I do not believe that a Christian can lose his relationship with Christ. (1Robin vs. KylixGuru)

[kylixguru]

You have been jumping around since we started. Why can't I do it at least once? I really do not know what can be further gained by looking at the parables right now. We have exhausted the previous step it is time to choose a new one.

As I said, feel free to draw upon other references if they help.
If you want to totally shift the focus of our discussion, lets finish getting clarity on the parables first.

You are pretty much there now, at least it seems.

Why cut and run now when you are so close to understanding me?

If we can't resolve the issue over the parables. Then we are forced to look else where for any chance of it.

If there is no willingness on your part to get to a point where you can confirm with me that you are not contorting what I'm trying to say and that you actually understand me, then it isn't going to matter what passages of scripture we talk about. If you continue to do what you are doing here, you will continue to do so elsewhere as well. That's not going to help anything.

I tried experts and that was arbitrarily dismissed and so I thought governing dynamics and philosophy using some verses and ideas might shed some light. That is also where I find the most convincing arguments. I am currently awaiting a response to those few points and once that is concluded you may go back to the parables or any other place you choose.

What you have forgotten is that it is a good idea to first get clarity on what the other person truly means before you try and argue against them.
Until I sense that you actually understand me, how much teeth will your arguments have?
Do you think you are going to influence my position by arguing against a contortion of what I believe?

I understand you to the point you are requireing something in addition to grace to get to heaven.

What you are doing is over simplifying things into a "grace only" vs. "works only" contest. I reject that view because it obviously glosses over many relevant and pertinent passages that necessitate both be recognized in some manner. You even admitted that some scriptures were overruled by others. I don't see any need for one scripture to overrule another. I see all scripture as brush strokes neatly placed to paint a beautiful composition that makes perfect sense. Grace has its place and my proper response and care of that gift is also part of the picture as well. Grace and works are not mutually exclusive.

And, whether you agree or disagree, please at least be generous enough with me that you will look at things as I do from that perspective instead of just bashing me repeatedly because I don't gloss over the passages you seem willing to.

Because I hold the position I do, I have no problem reading the parables in a very natural way with seed germination being our spiritual birth, which is a gift given of the grace of God, and that then I need to properly take care of that tender new spiritual growth so that in the end it is a tall, well formed, fruit bearing creation worthy to be garnered into the Father's storehouse to become the seed stock for the new Creation He will create.

FYI:
Being in the position of becoming seed stock for an entirely new creation permanently places you in everything that comes thereafter. You become an Eternal Father with your Eternal Father. Eternal Life is the point of these parables of Jesus and we must walk the straight and narrow path to attain it. Few there be who find such.

It does not really matter what that is as you nor anyone else has ever been able to specifically state what it is anyway. You simply give vague references to understanding this or that and being generally obedient. You can't base the most important status in human history on these vague ideas.

The requirements for receiving Eternal Life are God's and God's alone to specify.

If you feel the need to over simplify things and gloss over much of what His Word says, then can you do so and yet have full confidence your spiritual growth is purely of His Seed? I just cannot do that and satisfy my conscience on the matter. This is why I more or less rejected man's interpretations because they just didn't seem to be a perfect fit for what God seemed to me to really be trying to communicate. I want to understand things exactly the way God intends, even if it puts me in a position where I am not entirely sure what my standing is.

I would agree that there is no conflict with that in the weeds but I am not sure and kind of doubt it in the sower. The sower is too ambiguous to establish doctrine. It is more of an accent than a foundation.

It is very foundational. It very aptly teaches all of the critical points of receiving and establishing spiritual growth within you.

It points out how if you are not cautious to make sure you are first understanding the Word properly that your seeds can be snatched away from you by birds that are standing by to grab away things left exposed.

When we understand the seeds, this is placing them down within ourselves where the seed can get some moisture and the conditions for germination. It says this is a joyous and life changing experience where a new spiritual being is birthed inside of us. Yet, it also acknowledges that we need to provide it good and rich soil so that the seed's growth can establish its roots and withstand the elements above that will try and destroy our new spiritual growth.

And so on...

Can't you see that the way you are behaving with me to refuse to work towards understanding me leaves most of what I am saying to the birds?

If you truly understood this parable as Jesus explained it, you would know that it is vitally important to make sure you understand a matter as intended before you pass judgment upon it. If you do not do so, you won't even make it to first base.

I don't think I believe what you think I do exactly.

You said the "born again" experience of a Christian corresponds with the seed germinating.
That indicates that you understand my position because that's the parallel that I see.

Not seeing it, is a judgement.

Judging from a position of being unable to see what someone else sees is called being presumptuous.

Jude describes the fallen "son of God" by saying of them, "these speak evil of those things they know not". (Jude 1:10)

Peter describes them again saying "these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption". (2 Peter 2:12)

The danger we all risk when handling the things of God is if we approach it from a self-righteous posture and we put stumbling blocks before others and we judge them presumptuously then we are increasing the likelihood that we shall be left to perish in our own corruptions. Mutual understanding must precede judgment.

If the "sons of god" fell from a position of authority and responsibility superior to the great archangel Micheal, shouldn't we also pay heed to these principles and realize that we too could fall from grace if we are presumptuous in our judgment?

I am unwilling to grant that germenation in the sower equals new spiritual birth. I see no problem in the weed but it is far from concrete. That is why parables are not used to establish doctrine. They are far more ambiguous, by design, than many other verses.

I have no difficulty getting clear, specific and relevant understandings from those parables. Every subtle detail of them explicitly mentioned should translate into a meaningful point of some kind. They do. And, in the case of these parables, Jesus gave the proper interpretation of them as well.

I agree you shouldn't push them to an absurd level that goes beyond what is explicitly mentioned and can be immediately inferred. All of the words of Jesus are carefully chosen and are meaningful so we shouldn't call what is said ambiguous.

It is very tricky to use parables as a foundation. It is far more reliable to establish doctrine based on clear, simple, and unambiguous scripture and then back that up with parables. It is never wise to allow parables or symbolism to influence literal verses but the other way around is reliable.

All scripture needs to be taken together.

Not to me.

This alone says you are totally glossing over things.
This also indicates you are unwilling to work from a position of confirmed mutual understanding.

 

[kylixguru]

The Bible teaches that we are members of Christ's body and God's family and a citizen of his kingdom the instant we are born again. In my claim we are guranteed heaven at that point. If your view still allows us to be condemned after that then it can't be called salvation because we were not actually saved then because we were later condemened anyway. What ever you are describing isn't salvation.

What if your view of salvation is flawed?

My definition is contained in this verse.
New International Version (©1984)
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--

What we know this verse mandates.
1. That it is in the past tense and implies a finality.
2. This can't be lost and still be referred to as "saved" without making God a liar.
They are saved from something. The something is ultimate condemnation. They can't be saved from something if they still recieve it anyway.
3. This was spoken to living people that had simply believed and been born again.
4. This is not addressed to people who have finished their life and have passed what ever tests you imply they must in order to get to heaven.

My definition is contained in every word that has proceeded from the mouth of God.
The same individual who wrote the verse you quoted also said a person could draw back unto perdition and thereby lose their salvation.
Your understanding assumes that salvation is something that is final forever and ever from that point and onward with no possibility of ever being drawn back from.
I do not see anywhere in holy writ that you can substantiate this aspect of your reading.
Therefore, the basis upon which you would call God a liar has no foundation or support.

Your position makes this verse nonsense or requires what is commonly done to remedy a bad theory.

Your position makes a ton of other passages nonsense.
My position omits your precious presumption so that it maintains harmony with that ton of other passages your personal interpretation trashes.

The addition of words or the assertion of implications not actually in the verse, or the attempt to use ambiguous verses to overturn clear ones.

Which is precisely what you have done to read that passage the way you do.

My understanding of salvation is completely in harmony with this verse and the Bible as a whole.

