It's about "relationship"...right?

[dhh712]

High-sounding platitudes - we hear them constantly. Where once was powerfully preached and gladly heard echoed a plain "thus saith the Lord" is now filled with a cacophony of shallow religious colloquialisms and sound bites...and Christians of today's largely backslidden church "love to have it so" (Jeremiah 5:31 KJV). One of the most popular of these is "It's not about religion, but about relaaaaationship". Fine, then. What were perhaps the two most important things Jesus referred to in teaching us about what constitutes a proper relationship with God? about how He relates to us and how we are to Him?

Children and marriage.

So, what did God say was to be the fate of Israelite children who strike their parents? Stoned to death. Yet, somehow the OSAS crowd which makes up the majority of Christianity today ignores this divine revelation of God's uncompromising will that solemn reverence for parents be in the heart of every child, young or old, that by this they may also learn to reverence Him -- and instead, spit in their heavenly Father's face and "crucify the Son of God afresh and put Him to an open shame" by willfully sinning against Him after receiving a knowledge of the truth (Hebrews 10:26 KJV). They believe grace somehow cripples His justice and makes His bark worse than His bite - that the fresh nails of sin they drive daily into the hands and feet of Jesus will go unnoticed in the day of Judgment.

So, what does the Bible say about the marital obligations of the husband and wife? That the man (or woman) who commits adultery is a fool who will end up lost (Proverbs 6:32 KJV). Yet, somehow the OSAS "faithful" think God is satisfied with presumptuous, deliberate, habitual unfaithfulness to His Ten Commandments, while they themselves will slap even a one-time unfaithful spouse with divorce papers and remarry before the ink has a chance to dry.

Sure, it's about "relationship" alright - one of double standards and selfish terms. Is that the kind of relationship we are to have with the One Who had every right to abandon us with that first bite of forbidden fruit, but instead at that moment began a long journey to what would be the ultimate, infinite sacrifice for our redemption - even if not a single soul would have been touched by His grace and surrendered their heart to Him?

While I do not adhere to the way that OSAS is applied most often (once you are saved you can willfully sin and it doesn't matter; what that does show is that you do not know God and are in fact not saved at all though you may have thought you were as Jesus explains in the parable of the sower). However, I understand it to be quite necessary to have a relationship with the Lord Jesus. If one is setting out to check off a list of do and don'ts to follow but does not walk daily with the Lord, striving to know him more and spend time with him, then that shows a lack in his or her spiritual life. It would appear then that such a person is relying upon his or her own righteousness to be reconciled to Our Heavenly Father and not the righteousness that is applied to them in Jesus.

Again, this requires a balance of regarding that righteousness that is applied because then the OSAS who actually have no knowledge or walk with God will say, "Well, I've got Jesus' righteousness, right so that means I can do whatever I want now!" But in reality, those who do know the Lord Jesus, the Spirit and Our Heavenly Father will not "want to do whatever I want". They want to be with the Lord, know him, and walk closer with him. They love his law and strive to be found righteous as he was (though our works are by no means perfect) out of a overwhelming love for God and desperate plea to be more and more like Jesus.

Thus I do not scoff at the term "relationship" with God as I do feel it is the most important thing in a Christian's life. But the OSAS saved, as it is typically regarded, is not Biblical in the slightest sense. Those people who adhere to such an idea are the seed which fell on the bad soils but not on the good soil which bears fruit unto God.

Let’s at least agree the majority of believers today are OSAS - try standing up in your church this weekend and say if we branches fail to continue abiding in the Vine “Jesus”, we’ll be cast into the Lake of Fire, and see how long you last.

Many ministers of my denomination preach about this. They also preach about the vitality of having a relationship with Jesus. The one pastor I'm listening to now on his series in Luke frequently mentions how it may be that life-long church goers may find themselves by their apathy toward Jesus in hell on the last day.

"If you are trying to be saved or sanctified by law..." That's your words, post #53...did someone hack into your account or are you mistaken?

Yes, but he was agreeing with you on that account. He was saying basically that striving to keep the law does not earn someone salvation, which is what you are saying too (that the works are not what earn salvation but are evidence of our belief in God, our choice to believe in Him). That's what I got from the conversation.

