quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

It seems that some of the commenters here, and some of the scripture, support the idea that salvation cannot be lost, once achieved.

Since you're the OP, I'll give my perspective. When I first became a Bible Christian, I studied the many different topics under Christianity: eschatology (end times), Christology (nature of Jesus), Soteriology (salvation), Pneumatology (Holy Spirit), Cosmology (creation vs evolution), etc. I did it by reading books on the subject and the Bible.

You can imagine, in each of these topics, there is much debate, disagreement, and division to the point where each side has labeled the other side(s) as heretics. Especially, on the area you touched on, Soteriology or the doctrine of salvation. Church splits and schisms have occurred over such polarizing topics.

There are two main camps - Calvinism and Armenianism. Calvinists believe once saved, always saved. There are other facets of Calvinism that are integral to it but I'm just sticking with the issue you brought up. Because you can never do anything to save yourself in the first place and it was all the work of Jesus, then you can never do anything to undo the work of God. On the cross, Jesus paid for all your sins you committed before you ever believed in Him and he also paid for all your sins you will commit after you believe in Him. It doesn't make sense that today, you received Jesus as Savior and are saved but tomorrow, a driver cuts you off on the freeway, you start cursing and get mad and thus commit murder in your heart and you're not saved anymore.

On the other hand, Armenians believe that while we are not saved by works but by grace through faith, our faith is demonstrated by our works. And, if eventually, we don't persevere in our faith, then we're just the rocky soil where the seed was planted, quickly took root, but eventually withered away. It's not like we can "lose" our salvation like coins through a hole in our pocket but, through willful and intentional disobedience, the Holy Spirit will respect our decision to not be saved anymore.

Both sides take bible passages to support their positions. Having studied both sides, I see both sides taking the passages that support their position literally and then interpreting the passages that the other side use to be able to explain it. Which side is right? I personally have settled that both sides are right. When I read the passages that are used to support once saved always saved, I take that passage to support once saved, always saved. When I read the passages that are used to support you can give up your salvation, I take that passage to mean that as well. How can both passages be right? In the same way that I believe the Bible teaches God is one and, yet, at the same time, the Bible teaches the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. That's the doctrine of the Trinity which all Biblical orthodox Christianity holds.

My descriptions are just a summary. I'm not posting so I can have an argument from either camp. My intent is to share with you what I've learned. An overriding principle I have on Christian topics is the saying: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity."

So in the essentials of the faith, Christians must contend for unity and not commune with contradictory doctrines. Over the centuries, these essentials would identify Biblical Christianity in contrast with non-Biblical pseudo-Christianity. Central to this would include the aforementioned Trinity doctrine as well as the doctrines that Jesus is both God and Man, that He is the incarnated God born of the virgin Mary, that he did die and was bodily resurrected. Because if we have a different view of Jesus from this, then we are believing in a different Jesus. Do you have to believe all this in order to be saved? No, I don't believe so. You just need to know that Jesus died for your sins and rose again from the dead. As you grow in the faith and learn more about Jesus, then these essential things among other essentials are what you'll learn.

But, as for non-essentials, we have liberty even as we extend that same liberty to others. Paul said someone regards one day more holy than another, let them be. I believe whether salvation can never be given up is a non-essential doctrine. The mandate Jesus gave to his disciples in Matthew 28 was not to go out and make sure everyone knows whether they can ever lose salvation. The mandate was for his disciples to make other disciples and to teach those disciples to make other disciple as well. When we all get to heaven, then we can finally know the truth about all the things that have been dividing us through the ages.
The important thing is do you have saving faith and are you working so that others can have the same saving faith as you.

My take on the pacifism idea.

Many if not most folks who argue this idea if they are Christians and likely more who are not but try to use pacifism as a point in attempt to call out points of hypocrisy.
They will always use the phrase “Turn the other cheek” and try to pass that off as that is all the scripture from Matthew 5:39. They leave out the first part of the verse.

quote:

39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

Jesus specifically states that if one strikes you on your right cheek. Why does he specifically say right cheek when we have two cheeks?
Because Jesus understands that there will be be times that we have to/should be defending ourselves and or others.