I disagree.
How can the "sons of god" stand at their level of authority and leave their place of habitation and utterly corrupt themselves and become destroyed?
Are you suggesting that they never had a true born again experience?
If so, then why would God call them to function at that level of ministry?
They fell from grace and lost their salvation by corrupting themselves.

In short it is the instant and absolute guarantee of heaven gained at the moment of spritual birth by grace through faith. It can never be lost with the possible but unlikely and excedingly rare exception I have mentioned.

I agree a person can reach a point where their calling and election is made sure. There are provisions for that. But, even still, if that individual is not truly prepared to stand in the office and calling that they have had made sure for them, they are likely going to stumble and fall just the way the fallen "sons of God" did in Genesis 6 that are mentioned in Jude and 2 Peter 2.

I will say one thing, with the possible exception of the Bah'i guys, you are the most prolific poster I have ever seen. I will not be able to go back and address your earlier posts as I do not have time with all the new ones posted.

Answer what you feel inclined to. At the least, please read and take to heart what I say. If you ever start ignoring them, please simply excuse yourself so that I am not dedicating time which I consider precious if you are not interested in it.

 

[1robin]

What if your view of salvation is flawed?

I think this is the third time you have asked this same question in different ways. It means nothing to say this. I am well aware that it is possible I am wrong. That is the reason I have spent years making sure I am not. That is the reason I prayed for God to show me himself. That is the reason I still even though I am usually disappointed entertain these arguments sometimes.

My definition is contained in every word that has proceeded from the mouth of God.
The same individual who wrote the verse you quoted also said a person could draw back unto perdition and thereby lose their salvation.
Your understanding assumes that salvation is something that is final forever and ever from that point and onward with no possibility of ever being drawn back from.
I do not see anywhere in holy writ that you can substantiate this aspect of your reading.
Therefore, the basis upon which you would call God a liar has no foundation or support.

OK here is what must be done in these case and you are right to bring it up but you have apparently never resolved the issue but have just simply shrugged your shoulders and went on believing whatever you wished to.
This is how I solve these issues.

This verse:
New International Version(©1984)
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--
And this verse:
New International Version(©1984)
But my righteous one will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him. "But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.
Sound on their surface to contradict. The Bible we both at least I hope both agree can not contradict itself. So one of these verses absolutely MUST not say what they seem on the surface to say. Which one is it? Let's investigate.
Concerning the first verse:
1. Simple. The core words saved and grace are all the same in every version I checked (over twenty).
2. Clear.
3. Deals directly with salvation specifically.
4. Uses a past tense.
5. Uses a word for salvation that cannot possibly mean anything other than being rescued from Hell where we belong.
6. That use forbids the condition where we would not get to heaven.
7. The conditions met by who it is applied to are certainly limited to faith as the works these people would do or not is not determined as they are not dead.
There is no other conclusion that this verse implies or simply states that this group who's only completed work in common (faith) has freed them from hell forever.
This is not enough yet as it must be shown that the other verse does not mean what it says. I have never tackled this one and so I am interested in what will be born out.
Concerning the second verse:
1. Not simple. The word perdition only appears in 7 out of twenty versions I checked. The original word in Greek is apōleia: It simply means destruction. However perdition is used at times to suggest a fall. So it is unclear whether this verse is describing a fall of the end result of rebellion and lack of faith that comes to all unbelievers.
2. Not clear, as it states that the righteous will live by faith and that we will not shrink back. Yet you believe this is concerning believers. It is not clear. In order to gain clarity I found this and it seems to represent the scholarly conclusion.

Admitting that the words do plainly refer to the just man that lives by faith, such a one cannot draw back to perdition; for that is denied in the following verse; is contrary to an express declaration, a just man falleth seven times a day, and riseth up again (Prov. 24:16); and consistent with a divine promise, the righteous shall hold on his way (Job 17:9); and even with this in the text, the just shall live by faith; and therefore shall not die the second death, or so draw back as to be eternally lost; though his zeal may abate, his love grow cold, and he fall from some degree of steadfastness in faith; but allowing that drawing back to perdition is here supposed of the just man, it is no more than an hypothetical proposition, which proves not that ever any just man did, could, or should so draw back. The nature and use of such conditional propositions, in which the condition, or thing supposed is impossible, has been shown under the foregoing section. But it is observed,[9] that kai< eja<n, may be rendered not hypothetically, and if,but and when he draweth back:be it so, it is well known that a condition is as well and as frequently expressed by when, the adverb of time, as by the conjunction if, of which numerous instances might be given. The objection from the impossibility of the condition, and the uselessness of threats founded thereon, is answered in the preceding section.
http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%201/section_52.htm
I could stop here but will proceed onward as the subject is crucial.
This was good stuff but not a internationally respected and trusted professional commentator. Let's see what they say. Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
But we are not of them ... - We who are true Christians do not belong to such a class. In this the apostle expresses the fullest conviction that none of those to whom he wrote would apostatize. The case which he had been describing was only a supposable case, not one which he believed would occur. He had only been stating what "must" happen if a sincere Christian should apostatize. But he did not mean to say that this "would" occur in regard to them. or in any case. See the sentiment in this verse illustrated at length in the notes on Hebrews 6:4-10.
If that isn't enough here is the most technical and scholarly commentator I know. If you check this out you will know why I say they are as far advanced in theology as Einstein was in physics. He covers every single original word and it's cultural language use and proper exegetical method.
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
3. Probably deals with salvation but leaves a chance that it might deal with mortal death or earthly punishment. I think it deals with hell but it is not quite as clear as the first verse.
4. Uses no grammatical markers as word tense or specific words with simplistic and absolute meanings that bear out your claims (I will explain further in summary).
5. Contains words that have alternate meanings that change what it says drastically.
6. May have a hypothetical application instead of literal.
7. Conditions that establish absolute categories that it's subjects fit in are not present or are ambiguous.
In Conclusion and keep in mind that one must not mean what it's surface understand might suggest. There is no possible way that the first one can contradict the second or vice versa. So which one mostly likely has a slightly more complex or ambiguous meaning of the two? I can't see how any honest person would fail to choose the second. The first has no ambiguity and clear and specific language that has no other likely interpretation. The second can be saying many different things.
This is my two cents worth and has not been verified:
It can be a teaching example of encouragement that is saying we (Christians) are not like those people. We do not draw back but are instead sustained by faith. The second part seems to suggest a Christian can't do what is put forward in the first part. Second it can be a hypothetical example of a case that could not happen being given as an example of something.
As the above is not convenient for your theory you may attempt to poke holes in what I said my opinion was as to what that second verse means. What can't be argued or shown is that in any way what so ever the first verse is less clear than the second far more ambiguous one is, nor can it be shown that any possible way that both state contradictory things. It is perfectly clear which one must be deemed the least reliable even though what it then means may be open for debate.
When these kinds of issues all hash out the same way and even the surface understandings of verses suggests we can lose our ticket to heaven are far less numerous than the clear simple ones that say we can't is combined with professional commentary and theological philosophy it leaves little room for doubt that the Bible teaches we are saved forever the moment we believe. In fact that last line is the lyric to a very popular Christian hymn (amazing grace I believe). There is nothing special or amazing about the grace you describe.

 

[kylixguru]

I think this is the third time you have asked this same question in different ways. It means nothing to say this. I am well aware that it is possible I am wrong. That is the reason I have spent years making sure I am not.

That is the reason I prayed for God to show me himself. That is the reason I still even though I am usually disappointed entertain these arguments sometimes.

I have not sensed the least bit of openness on your part that your conception of a completely finalized and forever permanent salvation at the moment of birth just might be contrary to how it really works.
What I have experienced is you whacking me over and over again with how impossible anything else must be. It is philosophically impossible you will even say, yet I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.
And, if you will whack me over and over again and press your supposed correct understanding upon me, what chance does the Bible have against your passionate insistence? The Bible will just sit there quietly and patiently and let you come up with whatever you want from it.