 

[Phoneman777]

While I do not adhere to the way that OSAS is applied most often (once you are saved you can willfully sin and it doesn't matter; what that does show is that you do not know God and are in fact not saved at all though you may have thought you were as Jesus explains in the parable of the sower). However, I understand it to be quite necessary to have a relationship with the Lord Jesus. If one is setting out to check off a list of do and don'ts to follow but does not walk daily with the Lord, striving to know him more and spend time with him, then that shows a lack in his or her spiritual life. It would appear then that such a person is relying upon his or her own righteousness to be reconciled to Our Heavenly Father and not the righteousness that is applied to them in Jesus.

Again, this requires a balance of regarding that righteousness that is applied because then the OSAS who actually have no knowledge or walk with God will say, "Well, I've got Jesus' righteousness, right so that means I can do whatever I want now!" But in reality, those who do know the Lord Jesus, the Spirit and Our Heavenly Father will not "want to do whatever I want". They want to be with the Lord, know him, and walk closer with him. They love his law and strive to be found righteous as he was (though our works are by no means perfect) out of a overwhelming love for God and desperate plea to be more and more like Jesus.

Thus I do not scoff at the term "relationship" with God as I do feel it is the most important thing in a Christian's life. But the OSAS saved, as it is typically regarded, is not Biblical in the slightest sense. Those people who adhere to such an idea are the seed which fell on the bad soils but not on the good soil which bears fruit unto God.



Many ministers of my denomination preach about this. They also preach about the vitality of having a relationship with Jesus. The one pastor I'm listening to now on his series in Luke frequently mentions how it may be that life-long church goers may find themselves by their apathy toward Jesus in hell on the last day.



Yes, but he was agreeing with you on that account. He was saying basically that striving to keep the law does not earn someone salvation, which is what you are saying too (that the works are not what earn salvation but are evidence of our belief in God, our choice to believe in Him). That's what I got from the conversation.

It's a fine line between the truth and the OSAS License to Sin, but a line we must nevertheless recognize. What you're describing is total surrender where habitual, presumptuous disobedience is not an option - which is no less unreasonable than the non-negotiable expectation of faithfulness shared by a bride and groom.

 

[michaelvpardo]

I'm trying to have a nice life, but the record keeps needing correction:

"If you are trying to be saved or sanctified by law..." That's your words, post #53...did someone hack into your account or are you mistaken?

BTW, Jesus settled the "earned salvation" issue once and for all in Luke 17:10 by saying even the perfectly obedient are "unprofitable servants" -- and we in the Conditional Salvationist concur.

Okay so you have a reading comprehension problem.
I'll repeat, I have never said that salvation or sanctification is by works, not even in the sentence which you've truncated.
But at least I understand why your interpretations are so corrupted. You remove text out of context which is really only pretext. I'll pray for your deliverance and restoration to a sound mind.

 

[michaelvpardo]

I grew up Baptist and much of my extended family attended the same church. I was brainwashed Sunday after Sunday by this unBiblical interpretation you present, as if Moses and James are offering two options for salvation, the one by faith and the other by perfect obedience. Moses and James aren't saying, "If you're going to be saved by keeping the law, you better keep the WHOLE law, or else you'll fail" - they're simply defining what it means to belong to God, which is repentance and overcoming sin. What a tragedy so many wrongly interpret them to mean, "You can't keep the law, because we can't stop sinning", including you.

What Moses and James said is no different than was said by Jesus ("go and sin no more"), John ("he that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments is a liar..."), Paul ("not the hearers of the law, but the doers of the law shall be justified in His sight"), etc. Got it?

Y'know what I observed about those Baptists? Just about every single one of the men would stumble in Sunday morning after getting stinkin drunk the night before, and the women engaged in a seemingly endless round of gossip about each other, what one inspired writer called "spiritual cannibalism". If only I'd been old enough to warn them that although the Just Man falls 7 times and rises again, the Presumptuous Baptist Man will split hell wide open.

When you have no answer to an argument, you make up an argument based on things that weren't said. That's what's referred to as a straw man's argument and is really a non argument and assertion based upon fantasy.
Stay away from open flames.

 

[dhh712]

Okay so you have a reading comprehension problem.
I'll repeat, I have never said that salvation or sanctification is by works, not even in the sentence which you've truncated.
But at least I understand why your interpretations are so corrupted. You remove text out of context which is really only pretext. I'll pray for your deliverance and restoration to a sound mind.

Yeah, you guys are saying the same thing. I'm totally confused as to what the argument is about.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Yeah, you guys are saying the same thing. I'm totally confused as to what the argument is about.

The argument is about "obedience" and it's relationship to salvation. Some individuals don't comprehend the nature of discipline, sonship, and the persistence of the sin nature as characterized by "the flesh."

