All this talk of Born again.... what is it? Who is? and when does it occur?

[Elle]

Xian said:

"The examples you gave were all to make people stronger inside. Not dependent. The way you portrayed poor wasn't spiritually poor at all but spiritually strong, effectually. "

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you are saying. Spiritually poor to me is someone who has the Holy Spirit, but is not rich in the spirit. I would cite the 5 foolish virgins as an example. They had the spirit, but were told by the wise to go buy more oil, which I understand to be symbolic of the Holy Spirit.


"I didn't assume anything. YOu just did it again. Feed the poor in spirit with your knowledge.... :| BLESSED ARE THE POOR IN SPIRIT, means YOU are to become poor in spirit, but all you say is about making your spirit stronger. You project the poor in spirit to others NOT yourself, and have yourself as the stronger one helping the weak. If you get down to it, that's playing God, not depending on Him. And I certainaly am not saying you intend to play God. "

I never said MY knowledge, I said "We are to feed the poor in spirit with the knowledge God has given us". The knowledge God has given us comes through His Holy Spirit. If it does not line up with scripture, it is not knowledge from God.


"Since the POOR in spirit get the reward in matt 5, you should stop trying to "fix them" and work at being them."

This isn't about fixing them, it is about encoraging them in their faith, to never give up.


"Wow, we are sitting back to back looking different directions aren't we. Why do you want to make the poor in Spirit stronger as you say if THEIRS is the Kingdom of Heaven? "

Yes, we are definitely looking at this from 2 different directions, but I'm OK with that. I'm not saying your right or wrong, you may very well have the true understanding and I have not been blessed to see it your way as of yet. I want to encourage them in their walk, I cannot make them stronger, only God can do this. When Yeshua explained to the disciples about washing one another's feet, he did not mean literally. He was telling them when you see your brother starting to back slide, set him straight, encourage him to stay the course, keep following after the spirit. The poor in spirit are the ones who will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Yeshua is saying that those who start off poor will be rich later. They will be rewarded. To me a person only recognizes they are poor in spirit when they admit they are sinners in need of redemption. They have just enough spirit to allow them to see that. The longer they walk with God, the richer in spirit they become.


"The RYR had a strong Spirit, he was self provident, he could take care of himself, he didn't need anyone, especially Jesus. Jesus said for him to be mature spiritually to get rid of all that made him strong and come be dependent on Christ. That's poor in spirit. www.blueletterbible.com look up the beattitude, click the C to the left of that verse. You have an interlinear bible now. You'll see the greek word, the english word and the Strong's concordance's number. Click on the number it will give you a cheap and sleazy definition of the word. Meaning it doesn't get into the complexities but a quick working definition. You'll see that the goal is to BE dependent, not to be strong spiritually."

It sounds to me that we are saying the same thing more or less, but coming at from different perspectives as you stated earlier. The RYR is carnally strong and rich in spirit, but lacking in the Holy Spirit. He needs to admit he needs God. So yes, he would need to become poor in carnal spirit, but at the same time by becoming poor in carnal spirit, he also starts off poor in the Holy Spirit. His walk is only just beginning.


"You are awesome, you took that as it was meant and didn't think it was a personal jab.. I like you already!"

I like you too! If I took everything everyone said as a personal jab I would never grow.


"The fruits of the Spirit can be mimicked by wanna be-s. Some well intentioned and some purposeful. Colossians two addresses people who were making up rules for how one led by the Spirit would behave. Paul said they were whack. See, you can't tell me by my fruits. You may be seeing fruits I'm acting and producing and NOT HIM producing. IN other words the difference in someone acting vs being changed."

I completely agree, but that's why we are called to use discernment, test the spirit. Yeshua said in John 3:8 that the spirit is like the wind, you know not where it comes or goes. You know it is there though, because you see the effects it has upon the things around you. The same analogy is applied to one born of the spirit, you see the effects it has upon them. Those effects will show up in their thoughts and actions.


"While I agree the denomination isn't important, the church leading us is tantamount to our Xian maturity."

Indeed it is, so we should be cautious of what is being taught. A church can be as little as 2 or 3 people as Yeshua implied in Matthew 18:20. Fellowship has nothing to do with how many members a church has, but everything to do with what is being taught. We should be of one accord.

Martin you said:
"I'm saying obedience is greater than sacrifice. If God calls someone to dance they should dance; If God calls someone to sit, they should sit. It's about being authentic to what the Holy Spirit is leading you to do by not trying to please man more than pleasing God. Neither church was strictly wrong, per say, but both were excluding an aspect of the Holy Spirit's method on a matter of principle... which is wrong and missing the point..."


OK, that makes way more sense than my understanding, that is quite beautiful actually. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[martinlawrencescott]

OK, that makes way more sense than my understanding, that is quite beautiful actually. Thanks for the clarification.

NP

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Being perfected (mature) in Christ is being perfected in love and that happens through a process of abiding in Jesus Christ. To abide in Christ and remain in Him, once must follow Him wherever He goes, listen to Him, respond to Him, carry out His promptings and requests in our lives.