OK here is what must be done in these case and you are right to bring it up but you have apparently never resolved the issue but have just simply shrugged your shoulders and went on believing whatever you wished to.

I have said enough about how I approach holy writ that you should know better than to make such a "below the belt" accusation. I deliberately put away all preconceived notions of my own as well as from what I had absorbed from others. I sought to know what God's perspective was and how He wants me to understand His Word. I have demonstrated time and time again a firm grasp on how a person can put aside his own bias and to see a matter clearly and then pass judgment upon it.

Look at what is going on in the Cosmological Model thread. You are barging your way in making a bunch of snap judgments and trying to derail the discussion because you think you already know what he has presented is a bunch of garbage and he has hardly gotten started yet.

In my case, I am reserving judgment and allowing him to convey his understanding of something that requires discipline and care and sincerity to properly get. I am first trying to be sure I understand it in the way that he intends it to be understood.

We are showing the difference in how we approach things when in the process of discussing and seeking truth.

You bulldoze your way in making a bunch of snap judgments assuming you are right and are more or less only interested in shooting others down.

I approach the Bible in a very patient and disciplined manner truly wanting to understand what its author means so that I can judge things in a full and proper light.

This is how I solve these issues.

This verse:
New International Version(©1984)
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--
And this verse:
New International Version(©1984)
But my righteous one will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him. "But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.
Sound on their surface to contradict. The Bible we both at least I hope both agree can not contradict itself. So one of these verses absolutely MUST not say what they seem on the surface to say. Which one is it? Let's investigate.
Concerning the first verse:
1. Simple. The core words saved and grace are all the same in every version I checked (over twenty).
2. Clear.
3. Deals directly with salvation specifically.
4. Uses a past tense.
5. Uses a word for salvation that cannot possibly mean anything other than being rescued from Hell where we belong.
6. That use forbids the condition where we would not get to heaven.
7. The conditions met by who it is applied to are certainly limited to faith as the works these people would do or not is not determined as they are not dead.
There is no other conclusion that this verse implies or simply states that this group who's only completed work in common (faith) has freed them from hell forever.
This is not enough yet as it must be shown that the other verse does not mean what it says. I have never tackled this one and so I am interested in what will be born out.
Concerning the second verse:
1. Not simple. The word perdition only appears in 7 out of twenty versions I checked. The original word in Greek is ap&#333;leia: It simply means destruction. However perdition is used at times to suggest a fall. So it is unclear whether this verse is describing a fall of the end result of rebellion and lack of faith that comes to all unbelievers.
2. Not clear, as it states that the righteous will live by faith and that we will not shrink back. Yet you believe this is concerning believers. It is not clear. In order to gain clarity I found this and it seems to represent the scholarly conclusion.

Admitting that the words do plainly refer to the just man that lives by faith, such a one cannot draw back to perdition; for that is denied in the following verse; is contrary to an express declaration, a just man falleth seven times a day, and riseth up again (Prov. 24:16); and consistent with a divine promise, the righteous shall hold on his way (Job 17:9); and even with this in the text, the just shall live by faith; and therefore shall not die the second death, or so draw back as to be eternally lost; though his zeal may abate, his love grow cold, and he fall from some degree of steadfastness in faith; but allowing that drawing back to perdition is here supposed of the just man, it is no more than an hypothetical proposition, which proves not that ever any just man did, could, or should so draw back. The nature and use of such conditional propositions, in which the condition, or thing supposed is impossible, has been shown under the foregoing section. But it is observed,[9] that kai< eja<n, may be rendered not hypothetically, and if,but and when he draweth back:be it so, it is well known that a condition is as well and as frequently expressed by when, the adverb of time, as by the conjunction if, of which numerous instances might be given. The objection from the impossibility of the condition, and the uselessness of threats founded thereon, is answered in the preceding section.
http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%201/section_52.htm
I could stop here but will proceed onward as the subject is crucial.
This was good stuff but not a internationally respected and trusted professional commentator. Let's see what they say. Continued below:

The verse mentions the possibility of drawing back and bringing destruction upon yourself.
What is destroyed? The parable of the sower tells very clearly what is destroyed.
That new spiritual life that had germinated and sprung up within you did not find sufficient nourishment and moisture and wilted and died due to elements it was ill prepared to deal with.

 

[kylixguru]

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
But we are not of them ... - We who are true Christians do not belong to such a class. In this the apostle expresses the fullest conviction that none of those to whom he wrote would apostatize. The case which he had been describing was only a supposable case, not one which he believed would occur. He had only been stating what "must" happen if a sincere Christian should apostatize. But he did not mean to say that this "would" occur in regard to them. or in any case. See the sentiment in this verse illustrated at length in the notes on Hebrews 6:4-10.
If that isn't enough here is the most technical and scholarly commentator I know. If you check this out you will know why I say they are as far advanced in theology as Einstein was in physics. He covers every single original word and it's cultural language use and proper exegetical method.
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
3. Probably deals with salvation but leaves a chance that it might deal with mortal death or earthly punishment. I think it deals with hell but it is not quite as clear as the first verse.
4. Uses no grammatical markers as word tense or specific words with simplistic and absolute meanings that bear out your claims (I will explain further in summary).
5. Contains words that have alternate meanings that change what it says drastically.
6. May have a hypothetical application instead of literal.
7. Conditions that establish absolute categories that it's subjects fit in are not present or are ambiguous.
In Conclusion and keep in mind that one must not mean what it's surface understand might suggest. There is no possible way that the first one can contradict the second or vice versa. So which one mostly likely has a slightly more complex or ambiguous meaning of the two? I can't see how any honest person would fail to choose the second. The first has no ambiguity and clear and specific language that has no other likely interpretation. The second can be saying many different things.
This is my two cents worth and has not been verified:
It can be a teaching example of encouragement that is saying we (Christians) are not like those people. We do not draw back but are instead sustained by faith. The second part seems to suggest a Christian can't do what is put forward in the first part. Second it can be a hypothetical example of a case that could not happen being given as an example of something.
As the above is not convenient for your theory you may attempt to poke holes in what I said my opinion was as to what that second verse means. What can't be argued or shown is that in any way what so ever the first verse is less clear than the second far more ambiguous one is, nor can it be shown that any possible way that both state contradictory things. It is perfectly clear which one must be deemed the least reliable even though what it then means may be open for debate.
When these kinds of issues all hash out the same way and even the surface understandings of verses suggests we can lose our ticket to heaven are far less numerous than the clear simple ones that say we can't is combined with professional commentary and theological philosophy it leaves little room for doubt that the Bible teaches we are saved forever the moment we believe. In fact that last line is the lyric to a very popular Christian hymn (amazing grace I believe). There is nothing special or amazing about the grace you describe.

It is clear that he was speaking of those who were formerly among them also professing to be converted to Christianity, and likely did have just as genuine of a birth as anyone else did. He specifically said that they "draw back". That means they had progressed to a certain point and then fallen back. They were Christians just as the others were at some point but for whatever reason their new spirit growing inside of them withered and died.

We already touched on this distinction before. Even though they claimed to be a "born again" Christian and that they experienced a birth just as valid as anyone's you felt like it was appropriate to classify them as having never even been a Christian to start with. That was when I asked if you wanted to amend the question we are debating to "a [true] Christian". Then, of course, the subject becomes kind of a moot point.

Of course someone who always maintains proper fidelity to Christ as a "true" Christian will not lose his relationship with Christ. To go here in our debate is actually just a cop-out on your part because everyone who professes to be a "born again" Christian isn't going to remain that way for the rest of their lives.

We need to be debating something that is practical and meaningful and not be toying with the phrase to make the subject essentially non-debatable.