 

[Phoneman777]

Okay so you have a reading comprehension problem.
I'll repeat, I have never said that salvation or sanctification is by works, not even in the sentence which you've truncated.
But at least I understand why your interpretations are so corrupted. You remove text out of context which is really only pretext. I'll pray for your deliverance and restoration to a sound mind.

No, my comprehension is fine - but you seem to have a bit of trouble keeping the discussion straight. Your words "If you're trying to be saved by law" very much warranted my response which was that works are not any means to an end - either salvation or condemnation - but are merely the outward evidence of our chosen inward spiritual condition. Why do you find that objectionable? Do you not believe the Bible? Does not John make that absolutely clear in 1 John 2:3-4 KJV? What about Isaiah 1:18-20 KJV? This lesson is taught throughout Scripture.

 

[Phoneman777]

When you have no answer to an argument, you make up an argument based on things that weren't said. That's what's referred to as a straw man's argument and is really a non argument and assertion based upon fantasy.
Stay away from open flames.

I don't engage in strawman tactics - what is the question I'm supposedly unable to answer?

 

[michaelvpardo]

No, my comprehension is fine - but you seem to have a bit of trouble keeping the discussion straight. Your words "If you're trying to be saved by law" very much warranted my response which was that works are not any means to an end - either salvation or condemnation - but are merely the outward evidence of our chosen inward spiritual condition. Why do you find that objectionable? Do you not believe the Bible? Does not John make that absolutely clear in 1 John 2:3-4 KJV? What about Isaiah 1:18-20 KJV? This lesson is taught throughout Scripture.

Well, since I've been teaching salvation by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone for 24 years, I'd say that you haven't understood a word I've said (but somehow I'm not surprised.)

 

[michaelvpardo]

I don't engage in strawman tactics - what is the question I'm supposedly unable to answer?

My post was an argument, not a question. You do know that an argument may contain questions, but a question isn't an argument at all, right?

 

[Phoneman777]

Well, since I've been teaching salvation by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone for 24 years, I'd say that you haven't understood a word I've said (but somehow I'm not surprised.)

Which brand of sloppy agape, greasy grace to you preach? The one which says the saint can't be lost after he's saved? Or, the Triple Threat Gospel patented by Charles Stanley which speaks of the "Sinner", the "Saint" and the "Carnal Saint"?

 

[Phoneman777]

My post was an argument, not a question. You do know that an argument may contain questions, but a question isn't an argument at all, right?

I'm pretty sure I fully addressed whatever nonsense you postulated, seeing you courtyard baby Christians are still spitting up the milk of the word.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Which brand of sloppy agape, greasy grace to you preach? The one which says the saint can't be lost after he's saved? Or, the Triple Threat Gospel patented by Charles Stanley which speaks of the "Sinner", the "Saint" and the "Carnal Saint"?

Well, definitely not any gospel that has anyone contributing to their salvation.

 

[michaelvpardo]

I'm pretty sure I fully addressed whatever nonsense you postulated, seeing you courtyard baby Christians are still spitting up the milk of the word.

See yah, wouldn't want to be yah.

 

[farouk]

In terms of a relationship - the word being discussed - it's rather like asking the question: "Whom do you trust?"

Proverbs 3.5; John 3.16...

 

[Phoneman777]

Well, definitely not any gospel that has anyone contributing to their salvation.

And on that we agree.

 

[Phoneman777]

See yah, wouldn't want to be yah.

OK, but remember works don't save us or condemn us, just evidence if we are saved or lost...which makes me question the spritiual condition of those who fight against obeying God's commandments.

 

[L.A.M.B.]

IT IS ABOUT A RIGHT RELATIONSHIP..................

 

[michaelvpardo]

OK, but remember works don't save us or condemn us, just evidence if we are saved or lost...which makes me question the spritiual condition of those who fight against obeying God's commandments.

So do you question the Apostle Paul?
In 1 Corinthians chapter 9 he goes to some length to explain why he disobeyed the Lord's commandment regarding the preaching of the gospel. Was he justified in His disobedience?

 

[Phoneman777]

So do you question the Apostle Paul?
In 1 Corinthians chapter 9 he goes to some length to explain why he disobeyed the Lord's commandment regarding the preaching of the gospel. Was he justified in His disobedience?

Not sure what Bible you're reading. MY Bible has Paul saying he "keeps his body under" and brings it "into submission" lest after he preaches the Gospel, he winds up a castaway bound for hell.