Also to be slapped on your right cheek generally one has to be slapped with a left hand. Which is not generally as common.

I am by no means a Biblical scholar but there is a lot of language in the Bible and when Jesus speaks that are pretty specific and there are those that are fairly broad.

So maybe I am wrong.

I appreciate the thorough, thoughtful reply, HRH.

quote:

"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity." ... as for non-essentials, we have liberty even as we extend that same liberty to others. Paul said someone regards one day more holy than another, let them be. I believe whether salvation can never be given up is a non-essential doctrine. ... The mandate was for his disciples to make other disciples and to teach those disciples to make other disciple as well. When we all get to heaven, then we can finally know the truth about all the things that have been dividing us through the ages.
The important thing is do you have saving faith and are you working so that others can have the same saving faith as you.

Agreed. The fact that we can discuss the topic without it devolving into an argument is apparent proof-enough that it is non-essential doctrine. However, in attempting to execute the mandate, I know this is a sticking point for non-believers, which is why I want to learn more about it.

Same thing with pacifism. As 92LX points-out, it's used as a "gotcha!" by critics of Christianity.

We are content to submit to the likely meaning of a biblical excerpt if it's something that we're comfortable-enough with. The prospect of pacifism being promoted by Christ is not something we're comfortable with, so we're not content to take the scripture at face value.

Maybe Jesus did mean that you should "take it on the chin" if it's a weak-hand slap, but be ready to nut-up if the offender opts to graduate to a proper dominant-hand slap. But he just as likely (if not more likely) didn't.

Blessed are the merciful. Blessed are the peacemakers.

Potential converts in this increasingly know-it-all, cynical, social media age won't be content to accept the essential/non-essential doctrine approach. They'll only be (maybe rightfully) critical of the fact that we have seemingly unresolved "cornerstone" issues.

I appreciate the ongoing contributions to the conversation. In a discussion with a non-believer, if presented with these controversial subjects, I can, at the very least, share the efforts my Christian peers (and betters) and I have made to understand.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

Whichever brand of the Christian religion we believe, it can be helpful for some, but perhaps not all, that all the branches are invented by degrees by men of faith telling the story they best they can, with more or less some degree of bias and purpose. I do not believe this fact diminishes any of the branches of the Christian faith, and in some way strengthens it, since by nature to the degree that true faith is based in humility and thankfulness to the God that revealed himself to us, it should be with humility that we support one or another viewpoint more strongly than another. If we don't how are we different from the savages of other religions who want to enslave you or kill you for not supporting their faith. Be glad that we're Christians at all.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

Same thing with pacifism. As 92LX points-out, it's used as a "gotcha!" by critics of Christianity.

We are content to submit to the likely meaning of a biblical excerpt if it's something that we're comfortable-enough with. The prospect of pacifism being promoted by Christ is not something we're comfortable with, so we're not content to take the scripture at face value.

On that, I can share what I heard from Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Russian Jew, received Orthodox Jewish training, became a Christian through a Lutheran minister, BS in Hebrew and Greek,studied archaeology, ancient history, and Hebrew in Jerusalem around the time of the Six-Day War, and then graduated with a Master of Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary.

So this is not something I came up with on my own but the way he explained it made sense to me and made me comfortable with the position. I don't remember his whole argument, just the gist of the position.

He explained that Christians are to turn their cheek if the prosecution is based on your Christianity; that is, you're being persecuted for your faith. But if you're being assaulted for other than your faith, you have the responsibility to protect yourself and other innocent lives from evil.

For me, this makes sense. What made Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego willing to be thrown into the fire for their faith is the same witness given by Christians as they were killed by ISIS militants to make a non-Christian decide "Their God is My God." before he was martyred himself.

On the other hand, if the primary motivation is because you have something they want such as your life, your loved ones, your loved ones, or even just your good name, you have the moral obligation to fight evil, to be the salt of the world. This allows me to not have the inner conflict of considering "these thugs are going to rape my wife and my daughter but God told me to be a pacifist."