 

[1robin]

I have not sensed the least bit of openness on your part that your conception of a completely finalized and forever permanent salvation at the moment of birth just might be contrary to how it really works.
What I have experienced is you whacking me over and over again with how impossible anything else must be. It is philosophically impossible you will even say, yet I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.
And, if you will whack me over and over again and press your supposed correct understanding upon me, what chance does the Bible have against your passionate insistence? The Bible will just sit there quietly and patiently and let you come up with whatever you want from it.

I have said enough about how I approach holy writ that you should know better than to make such a "below the belt" accusation. I deliberately put away all preconceived notions of my own as well as from what I had absorbed from others. I sought to know what God's perspective was and how He wants me to understand His Word. I have demonstrated time and time again a firm grasp on how a person can put aside his own bias and to see a matter clearly and then pass judgment upon it.

Look at what is going on in the Cosmological Model thread. You are barging your way in making a bunch of snap judgments and trying to derail the discussion because you think you already know what he has presented is a bunch of garbage and he has hardly gotten started yet.

In my case, I am reserving judgment and allowing him to convey his understanding of something that requires discipline and care and sincerity to properly get. I am first trying to be sure I understand it in the way that he intends it to be understood.

We are showing the difference in how we approach things when in the process of discussing and seeking truth.

You bulldoze your way in making a bunch of snap judgments assuming you are right and are more or less only interested in shooting others down.

I approach the Bible in a very patient and disciplined manner truly wanting to understand what its author means so that I can judge things in a full and proper light.


The verse mentions the possibility of drawing back and bringing destruction upon yourself.
What is destroyed? The parable of the sower tells very clearly what is destroyed.
That new spiritual life that had germinated and sprung up within you did not find sufficient nourishment and moisture and wilted and died due to elements it was ill prepared to deal with.

I made no point claiming that destroyed means anything other than hell. I did say that it is not absolutely specific but I tended to believe it was hell. This does not help your case and I was not contending it anyway.

 

[1robin]

It is clear that he was speaking of those who were formerly among them also professing to be converted to Christianity, and likely did have just as genuine of a birth as anyone else did. He specifically said that they "draw back". That means they had progressed to a certain point and then fallen back. They were Christians just as the others were at some point but for whatever reason their new spirit growing inside of them withered and died.

That verse says not one of these things. Every commentator I gave and linked to explains why it is not talking about other Christians. You simply tell all the experts to suck it and adopt whatever you need to in order to maintain what you wish. What can be gained from discussing anything with a person who does not care if every other person regardless of their superb credentials dissagrees. What is the point? Let me make a different point though. If you claim to have the ability to know more than the experts do then you should be able to tell me what OT verse this is a copy of? They did know and that is an example of the amount of info they have and you do not. It allows them another opportunity to view context and word use that you do not have. When done you realise what it is saying.

We already touched on this distinction before. Even though they claimed to be a "born again" Christian and that they experienced a birth just as valid as anyone's you felt like it was appropriate to classify them as having never even been a Christian to start with. That was when I asked if you wanted to amend the question we are debating to "a [true] Christian". Then, of course, the subject becomes kind of a moot point.

The terms "born again" and "Christian" do not appear in the verse yet you stuck them there anyway. Claiming to be one has no effect on whether you are one. There seem to be two distinct classes here one class can shrink back. The other class can't and won't do so. The only logical line to draw is true Christian and not true Christian. That is perfectly consistent with my claims. It is inconsistent with your. The next verse says that "we" are not those who do this. Who is "we". The only line that exists in Christianity are between true believers and everyone else. It is reasonable to read this as we "who are Christians" are not ones who shrink back. It is only others who do so. That can be seen and was shwon in the sower and other verses by the experts. People can intellectually agree with the idea of Christianity but never reach the bron again point. They can draw back. The we "Christians" can't. Another point is draw back from what. There are only two choices "perfection" and being "born again". Perfection is an unattainable goal so that is out. Born again is all that is left. I only mentioned Christian or born again because that is what you interjected into the verses and so I had to meet you on that ground. Three Bible scholars from that site didn'y help let's see if all of them that address this issue will;
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
"The unbelieving man loses his soul: for not being God's, neither is he his own [compare Mt 16:26, with Lu 9:25]: faith saves the soul by linking it to God.
People's New Testament
The apostle has confidence that the Hebrew saints are of those who shall live by faith.
Geneva Study Bible
But of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
It follows, that true believers can never perish. The nature and excellency of this grace is largely treated of in the following chapter.
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
So, Galatians 3:7 : &#927;&#953;&#788; &#949;&#954; &#960;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#949;&#969;&#962;, they who are of the faith, rather the faithful, the believers;
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
But we are not of them ... - We who are true Christians do not belong to such a class. In this the apostle expresses the fullest conviction that none of those to whom he wrote would apostatize. The case which he had been describing was only a supposable case, not one which he believed would occur. He had only been stating what "must" happen if a sincere Christian should apostatize. But he did not mean to say that this "would" occur in regard to them. or in any case. He made a statement of a general principle under the divine administration, and he designed that this should be a means of keeping them in the path to life. What could be a more effectual means than the assurance that if a Christian should apostatize "he must inevitably perish forever?" See the sentiment in this verse illustrated at length in the notes on Hebrews 6:4-10.

Some of these are precise and some not so much. Even the vague ones imply that that Paul is saying that a certain group will not draw back. How could he possibly know that unless they could not do so? The line that seperates those who can't and those who can, can only be born again believers and un born again un believers. There are no other lines to even consider. In your system these people certainly could draw back and so Paul can't know they would not.

Of course someone who always maintains proper fidelity to Christ as a "true" Christian will not lose his relationship with Christ. To go here in our debate is actually just a cop-out on your part because everyone who professes to be a "born again" Christian isn't going to remain that way for the rest of their lives.

The fact that there are true Christians and others who simply claim to be that but are not is an inescapable fact and any claim to the contrary is impossible. I have not gone any where but where I started at. The issue is what makes a true Christian true. The only logical place to draw the line is spritual birth. That is my claim. You seem to support some strange notion that a person is a Christian when born again but later may not be one and then even later be one again, as he crosses some vague line that is never defined nor can it be even when repeatedly asked for. I have asked this and have never recieved a single answer from people with your views for years. Where is this line specifically? The Bible says that the Book of Life is the book in which appears the name of every person who is born. The Lamb's Book of Life is the book in which appears the name of every person who has been born again, spiritually speaking, who has been saved through the blood of the Lamb, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Biblical Research Studies Group-What Does the Bible Say About The Book of Life?
You must be saying that an angel is up there erasing our name every time we fail and rewriting it every time we repent. That makes no sense and is absolutely necessary in you system. By the way declaring something does not make it true. I have always believed and said that there are actual Christians and people who claim they are but are not. What seperates them is the Born again experience not some notion about a current level of obedience. Obedience is possible because of salvation and does not produce or maintain it. I have never wavered on that.

We need to be debating something that is practical and meaningful and not be toying with the phrase to make the subject essentially non-debatable.

Appealing to some supposed ambiguity that does not exist will not extricate you from what we are discussing. I have never changed and have consistently stated what I believe a Christian is. My understanding is far more clear and simple as to what a Christian truly is than yours. If anyones views are causing ambiguity then they are not mine.

 

[kylixguru]

I made no point claiming that destroyed means anything other than hell. I did say that it is not absolutely specific but I tended to believe it was hell. This does not help your case and I was not contending it anyway.

And, hell, as I understand it, is separation from (a conscious awareness of) God's Spirit.

So, if drawing back means their germinated spiritual growth doesn't find sufficient nourishment and moisture for the roots and withers away and dies, that gives a very fitting correlation between that passage and the parable of the sower.

If you do actually understand the Word but your soil is too rocky and barren, you will experience germination ("spiritual birth") and it will be something you will be very happy and joyous about, but by and by when the elements beat upon you, your spirit growing from your "spiritual birth" will wither and die. This death of that spiritual growth will result in your spiritual death, which is separation from God's Spirit, which is hell.

 

[kylixguru]

That verse says not one of these things. Every commentator I gave and linked to explains why it is not talking about other Christians.

