nothing you quoted here conflicts with what I wrote (or what Calvinism teaches; why don't you try figuring out what we believe and thinking about those passages from our perspective to see if they really conflict), and yet you still do not respond to Romans 8 in any meaningful fashion. If you understand a subject well enough, you can use fewer words to explain. I suggest that you had to write walls of text last time because you don't know how to lock in on what's important in a conversation, but rather you have to throw many things in that often are not at all relevant, ultimately. I used to do these same things myself, but by God's grace I've gotten better at this.
I have no interest in debating with someone who has no interest in actually addressing the text. I have had too many of those, and they just go on and on until someone decides to stop. You bring up texts that don't cause conflict (no one claims God doesn't reject people who are professing followers but rather we say God never casts out true followers, who would be the elect; when you quote those texts you make assumptions that these people cannot be false converts but must be the elect, yet you will not be able to substantiate that), yet say Romans 8 can't mean what it says because they cause conflict. I was able to exegete Romans 8 with few words to eastern youth because it's the plain, true meaning of the text; feel free to share how my exegesis is wrong in few words as well, unless you're really unable.
By the way, thank you for the shorter post this time. I did read through it.
I did address Romans 8 by describing how each term, going by its Greek definition, can be applied to Moses and he still didn't inherit the promise. It's not a guarantee of anything. People that have been predestined, called, justified, and glorified in the Old Testament have been banned out of what they were promised for not remaining faithful. And if that's a prophetic picture of anything, it's of the ultimate promised land—the kingdom of Heaven; if we're not faithful to the end, that's it; we're not getting in—or staying in, like the wedding guest parable in the New Testament.
Also addressed already: the notion of whether or not they were true converts, and I addressed this early on in the first part of my three-part post. So that shows you didn't even bother to read the first post in its entirety—not that you read it and didn't finish the other parts because it was too long.
cristobela
Hebrews 3:12-13 (NIV)
12 See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13 But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness.
True believer's hearts can be hardened by sin and unbelief. Thus why we're told to encourage one another so we don't become hardened and turn away (this verse doesn't suggest: “if they turn away, it's okay; they were never really of us”). What is the interest in keeping false professors encouraged? These aren't false professors here. These are real believers. The warning is to prevent those who are true in their faith from hardening and turning away from God. [...]
Clear as day. True believers turning away. They were not "never really of us" false-professors, but real believers that we need to keep encouraged so they don't become hardened and turn away from God.
The reason I write "walls of text" is to be thorough and provide all the examples that come to mind which led me on the particular train of thought. They're not irrelevant, especially when the commentaries you copied and pasted, which made up the bulk of your replies, are relying on logic that fundamentally does not take into consideration the details of other passages. Those ignored details and concepts must be addressed or you won't see where / how these commentaries err.
The irony, Micah, you say: "If you understand a subject well enough, you can use fewer words to explain." But if you understood the subject well enough, you wouldn't have to copy and paste theologians and their faulty logic, and consequently, repeat their oversight as well.
You are relying on the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees in place of the leaven from heaven. The leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees are the teachings, the traditional and authoritative interpretation of passages, that get passed down, despite those very interpretations nullifying certain details in the text (such as Hebrews 3:12-13), thus ignoring what the texts, in their totality, say.
And those interpretations also call you to ignore the definitions of terms in their original languages in favor of a definition that some philosophical sect has decided upon, deciding for themselves what the term should really mean (i.e. predestination, justification, glorification, etc...), instead of what the Greek defines it to mean, which is also inhibiting your understanding. And by ignoring what the terms actually mean, that leads to teaching lies / error.
If anyone here is "someone who has no interest in actually addressing the text", it is you. I had read through every word you posted, and every scripture you cited, before making a reply, multiple times, that's why it took me nearly a week to reply. You did not offer the same courtesy. If anyone is being inconsiderate here, and not treating others like brothers and sisters in Christ, again, it is you. And if anyone here is not interested in addressing scripture, it is you.
Do not bother replying if you're not going to read the conversation you abandoned. It shows total disregard for the time I already took to address this very same topic. To regurgitate all the information here is not only unnecessary and disorganized, but a disrespect on your part. I didn't fail to address the points you brought up: you just decided not to read it.