Romans 13:4 says the government wields the sword as God's servants and that would include people being part of the sword as being in of the military.

An interesting middle ground there, HRH. It had been mentioned previously that Christians may indeed face persecution again. In that context, according to Mr. Fruchtenbaum, we'd be obliged to represent our faith to the fullest extent, and be non-combative.

Pavilion, what is the point of copy/pasting excerpts from the Bible?

This is a discussion thread.

How is simply quoting long biblical passages a discussion of the matters raised here?

I sometimes find the “I know what God meant, and you don’t” coldly certain assertions a bit bemusing, but at least they provide insights into people’s beliefs. Citing specific (and hopefully limited) biblical passages to illustrate or support a point is useful, and the insightful posts by member Rey HRH that explain his beliefs are excellent examples of that.

If, however, someone just wants to read long walls of text extracts from a Bible, they are readily available online.

Added: reloader-1 and I obviously had the same thoughts, and he posted as I was drafting my comments.

I intended to author a similar response to Pavilion's posts today. It seems other members feel the same way I do. I do appreciate that a new member of a firearms forum is active in a thread like this. He didn't come here for this sort of discourse, but apparently appreciates it.

However, as reloader and sigfreund have pointed-out, if there is no associated personal notes from the sharer of the scripture excerpts, they do little to promote discussion among the members. Also, if we're considering the non-believers or would-be-believers who may be reading, I think posts like this serve to drive them away. I know the non-believers I talk to would be 100% non-receptive to this sort of presentation.

Scripture is always thought-provoking, and I am hesitant to give anyone too much grief for sharing passages they feel are important. We'd appreciate it if you added a little note as to why you felt like sharing them.

Excellent comments, KSGM: What I was thinking, but didn’t express as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Pavilion:
Sorry to offend you,

I’m aware that in China and Islamic countries displaying scripture is detrimental.

Farewell.

This isn’t China or Islamic countries dude.

Post all the scripture you want, just… discuss it?

No need to take your ball and go home.

No one's offended, brother. We don't want to drive you away from the conversation. We hope you return.

If any ill will was perceived by you, I assure you that it's a misunderstanding. If you've read the preceding twelve pages, you've seen that we're all friends here.

C'mon back whenever you like.

We want to get the most out of what you're sharing. That's why we wanted you to elaborate.

quote:

The reason for this persecution is simple. A godly life exposes the wickedness of others. People do not like to be thus exposed. Instead of repenting of their ungodliness and turning to Christ, they seek to destroy the one who has shown them up for what they really are. It is totally irrational behavior, of course, but that is characteristic of fallen man.

I did very-much appreciate this personal, unique comment. I found it insightful and thought-provoking.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
How is simply quoting long biblical passages a discussion of the matters raised here?

I sometimes find the “I know what God meant, and you don’t” coldly certain assertions a bit bemusing, but at least they provide insights into people’s beliefs. Citing specific (and hopefully limited) biblical passages to illustrate or support a point is useful, and the insightful posts by member Rey HRH that explain his beliefs are excellent examples of that.

If, however, someone just wants to read long walls of text extracts from a Bible, they are readily available online.

Added: reloader-1 and I obviously had the same thoughts, and he posted as I was drafting my comments.

Quick to criticize. But that’s what people do best on social media.

Farewell.

(This'll raise some hackle feathers... )

If only there were a place where everyone could go for the right answers. A place, created by Jesus Himself and given the authority, by Him, to teach His word.

Man, that'd be awesome.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
(This'll raise some hackle feathers... )

If only there were a place where everyone could go for the right answers. A place, created by Jesus Himself and given the authority, by Him, to teach His word.

Man, that'd be awesome.

Yep and I am looking forward to being there one day.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:


When I first became a Bible Christian,

I am not familiar with the term "Bible Christian." What do you mean by that?

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:


When I first became a Bible Christian,

I am not familiar with the term "Bible Christian." What do you mean by that?

That’s a fair question. (Or I want say like in Congressional hearings, “Thank you for the question.”)