I am not relying upon commentators in a beholden way to tell me how to understand God's Word.

You simply tell all the experts to suck it and adopt whatever you need to in order to maintain what you wish.

Why do you make such absurd and "below the belt" assaults on my person?
Can you and I try to discuss things in a way where we seek mutual understanding?
I'm getting very wary of your desperate tactics to avoid actually focusing on the material at hand.

What can be gained from discussing anything with a person who does not care if every other person regardless of their superb credentials dissagrees.

What can be gained from discussing anything with a person who is totally beholden to the same people you are?
Are you going to gain access to any fresh perspectives that way? No. Not one.

I didn't enter this discussion with you under the requirement that I would strictly subject myself to the opinions of scholars you find credible.
If you are not actually interested in understanding my view and the substantive reasons for it and debating them at face value, what are you trying to accomplish here?

What is the point? Let me make a different point though. If you claim to have the ability to know more than the experts do then you should be able to tell me what OT verse this is a copy of? They did know and that is an example of the amount of info they have and you do not. It allows them another opportunity to view context and word use that you do not have. When done you realise what it is saying.

It is saying people progressed to a certain point and then drew back.
All people who were Israelites were members of the same Covenant.
Some of them drew back and didn't keep their covenants and others did.
This parallel was brought forward where Christianity is spiritual Israel.
Those who draw back are fellow brothers and sisters of spiritual Israel.

The terms "born again" and "Christian" do not appear in the verse yet you stuck them there anyway.

Oh please... For crying out loud.
We are talking about our understandings here.
Why keep bashing me with arguments that simply halt our capacity to mutually understand?

A person becomes a Christian when they experience spiritual birth.
I have clearly told you I take this as the event when the seed germinates.
When I speak of a Christian, I am referring to a person who has experienced this.
Can I please have that perspective held and considered in an objective way please?
And, instead of bashing me for simply having an understanding, how about we discuss the actual merit or demerit for that understanding at its face value?

Claiming to be one has no effect on whether you are one. There seem to be two distinct classes here one class can shrink back. The other class can't and won't do so. The only logical line to draw is true Christian and not true Christian. That is perfectly consistent with my claims.

I get that. But, the OP doesn't explicitly say a "true" Christian. It just says a Christian without that qualifier. And, what I mean by that is everyone who identifies themselves as a Christian.

It is inconsistent with your.

My understanding is consistent throughout, so far as I can tell.

The next verse says that "we" are not those who do this. Who is "we". The only line that exists in Christianity are between true believers and everyone else.

The context here could have been in the aftermath of a number of people who forsook the faith and departed from it.
Obviously, those people still attending to their meetings and their duties and listening to the voice of the apostles were yet faithful.

It is reasonable to read this as we "who are Christians" are not ones who shrink back. It is only others who do so.

The implication of "shrink back" means to move into something and then to move back out of something. If the general context is being a Christian, then this is a leader speaking to those who are holding faithful who have not forsaken their faith.

That can be seen and was shwon in the sower and other verses by the experts. People can intellectually agree with the idea of Christianity but never reach the bron again point. They can draw back. The we "Christians" can't.

Can't? You mean very likely won't, but it depends upon various factors.
Anyone can draw back after they have experienced spiritual birth, which is germination.
You admitting that people having intellectual agreement (proper understanding) is what Jesus says enables the seed to gain cover so that the birds don't make off with the seeds. Not understanding is what allows the birds to snatch the seed away.

So, here we have people who do actually understand the Word and who then experience the germination of the seed within them. This is spiritual birth, but subsequent to that they cannot cope with the challenges and temptations and so they draw back and forsake the faith. These are people who experienced just as genuine of a germination (birth) as the others who do not draw back.

Another point is draw back from what. There are only two choices "perfection" and being "born again". Perfection is an unattainable goal so that is out. Born again is all that is left. I only mentioned Christian or born again because that is what you interjected into the verses and so I had to meet you on that ground. Three Bible scholars from that site didn'y help let's see if all of them that address this issue will;
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
"The unbelieving man loses his soul: for not being God's, neither is he his own [compare Mt 16:26, with Lu 9:25]: faith saves the soul by linking it to God.
People's New Testament
The apostle has confidence that the Hebrew saints are of those who shall live by faith.
Geneva Study Bible
But of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
It follows, that true believers can never perish. The nature and excellency of this grace is largely treated of in the following chapter.
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
So, Galatians 3:7 : &#927;&#953;&#788; &#949;&#954; &#960;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#949;&#969;&#962;, they who are of the faith, rather the faithful, the believers;
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
But we are not of them ... - We who are true Christians do not belong to such a class. In this the apostle expresses the fullest conviction that none of those to whom he wrote would apostatize. The case which he had been describing was only a supposable case, not one which he believed would occur. He had only been stating what "must" happen if a sincere Christian should apostatize. But he did not mean to say that this "would" occur in regard to them. or in any case. He made a statement of a general principle under the divine administration, and he designed that this should be a means of keeping them in the path to life. What could be a more effectual means than the assurance that if a Christian should apostatize "he must inevitably perish forever?" See the sentiment in this verse illustrated at length in the notes on Hebrews 6:4-10.

I agree that those who draw back are those who draw back from their spiritual birth. They experienced germination but their soil was too stony and their spiritual growth wilted and died. The were once standing as a born again Christian with a birth just as valid as any other, but they forsake their spiritual birth and allowed that spiritual growth within them to die.

 

[kylixguru]

Some of these are precise and some not so much. Even the vague ones imply that that Paul is saying that a certain group will not draw back.

Of course some will not draw back.
We are not arguing about whether all Christians will lose their relationship with Christ.

How could he possibly know that unless they could not do so? The line that seperates those who can't and those who can, can only be born again believers and un born again un believers.

You said earlier that those who draw back do so by drawing back from their birth, which I understand to be those whose spiritual growth wilts and dies after their birth.

There are no other lines to even consider. In your system these people certainly could draw back and so Paul can't know they would not.

You are just confusing yourself with silly limitations.

The fact that there are true Christians and others who simply claim to be that but are not is an inescapable fact and any claim to the contrary is impossible.

Ok, this is really bizarre.
Please, listen to and try and understand me.
The OP says "Christians" not "true Christians".
I offered to change it to "true Christians" if that's what you wanted.
In which case, I would then agree with you and the debate would be over.

But, so far as I have tried to make it clear, we are talking about Christians who profess to be true Christians. And, I am putting forward arguments showing that a person can experience a genuine spiritual birth as a Christian and yet fail to become a true Christian. If this topic for debate is not of interest to you then I really don't know where to go from here.

We can conclude this debate by saying I am correct if we say "professing Christians".
We can conclude this debate by saying you are correct if we say "true Christians".

That's more or less what it is going to boil down to.

And, incidentally, leaves you and I both in the category of not really knowing whether or not we are actually true Christians. That is why I think it is not much of debate if we cop out and conclude it in such an impractical manner.

I have not gone any where but where I started at. The issue is what makes a true Christian true. The only logical place to draw the line is spritual birth. That is my claim.

I am keenly aware of what your claim is, and I am showing you how your claim imposes inconsistencies and is glossing over other things.

You seem to support some strange notion that a person is a Christian when born again but later may not be one and then even later be one again, as he crosses some vague line that is never defined nor can it be even when repeatedly asked for.

The line is very clear. We either end up producing fruit that is harvested or not. We are like the 10 virgins who are given the betrothal promise and we remain as such until the time comes that the actual wedding with the Bridegroom takes place. This is when the Father comes to earth to establish His Kingdom in a real and literal way. If we have developed within us the proper spiritual growth and are bearing the fruit that the Father desires to harvest, then we will be drawn in and recognize it and come into it.

I admit that this leaves us with a certain amount of uncertainty as to whether we will actually produce the desired fruit the Father is looking for. This is why we are admonished to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling". (Philippians 2:12)

I have asked this and have never recieved a single answer from people with your views for years. Where is this line specifically?

