Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I disagree... that is exactly what some are saying... otherwise WHY the loss of salvation??? One side is saying it's all about CHRIST and HIS SHED BLOOD and the other side saying.... CHRIST's SHED BLOOD plus their GOOD WORKS.... This is absolutely the problem.. and why these debates always go sideways as you say.
His purpose fails for them because they stop believing. At which point God no longer has any obligation to them to watch over them as a dad.
Yep. Just like when you left Adam's family and are no longer a child made in his image. You are born again. You belong to a new family. So the concept of no longer being a son is not an impossibility. That very thing has already happened for every born again person. You have been born into a new family and no longer belong to the family you came from.
I don't understand. Perhaps we should have a private discussion about it, if you care to. I would like to add that I have more assurance of salvation now, as a classical Arminian than I ever had under the eternal security doctrine. It's very simple, actually. Whereas I now feel that my perseverance is totally in God's keeping, before, I felt that everything depended on my feeble sincerity. I understand that people feel and believe differently, and I have every intention of defending their right to do so. I can't see a better way for me. Let every man be convinced in his own mind. If someone does somehow disturb my peace with God, I know how to close a browser tab or power off a device.
But I thought God had no obligation to anything. That's a recurring theme in the Bible, isn't it? Wouldn't obligation negate grace?
He has the obligation as a Father to discipline his children. He does not have that obligation to those who are not his children. Hebrews 12. I'm confident you know the passage.But I thought God had no obligation to anything. That's a recurring theme in the Bible, isn't it? Wouldn't obligation negate grace?
why not just accept each other's viewpoints as each person trying their best to bear good fruit and live lives in Christ and pleasing in sight to the Lord?
Thank you, BB. Here is a direct link to the article for those who wish to read it. It is fascinating. But it does present a kind of neo-dispensationalism that I find troubling. I've only read about half of the article so far, but it is clear that it teaches two gospels: One of Christ; and one of Paul. I do not believe that Paul improved upon or changed the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He certainly made it more studious and profoundly expanded, but he himself says there is one LORD; one faith; and one baptism (Ephesians 4:5).
Thank you, BB. Here is a direct link to the article for those who wish to read it. It is fascinating. But it does present a kind of neo-dispensationalism that I find troubling. I've only read about half of the article so far, but it is clear that it teaches two gospels: One of Christ; and one of Paul. I do not believe that Paul improved upon or changed the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He certainly made it more studious and profoundly expanded, but he himself says there is one LORD; one faith; and one baptism (Ephesians 4:5).
And Peter made it clear that to the uninitiated or unconsecrated, Paul's writings could be dangerous (2 Peter 3:16). Let me say that another way to be clear. If one (even one who professes Christ) is not walking closely with Christ, Paul's writings can actually trip them up. Virtually no one on this or any other forum I've been on admits to this possibility. I admit freely that there are parts of Paul's writings that I do not understand. Hard to be understood means hard to be understood. I take all Scripture literally unless a figurative, paradoxical, or symbolic interpretation is suggested by context or other related passages. I believe this is a matter of sound hermeneutics.
It's the distinction between believers and unbelievers. John tells us how to make that distinction. Why are so many Christians afraid of John's words?
This is a nice post, but I personally don't think style has much to do with the fracturing of God's Church. I'd say the love of sin is more responsible.
I'm trying a new thing. Well, new to me. It's actually the old flies-honey-vinegar thing.
I try to stay on topic. The Bible talks about a lot more than law vs grace.