By “Christian,” I mean according to John 3:16 in that I believe on Jesus Christ for my salvation from utter destruction and unto eternal life. Ironically, I came to this decision while reading the Bible for ammunition in debates I liked having with Christians. These were Christians in the navy and the street preachers in corners I happen to come across. One favorite volley of mine I remember was “If liars go to hell, which the Bible say (Revelation 21:8), then would a lie to save an innocent person’s life (ala Anne Frank) send the liar to hell?” A “yes” would point to an unfair evil God and a “No” would point to the Bible being wrong.

But I came across the passage where Jesus allegedly said, “Come to me all who are weary and I will give you rest.” I reasoned that Jesus said that pretty much aware he was going to be persecuted and eventually die. Someone who makes such a bold promise has to be bluffing or actually has the cards to back it up. And, as far as I know, his disciples took him up on his offer confidently even to the point of their deaths. So I decided to call him on his bluff and said right then and there, “Lord, whatever it takes, I want you to be master of my life.”

I say all the preceding to give the context of what I mean by the word “Bible” in “Bible Christian.” I made that decision somewhere in the middle of the Indian Ocean in the bowels of a Navy ship on June 3, 1979. But I added a proviso to the contract. Being that I still have about 3 years left to go on my six year enlistment contract with the Navy, I reserved the right to continue living as a sailor (drinking, smoking, loan sharking, etc) until I was out of the Navy. I continued studying the Bible and no one gave me shit about it like I did to anyone I learned who was a Christian.

The morning after I got out, May 28, 1982, I woke up, reached for a cigarette and a voice inside my head said, “You know, if you don’t light that up, you’ll never have to smoke another cigarette again.” I thought long and hard about that because I was at least two packs a day and a whole carton was only $5 then. But I decided not to light that cigarette and have never had to smoke another cigarette since.

Shortly after I got out, maybe a month, I was invited to a church which happened to be non-denominational. I continued studying the Bible and reading books on different theological subjects with often contradictory viewpoints. So I became fairly familiar with the opposing Christian views on the divisive topics and I am comfortable with debating from either perspective. I have also reconciled a position for myself on the different issues which often straddle the issue. The reasoning I used is based on the tenet that there is one God yet the Bible indicates the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. A logical and mathematical contradiction but orthodox Christianity holds both are true at the same time. In most either/or theological divisions, I posit why can’t both sides be true at the same time similar to the trinity doctrine. This position isn’t what I learned from that church but what I formulated for myself. After I left that first church, I learned it split over once saved, always saved doctrine.

Since that first church, I’ve been a regular member of only 3 other churches. We go to different churches while on vacation. But when we look for a church on vacation or to be a regular member, we don’t consider denominations. While we’re still looking, we go to different churches and sometimes even two different services on Sunday. This last time after moving to AZ, we were hoping to find a church in the same town we lived in. At least, we ended up in the next city over. What’s our criteria? Between my wife and I, we’re looking for the church where God wants us to be and where He could use us. When I get asked why we chose the church we currently attend, I answer, “God told us to go here because these people need all the help they can get.”

So “Bible Christian” as I use it means my Christianity and how I live my life as a Christian is based on the Bible united in the essentials with other Christians of whatever denominations, and allowing other Christians to have liberty in the non essentials while exercising charity in all things as according to the saying attributed to Saint Augustine.

quote:

Someone who makes such a bold promise has to be bluffing or actually has the cards to back it up.

A favorite C.S. Lewis line of reasoning is something like: Jesus either was who he said he was or he was a complete madman. Should we even take moral advice from a complete lunatic?

quote:

Originally posted by Pavilion:

Quick to criticize. But that’s what people do best on social media.

Farewell.

I don't want you to go.

I'm an apostate for the same reason.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
No one's offended, brother. We don't want to drive you away from the conversation. We hope you return.

If any ill will was perceived by you, I assure you that it's a misunderstanding. If you've read the preceding twelve pages, you've seen that we're all friends here.

We? You speak for them? They made it clear they were annoyed and the only ones who are right.

"Friends" don't treat each other like that.