The line is whether your fruit is harvested by the Father or not.

The Bible says that the Book of Life is the book in which appears the name of every person who is born. The Lamb's Book of Life is the book in which appears the name of every person who has been born again, spiritually speaking, who has been saved through the blood of the Lamb, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Which is the book Adam produces when He gives all of the "creatures" their "new name".
Adam is the Father who passes judgment upon all who have ever lived.
When Adam gives out the "names", these "names" pertain to the level of glory we shall receive in the hereafter, which is simply the next cycle of Creation. Some receive the "fish" level of the "breath of life". Others shall receive a higher order of "life" and there are those who receive the fulness of "life" and who are given complete dominion over all Creation and who are responsible to "name" (create/organize) an entirely new cycle of Creation. This pattern repeats over and over again with Adam being the Alpha/Omega who comes at the end of one cycle and births the new.

You must be saying that an angel is up there erasing our name every time we fail and rewriting it every time we repent.

Not exactly. There is one Book that is written for each Creation. At the end of one cycle of Creation, Adam comes to write all of the new names in a new Book. This new Book totally defines the new Creation. Some people who had their names written in the Book in the previous cycle may become unworthy and so at the Judgment Day (Adam's lifetime) it was determined this person's name should be removed entirely. That fore-ordains them in the next cycle of Creation to never actually attain to any level of spiritual birth at all. These are who shall remain non-believers and who shall never taste of the goodness and mercy of God. Or, they will be the ones who spread the bad seed which corrupts and twists, just as they were corrupted and twisted.

That makes no sense and is absolutely necessary in you system. By the way declaring something does not make it true. I have always believed and said that there are actual Christians and people who claim they are but are not. What seperates them is the Born again experience not some notion about a current level of obedience. Obedience is possible because of salvation and does not produce or maintain it. I have never wavered on that.

I understand you have not wavered from the belief that once someone has spiritual birth that their salvation is permanently guaranteed.
I disagree with this position and is why I am presenting the arguments that I am.

Appealing to some supposed ambiguity that does not exist will not extricate you from what we are discussing. I have never changed and have consistently stated what I believe a Christian is. My understanding is far more clear and simple as to what a Christian truly is than yours. If anyones views are causing ambiguity then they are not mine.

Yours has problems that I have been clear about the entire time.
It's helpful that we are reaching the point to where we have a crystal clear understanding of our points of departure.

 

[1robin]

I am not relying upon commentators in a beholden way to tell me how to understand God's Word.

It is more accurate to say based on your posts that you will reject any other persons input if it disagrees with your position no matter how much more highly trained, well respected, peer reviewed, infinitely greater access to other information for comparison, able to speak the actual languages the Bible was written in, or how many audiences or how much influence God has given them. I have yet to see any evidence you have researched what anyone else has said on the issue. You have simply established your theory and done whatever necessary to defend it.

Why do you make such absurd and "below the belt" assaults on my person?

On my person? That is a bizarre statement. What is below the belt about stating what is obvious, you do not consider what anyone or anything that disagrees with you says. Can you provide a single statement you have made here that shows you altered any point no matter how trivial or baseless based on anything an expert or myself has said.

Can you and I try to discuss things in a way where we seek mutual understanding?
I'm getting very wary of your desperate tactics to avoid actually focusing on the material at hand.

I am running out of patience with appeals to a lack of understanding made necessary by the frustration you feel that I will not agree with you. I understand your core position very well. It isn't new, it is very old. I have even asked specifically if more is required for me to understand then provide it. You didn't. Tell you what I will give you yet another chance. I want to know specifically and in detail what it is that I must do beyond being born again to get to heaven. I do not mean vague relative statements about seeking him or being obedient. I mean specifics. If you do not sufficiently answer I will not entertain accusations of understanding your position any further.

What can be gained from discussing anything with a person who is totally beholden to the same people you are?
Are you going to gain access to any fresh perspectives that way? No. Not one.

So you have a position and so do I. I however attempted to allow experts or any other reliable source influence in the interest of settling of the issue. You will not allow anything to settle the issue. I have offered other verses you have never addressed them. I have offered theological philosophy you have ignored it. I have of course provided experts, you have rejected them. Here is a fourth attempt. What happens to the African in the Congo bush who a traveling missionary leads to be born again but soon leaves. The poor African knows little about the Bible and can't find one. He does not know what he is supposed to do and never does any works of any kind for God. Where does he go? What happens to the Muslim in Iran who is saved by a ragged section of John he found? He does not know how to obey anything you impose on him. He can't discover all these complex intellectual gymnastic doctrines you hold. Either simple grace will save him or he is doomed? My position has no weak spots and is sufficient for the little old grand mother living in a secluded valley in the Ukraine, the man who will face death in Iran if he admits he is not a Muslim, the African who does not have a Bible and can't get one, the uneducated illiterate girl in a factory in China who can't read or understand your complex requirements. If they ever believed and were saved God will see them through. He will complete the promise. Yours creates even more problems than it solves if it does solve any. It makes God a liar in certain verses. Makes new Christians give it up when they screw up and conclude if you are right that God is cruel (I have seen this many times as a counselor). Gives no clear standard to meet and makes what Christ went through meaningless. He did not have to die if he can't save me from it without my help.

I didn't enter this discussion with you under the requirement that I would strictly subject myself to the opinions of scholars you find credible.

I never asked you to and do not do so myself. However it is even more ridiculous to maintain a position they all condemn in countless verses as well as every single other way I have attempted a resolution. Actually I have since found one that did not outright reject your theory on this verse but he did contradict himself with his position on the first verse. The fact that I had to find this indicates that you are not even bothering to read what they say.

If you are not actually interested in understanding my view and the substantive reasons for it and debating them at face value, what are you trying to accomplish here?

I will await an answer to my questions before another appeal to sympathy about understanding your position is addressed.

By the way you left out something very very important is your response to the two verses I posted and compared. I stated very clearly that when these issues arrise that since God can't contradict himself then one must not say what it seems on the surface to say. The point being that which one is most likely the one that means something different must be determined. You ignored the whole idea and simply said that one verse means what brings it back into conflict with a far more clear verse that states that we are saved from hell when we are born again. As I have repeatedly stated your theory causes conflict, it does not resolve it. You had to take the harmony my position made clear and make it conflict in order to make it say what you wish. You did nothing about the other verse which is far less ambiguous and so have not resolved what must be resolved to make your theory hold. I made the fact that both these verses must be harmonised clear and you left the first verse untouched. You created conflict by imposing a theory on the facts. I will go back and address the rest soon.

 

[kylixguru]

It is more accurate to say based on your posts that you will reject any other persons input if it disagrees with your position no matter how much more highly trained, well respected, peer reviewed, infinitely greater access to other information for comparison, able to speak the actual languages the Bible was written in, or how many audiences or how much influence God has given them. I have yet to see any evidence you have researched what anyone else has said on the issue. You have simply established your theory and done whatever necessary to defend it.

I simply am not beholden to the arm of flesh.
But, I am happy to consider their point of view.
Each person holds a view and reasons for that view.
I have not forbidden you from bringing in the views of others.
I simply want for my views to be properly understood and responded to substantively.

Unless and until someone, whether expert or otherwise, demonstrates they actually understands my point of view and can substantively refute it or has something more complete and correct to offer, it would be silly for me to alter my views.

You seem to want me to think differently just because someone else with alleged credentials holds a different point of view.

How many times do I need to tell you that I do not rely upon the arm of flesh?

 

[kylixguru]

On my person? That is a bizarre statement. What is below the belt about stating what is obvious, you do not consider what anyone or anything that disagrees with you says.

You are going below the belt yet again.

If you feel I do not understand something, please do what you feel is necessary to get confirmation that I have actually fully considered what you seem to think I haven't.