1Jn_2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected (matured): hereby know we that we are in him.

So, you could say "keeping His word" is a spiritual work. As you said, Works. It certainly is not a work of the flesh. Abiding in Christ is our "WORK" and then in relationship of abiding in Christ we will be led by Him to manifest the fruit that is a result of His life in us.

We are doing HIS WORK just as He was doing the Father's work. "Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)

Though Mary was sitting at His feet and "listening" to him (not doing any physical work), Martha, with all her "works" in the kitchen appeared to be the one that was most "spiritual." In fact, Martha had the audacity to reprove Mary in front of Jesus while drawing attention to herself and her works. Jesus was not impressed and He set the record straight. "Martha, Martha, you are busy about many things, but Mary hath chosen the good part that will not be taken away from her".

Mary was listening (obeying).

Isa 49:1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.


Listen - shâma‛
shaw-mah'
A primitive root; to hear intelligently (often with implication of attention, obedience, etc.; causatively to tell, etc.): - X attentively, call (gather) together, X carefully, X certainly, consent, consider, be content, declare, X diligently, discern, give ear, (cause to, let, make to) hear (-ken, tell), X indeed, listen, make (a) noise, (be) obedient, obey, perceive, (make a) proclaim (-ation), publish, regard, report, shew (forth), (make a) sound, X surely, tell, understand, whosoever [heareth], witness.

Acts 7:39 To whom our fathers would not obey (listen), but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt,

obey - hupēkoos
hoop-ay'-ko-os
From G5219; attentively listening, that is, (by implication) submissive: - obedient.

Listen-Obey, Listen-Obey, Obey-Listen, Obey-Listen!!

John 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect (mature) in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.


1Jn 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. IF,IF,IF we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected (matured) in us.

One only matures and is perfected in Love as they abide in Christ and He dwells in them. Abiding in Christ will produce spiritual fruit and works that will not burn up because the works were the fruit of abiding in Him (authored by the Holy Spirit).

Axehead

1) thanks for noticing the IF IF IFs. I LUB YOU MAN!
2) We get down to disagreeing on the abide in Christ. I see it clearly as the point when you become mature, not the state you are in as you mature.

TO be in Christ you do not sin. TO walk in the light AS HE DOES with no darkness/sin in your walk/lifestyle, I just can't see those things happening until you are made mature, and they seem to be relevant to the abiding in him thought.

I dont' think it's relevant to go forward. I think if you are wrong, and I think you are.... that you are running the right direction God will "fix it". I'm not sure, in fact I am sure we do not need to know how to do it, just run the race he'll get us there........

I'm not afraid of going forward but I'm ok stopping here.... I"ll follow your lead. Maybe it's at a point for a different thread. Lemme know if you do

Xian said:

"The examples you gave were all to make people stronger inside. Not dependent. The way you portrayed poor wasn't spiritually poor at all but spiritually strong, effectually. "

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you are saying. Spiritually poor to me is someone who has the Holy Spirit, but is not rich in the spirit. I would cite the 5 foolish virgins as an example. They had the spirit, but were told by the wise to go buy more oil, which I understand to be symbolic of the Holy Spirit.

Elle, everything you are discussing has you becoming or striving to become stronger in Spirit.

That's antithetical to what Jesus said we should do.

HE said the blessing comes to the one weak in the Spirit. NOT strong.

Jesus said to go north and you are running whole heartedly (and honestly and sincerely I think) South.

He told the rich young ruler what to do to become a mature believer, and it was in short to become dependent on Christ. The RYR wasn't ready to be mature. He remained Strong in Spirit, I.E. could provide for Himself. You are talking helping the weak in spirit to become independent not dependent on Christ.

I stopped here and will have to come back to the rest because this is the whole of the disagreement I think.

 

[Nomad]

TO be in Christ you do not sin.

Really? I've corrected you on this nonsense before.

1Jn 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,
Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

So, were Paul and John not in Christ? Do I really need to multiply all of the texts that speak of imperfect men as being "in Christ?"

 

[Elle]

"Elle, everything you are discussing has you becoming or striving to become stronger in Spirit."
I know you and I are saying the same thing, but we are looking at it differently. We need to turn our life over to Christ and depend on him to finish us or make us in the image of God. But we have to STRIVE to enter in at the narrow gate. That word STRIVE denotes action on our part. Yeshua even said those who DO the will of the Father are His brethren. Another word showing action. "No one can come to Yeshua unless the Father draws him" shows no action on our part, so here we see that we cannot, on our own accord, come to believe in Yeshua until the Father draws us. This is our invitation, which we will either accept or reject. As I explained in another post, this is when our free will kicks in, when we choose which master we will serve. I believe our trials and tribulations is the means God uses to draw us to Yeshua. (I can attest to that in my own life. I always believed God existed, but I did not know God. I did what I felt was right in my own eyes, not what God says is right. My carnal spirit was deflated when I realized what a wretched person I truly was. I was poor in spirit when I finally admitted I needed Him. By diligently studying His word and applying it to my life, He has given me more of His spirit. I would not say that I am a finished product yet, or completely born from above. That can only happen when God and I are one in spirit, thoughts and actions if you will. There are so few who have been finished, these will be the 144,000.) It is then, hopefully, that we realize we are sinners in need of a savior and start the process of repentance and asking for forgiveness and making the wrongs in our life right. These all require action. However, we would not be capable of seeing/hearing these things without the aid of the Holy Spirit. We don't necessarily make ourselves stronger in spirit, it's our obedience that causes God to give us more of His spirit which strengthens us.