And I laugh at this sorry attempt to play the pity card, "woe is me, I'm not being treated as a fellow brother or sister"; you say you want to be my brother, in words, but in action you fail to act like one—siblings are worth the sacrificing of your time. If you truly care about them, and likewise value the time they gave to you, then you wouldn't complain TL;DR. If you truly care about another person, you would sincerely consider what they have to say. But instead, I'm met with, "nope, you're wrong, because these theologians say otherwise and if you disagree with these theologians, it means you never really took the time to figure out their stance on the matter, because had you done so, you would have agreed that these theologians are infallibly correct". I don't worship (submit to, nor esteem above all else) the Pharisees and Sadducees of yesteryear or today. If that will be your attitude, then consider the conversation over.
Titus 3:10 (NIV)
10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them.
Not only do you bring disunity into the guild, but you create disunity between the Testaments.
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:58 am
Micah Seven Eighteen
Amen, sister. Theology matters; truth matters. I believe that. I think my brothers and sisters do, too. I think we disagree, sure, but we should be able to do so in a loving way. That can be a difficult thing for sure, as I can say from my own experience, whether ways I've been treated by my brothers and sisters or ways I have treated my brothers and sisters. Glad you popped in to mention that to this brother (and hopefully, the rest of us can take from what you say as well).
I'm a brother, actually. It's a long story.
I am glad that my post was edifying to you!
Scarlet_Teardrops
Sparkly Genius
Offline
Scarlet_Teardrops
Sparkly Genius
Offline
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:02 am
eastern youth
Scarlet_Teardrops
Thank you for reminding, of the real plain reason why Jesus died on the cross. It hit me in the heart and simply, that we should seek out His presence to the best of our ability rather than dissecting with the knowledge that's ingrained in our minds. I know in the end, Jesus is peace and love and has forgiven all of everyone's sin by dying the way He did for each and every all of us. I was and am afraid, even when in the back of my mind I know it's Jesus and without Him being there in the first place, representing what He's did from all-saving grace, nothing blooms and stands in its place upright the way we think it would, but that it not even matching up to the image of His solid love being formed on the cross anyway. Argh, I cried again.. I agree I have to put my entire faith in Jesus or I wouldn't be in touch with His Being/spirit at all. I'm getting so caught up in the mix with the end times gib that I'm not relying on Him as my eternal savior. He can be my One and Only--nothing else is needed. Thank you for opening up the eyes of my heart. Seek out His Presence in me/feel his love, and never ever lose it! This is faith and seeking His love because you believe.
Praise God! There's nothing wrong with delving into deep, theological issues. Only never lose sight of the Gospel. Cling to the Lord of this Gospel. For only Jesus can save you. No amount of righteous action will save you, nor vast intelligence, nor theological perfection, but only Jesus' work on the cross and your faith in that atoning work on your behalf, because of grace.
God bless you. I am glad that you weep at what the Lord has done for us. It is no small thing. And it is quite amazing.
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:35 am
I have temporarily/permanently closed the topic.
This doesn't seem to be constructive to me. The debate seems locked. Despite that the posts in this thread shed light on the issue and enough is said in this topic to give a good overview and point to what is important I have chosen to close the thread because that I don't think it is fair to everyone involved to allow it to progress any further. I urge those who have questions after this to look up passages in your own Bibles and ask the Holy Spirit to make it clear for you. I believe a proper understanding of God's nature and the Bible is the solution to finding answers to any issue, also this one. This is obviously an important issue, and a difficult issue. I would say it could potentially be be a primary issue (but not necessarily where one who holds to one view is saved while the other is not, or an issue that should cause us to break apart), but I will leave that up to yourself to decide as you read the Bible. Can you lose faith? If one side is right you can't lose faith, and so it is impossible to lose salvation. How does this affect the Gospel and how we view sin, negatively or positively? If the other is right you can lose faith, and so in turn lose salvation. How does this affect the Gospel and how we view sin, negatively or positively? Don't take anyone's word for anything - always check it against Scripture!
In the Spirit of peace and unity only available through our Lord Jesus Christ - Garland