I feel like all along that I have followed you pretty well and I have registered issues with it that so far I don't sense that you even grasp, which means you have yet to actually consider my actual position in this debate.

You seem more interested in attacking me personally than actually confirming that you truly understand me.

That says a lot about what is going on here.

 

[kylixguru]

Can you provide a single statement you have made here that shows you altered any point no matter how trivial or baseless based on anything an expert or myself has said.

I don't think I've changed my position on anything one iota.
But, that doesn't mean I have not considered you and your scholar's points of view.
I see the flaws in them and as of yet you have not substantively refuted my objections to them.

Can you not see the arrogance in your presumption here?

You assume because you have not somehow impacted my beliefs that I am not considering you. You have not shared anything that has had any teeth against my position. This is especially so when I can tell you are operating out of a contorted view of my position.

How convincing do you think it was to insist over and over again that I was saying wheat became something else when that was never something I tried to claim or even imply?

I have repeatedly complained about your contorted view of my position and let you know that if you want to get some traction that you needed to get clarity first.

I am running out of patience with appeals to a lack of understanding made necessary by the frustration you feel that I will not agree with you.

Well, then quit slamming me with below the belt nonsense and actually stay focused on the subject matter at hand.
When you address my point of view I sense that you actually are not understanding my position as I intend for it to be understood.
You end up with some kind of a contortion of what I'm saying and you refuse my efforts to try and help you to get a clarified understanding.
That's what is causing this discussion to languish in unproductive dialog.

I understand your core position very well. It isn't new, it is very old. I have even asked specifically if more is required for me to understand then provide it. You didn't. Tell you what I will give you yet another chance. I want to know specifically and in detail what it is that I must do beyond being born again to get to heaven. I do not mean vague relative statements about seeking him or being obedient. I mean specifics. If you do not sufficiently answer I will not entertain accusations of understanding your position any further.

I've already told you, and Jesus did as well.
You must grow from spiritual birth to the point that you produce the spiritual fruit that the Father is looking to harvest. This is what gets you garnered into His Kingdom when it comes upon the earth.

So you have a position and so do I. I however attempted to allow experts or any other reliable source influence in the interest of settling of the issue. You will not allow anything to settle the issue.

There's a difference between being blindly beholden to something and allowing it.
Of course I allow you to present their perspectives, when haven't I?
They simply are not convincing in their conclusions and they have not refuted mine.

I have offered other verses you have never addressed them.

I'll gladly move forward when we can get clarity on things we are trying to focus on.
What is the rush and why do you feel the need to change focus and jump elsewhere?

I have offered theological philosophy you have ignored it.

I have rejected it. There's a difference.

I have of course provided experts, you have rejected them.

Yes, I rejected them. Thank you for finally getting more reasonable language.

Here is a fourth attempt. What happens to the African in the Congo bush who a traveling missionary leads to be born again but soon leaves. The poor African knows little about the Bible and can't find one. He does not know what he is supposed to do and never does any works of any kind for God. Where does he go?

What do you mean: "Where does he go?"
Where do you think he should or shouldn't go?
The fact of the matter is the Negro is under no curse at all and should just be left alone.

What happens to the Muslim in Iran who is saved by a ragged section of John he found? He does not know how to obey anything you impose on him. He can't discover all these complex intellectual gymnastic doctrines you hold. Either simple grace will save him or he is doomed?

Doomed to what?
You are who is assuming he is doomed to something.

My position has no weak spots and is sufficient for the little old grand mother living in a secluded valley in the Ukraine, the man who will face death in Iran if he admits he is not a Muslim, the African who does not have a Bible and can't get one, the uneducated illiterate girl in a factory in China who can't read or understand your complex requirements. If they ever believed and were saved God will see them through. He will complete the promise.

A person is only held accountable for what they had available to them.
My understanding doesn't doom any of these people.

Yours creates even more problems than it solves if it does solve any. It makes God a liar in certain verses.

I have refuted those claims of yours, which you have not yet addressed.

Makes new Christians give it up when they screw up and conclude if you are right that God is cruel (I have seen this many times as a counselor). Gives no clear standard to meet and makes what Christ went through meaningless. He did not have to die if he can't save me from it without my help.

You are willfully contorting my understanding if that is what you get out of it.

I never asked you to and do not do so myself. However it is even more ridiculous to maintain a position they all condemn in countless verses as well as every single other way I have attempted a resolution. Actually I have since found one that did not outright reject your theory on this verse but he did contradict himself with his position on the first verse. The fact that I had to find this indicates that you are not even bothering to read what they say.

Movement my way is not easy for them.
They regress back because they lack faith and want a system that gives a guarantee instead.
If you look carefully, you will see you doing that as well. In one sentence you will say seed germination is spiritual birth but then when you see that this has other implications you will come away from that.

I will await an answer to my questions before another appeal to sympathy about understanding your position is addressed.

How about you stop the below the belt psychoanalyzing of me and just stay focused on the subject matter. I'll let you know when I sense that you get my point of view in the way that I hold it. How about you make an effort to explain to me, using simple objective language, that will confirm to me that you have a reasonable grasp of my perspective?

So far is all you seem to come up with is a bunch of false assumptions and false implications about what my understanding imposes.

By the way you left out something very very important is your response to the two verses I posted and compared. I stated very clearly that when these issues arrise that since God can't contradict himself then one must not say what it seems on the surface to say. The point being that which one is most likely the one that means something different must be determined. You ignored the whole idea and simply said that one verse means what brings it back into conflict with a far more clear verse that states that we are saved from hell when we are born again. As I have repeatedly stated your theory causes conflict, it does not resolve it. You had to take the harmony my position made clear and make it conflict in order to make it say what you wish. You did nothing about the other verse which is far less ambiguous and so have not resolved what must be resolved to make your theory hold. I made the fact that both these verses must be harmonised clear and you left the first verse untouched. You created conflict by imposing a theory on the facts. I will go back and address the rest soon.

If you think I have missed a specific point, please re-raise it in a clear manner and I will address it.

You have yet to actually understand many things that I believe and so you need to be aware that the many assumptions you make about what my beliefs require are relative to your own limited point of view. I'll patiently bear with you, but I would appreciate more of a tone of this:

If you believe X then this causes a problem with Y.
How do you resolve the problem of Y in your belief system?

Instead of this:

If you believe in X then you are asking the impossible.
You cannot resolve this problem in your belief system.

 

[1robin]

I've already told you, and Jesus did as well.
You must grow from spiritual birth to the point that you produce the spiritual fruit that the Father is looking to harvest. This is what gets you garnered into His Kingdom when it comes upon the earth.

Good night nurse did you not understand the question?

Tell you what I will give you yet another chance. I want to know specifically and in detail what it is that I must do beyond being born again to get to heaven. I do not mean vague relative statements about seeking him or being obedient. I mean specifics. If you do not sufficiently answer I will not entertain accusations of understanding your position any further.

Like your buddy I will even give you another chance. I gave several specific examples of the type of vague claims that are meaningless. You responded by being even more vague than what I had mentioned. I am almost at a loss here. If this is Christian theology I am becomeing an atheist. Of all the works based guys who never can fully answer this question this by by far the most ambiguous and vague response I have ever seen and might even be possible.

1.What fruits?
2.How much fruit?
3.If I produce that certain level of fruit you arbitrarily decided on then can I then kill anyone I want and still get to heaven?
4.OK then what ratio of fruit balances out what ratio of bad deed?
5.What about the guy who has one less fruit than another?
6.Does he deserve eternal seperation and the guy with one additional fruit deserve eternal bliss?
7.Can I substitute one type of fruit for another?

I can't believe this is what you posted after that exhaustive question. I just do not get it. I can't do this anymore at least for a while.

 

[kylixguru]

Good night nurse did you not understand the question?

Yes, I believe I did understand the question and I gave an answer that conveys the correct principle in the matter.

Do you understand that your question has embedded in it your limited point of view?

Like your buddy I will even give you another chance.

Another chance at what?
My salvation does not depend upon anything in relation to your beliefs or actions.

I gave several specific examples of the type of vague claims that are meaningless.

Principles are not vague to me.
You seem to be wanting to impose the old carnal code of the lesser law or to have some kind of a complete non-existence of any law at all.
Neither extreme is where things are at.

There is still law, just as before, only Jesus raised it to a higher level where it pertains to your spiritual life.

If you lust after a woman, you will go to hell if you don't repent. This is the sin of adultery at the spiritual level, which causes death by stoning, which in this case is spiritual death. If you have a fetish for lusting after women, your spirit will be dead no matter if you had or think you had a born again experience or not.

And, if you actually do commit adultery, then instead of being stoned as the carnal law did, under Christian law you would be spiritually put to death, which means you are excommunicated from your body of saints.

Just like an Israelite maintained their good standing in society by abiding in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Mosaic Covenant, so too do Christians maintain a good standing before God by living in accordance with the laws raised up to the level of spiritual life.

When the Father comes, this is the level to which you must be prepared to live. He shall expect all in His Kingdom to be disciplined to the extent that the nature of the people there will have the laws written upon their hearts and they shall be kept at the higher level. People will naturally live the beatitudes just as Jesus taught them. If you don't have success when practicing as a Christian with some training wheels on, then you likely will not want to be in the Father's Kingdom either.

You responded by being even more vague than what I had mentioned. I am almost at a loss here. If this is Christian theology I am becomeing an atheist. Of all the works based guys who never can fully answer this question this by by far the most ambiguous and vague response I have ever seen and might even be possible.

The higher laws are principles that get written into your heart or they don't. If you need a to-do checklist, then you are only fit to be put on the lesser law of carnal commandments.

1.What fruits?

Jesus clearly taught what the fruits the Father looks for are.
Patience, forbearance, kindness, love unfeigned, merciful, obedient, respectful, full of knowledge, cheerful, easily entreated, not boastful, apt to teach, charitable, hungers and thirsts for truth and righteousness, etc.

2.How much fruit?

Jesus said 30x, 60x or 100x.

How many spiritual virtues have you mastered?

3.If I produce that certain level of fruit you arbitrarily decided on then can I then kill anyone I want and still get to heaven?

Shedding innocent blood qualifies you for hell, irrevocably. As does adultery. Anything that brought about the consequence of physical death under the carnal commandments assures a person of spiritual death if they commit such sins as a Saint.

4.OK then what ratio of fruit balances out what ratio of bad deed?

That's not how it works at all so there is no answer to this question.

5.What about the guy who has one less fruit than another?

Then he has one less positive characteristic in his being to be blessed by.

6.Does he deserve eternal seperation and the guy with one additional fruit deserve eternal bliss?

It may lessen his capacity to experience union with God's Spirit but it would depend upon what that difference was.
If someone couldn't get over their lust for women, it would make all the difference.

7.Can I substitute one type of fruit for another?

Well, people tend to be rather stubborn when it comes to changes in their nature.
Ideally you should just try to improve your nature all the way around rather than let an area you have improved go in order to work on another area.

I can't believe this is what you posted after that exhaustive question. I just do not get it. I can't do this anymore at least for a while.

I understand you can't believe what I have answered.
It doesn't fit within the grossly over-simplified paradigm you impose.

You find principles difficult to comprehend in a tangible way.

 

[1robin]

Yes, I believe I did understand the question and I gave an answer that conveys the correct principle in the matter.

Do you understand that your question has embedded in it your limited point of view?

Another chance at what?
My salvation does not depend upon anything in relation to your beliefs or actions.

Principles are not vague to me.
You seem to be wanting to impose the old carnal code of the lesser law or to have some kind of a complete non-existence of any law at all.
Neither extreme is where things are at.

There is still law, just as before, only Jesus raised it to a higher level where it pertains to your spiritual life.

If you lust after a woman, you will go to hell if you don't repent. This is the sin of adultery at the spiritual level, which causes death by stoning, which in this case is spiritual death. If you have a fetish for lusting after women, your spirit will be dead no matter if you had or think you had a born again experience or not.

And, if you actually do commit adultery, then instead of being stoned as the carnal law did, under Christian law you would be spiritually put to death, which means you are excommunicated from your body of saints.

Just like an Israelite maintained their good standing in society by abiding in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Mosaic Covenant, so too do Christians maintain a good standing before God by living in accordance with the laws raised up to the level of spiritual life.

When the Father comes, this is the level to which you must be prepared to live. He shall expect all in His Kingdom to be disciplined to the extent that the nature of the people there will have the laws written upon their hearts and they shall be kept at the higher level. People will naturally live the beatitudes just as Jesus taught them. If you don't have success when practicing as a Christian with some training wheels on, then you likely will not want to be in the Father's Kingdom either.


The higher laws are principles that get written into your heart or they don't. If you need a to-do checklist, then you are only fit to be put on the lesser law of carnal commandments.

Jesus clearly taught what the fruits the Father looks for are.
Patience, forbearance, kindness, love unfeigned, merciful, obedient, respectful, full of knowledge, cheerful, easily entreated, not boastful, apt to teach, charitable, hungers and thirsts for truth and righteousness, etc.

Jesus said 30x, 60x or 100x.

How many spiritual virtues have you mastered?

Shedding innocent blood qualifies you for hell, irrevocably. As does adultery. Anything that brought about the consequence of physical death under the carnal commandments assures a person of spiritual death if they commit such sins as a Saint.

That's not how it works at all so there is no answer to this question.

Then he has one less positive characteristic in his being to be blessed by.

It may lessen his capacity to experience union with God's Spirit but it would depend upon what that difference was.
If someone couldn't get over their lust for women, it would make all the difference.

Well, people tend to be rather stubborn when it comes to changes in their nature.
Ideally you should just try to improve your nature all the way around rather than let an area you have improved go in order to work on another area.

I understand you can't believe what I have answered.
It doesn't fit within the grossly over-simplified paradigm you impose.

You find principles difficult to comprehend in a tangible way.

I am done. Keep your sacred cow in the face of all scholarship if you are that obsessed with it.

 

[kylixguru]

I am done. Keep your sacred cow in the face of all scholarship if you are that obsessed with it.

Why are you done?
I answered your questions.

Do you think Jesus came to totally eliminate the law for those that take his death as a bottomless account to draft whatever immorality they wish?

The root difference that separates our understandings is this:

Yours gives permanent guarantee forever and ever, which gives people a sense of infallibility and entitlement, which leads to pride and self-righteousness.
Mine leaves all blessings inseparably connected with righteousness, which gives people a sense of responsibility and discipline, which leads to humility and penitance.

Yours eliminates the need for a continuation of an abiding faith.
Mine requires the need for a continuation of an abiding faith.

Yours appeals to the ego's need to feel safe and secure.
Mine appeals to the new spiritual growth's need for abiding vitality.

 

[1robin]

Why are you done?
I answered your questions.

Do you think Jesus came to totally eliminate the law for those that take his death as a bottomless account to draft whatever immorality they wish?

The root difference that separates our understandings is this:

Yours gives permanent guarantee forever and ever, which gives people a sense of infallibility and entitlement, which leads to pride and self-righteousness.
Mine leaves all blessings inseparably connected with righteousness, which gives people a sense of responsibility and discipline, which leads to humility and penitance.

Yours eliminates the need for a continuation of an abiding faith.
Mine requires the need for a continuation of an abiding faith.

Yours appeals to the ego's need to feel safe and secure.
Mine appeals to the new spiritual growth's need for abiding vitality.

No matter what is said or shown it has no effect. I state specifically that I want data that isn't vague and even give examples of what they are. Not only do you not rise above the levels of the examples you post one even far more vague. Between this, the million PMs and that other thread I am burned out. Maybe I wil pick it up again as some future point.