"That's antithetical to what Jesus said we should do.
HE said the blessing comes to the one weak in the Spirit. NOT strong."
Yes, when he first draws us, would you say you are strong in the spirit or are you now on a journey to know God and what pleases and displeases Him, thus making you strong in spirit, not by your own will, but by God's?

"Jesus said to go north and you are running whole heartedly (and honestly and sincerely I think) South."
I hope not, I hate hot, humid weather.

"He told the rich young ruler what to do to become a mature believer, and it was in short to become dependent on Christ."
I agree with you there.

"The RYR wasn't ready to be mature."
No, he was not.

He remained Strong in Spirit, I.E. could provide for Himself.
Yes, but strong in the carnal, worldly spirit. Not strong in the Holy Spirit. He obeyed the commandments, but failed to realize he is yet lacking. As I said earlier, when he realized he needed to depend on God, is when he would become poor in spirit. Those who admit this will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, provided they stay the course. Don't look at "poor in spirit" as future tense, but rather the present state of people who realize their need and dependence on God. Basically Yeshua is saying those who admit in this lifetime that they are poor in spirit will be the inheritors later.

"You are talking helping the weak in spirit to become independent not dependent on Christ."
No, they need to become dependent on Christ, but sometimes a brother/sister in Christ must reach out and help a wavering brother/sister. They pick them up and dust them off and encourage them to continue their walk with God. Doesn't mean they will, but if they proceed forward, God will strengthen them.

"I stopped here and will have to come back to the rest because this is the whole of the disagreement I think."
I agree and look forward to your next post.

 

[martinlawrencescott]

Really? I've corrected you on this nonsense before.

1Jn 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,
Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

So, were Paul and John not in Christ? Do I really need to multiply all of the texts that speak of imperfect men as being "in Christ?"

"TO be in Christ you do not sin." -Xian

Actually, he's right... and wrong to the rest of the post. "You" (anyone) can't be in Christ and sin (at least intentionally). We (everyone human) can still sin after the point of salvation. We lose our fellowship with Him when we sin, not our salvation. We are "in our flesh" when we sin. Both of these occur simultaneously after the point of salvation, and have to do with our struggle against Sin until sin is put to death for good.

 

[Rach1370]

....

Hey Xian. Look, I actually don't have time to get into a deep theological debate with you (as much as I do enjoy it!) because I've just started moving house!
But generally, I feel I have to say in regards to your reply, that I disagree. And I don't just disagree because it's what I've heard preached to me since I was a kid. I disagree because I see the bible teaching differently. I disagree because I see and feel the evidence of the Holy Spirit living within me.
To me, this is an essential difference between the gospel, and what you are talking about, because it gives more glory to God. If 'full regeneration' is only gained (does that mean only true justification comes then as well?) by you working hard throughout your life...it puts salvation on your behaviour. With grace...true grace that is a free gift from God, it's all on his shoulders...all the work, and therefore all the glory. That way I get to spend my life living for him and growing towards him out of joy and out of a real desire to give more glory to him....not for the hope that I can in any way 'earn' my position in his eyes.

So yeah....that's my brief answer, and I suppose we could get into it later, but honestly, I can't see us agreeing. If we're both interested in discussing the 'semantics' after I've moved and have time, then I'm happy to do that.

 

[martinlawrencescott]

Forget however the crap I said it; see how Rach says it. That's a lot better... I guess we moved into a "once saved, always saved" area of discussion, but that's what this would have lead back to anyway. That's a tricky one to comprehend rationally. The Holy Spirit is our comforter. Comfort is something we can both "know" and "feel".

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Really? I've corrected you on this nonsense before.

There you go using hubristic narcissistic words like "corrected you". ROFL.
I refuted your corrections which you ignored and pretended 9/10s of it didn't exist and you fled like a school girl chased by bullies with buggers on their fingers. So what's your point?

1Jn 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,
Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

So, were Paul and John not in Christ? Do I really need to multiply all of the texts that speak of imperfect men as being "in Christ?"

By your theology Paul is a damnable liar. The FLESH that he is serving in 7:25, He said in 7:5 he is not in.
You ignore the two big glaring IFS in previous verses demonstrating the nature of His comments here.

Look Nomad. I know in your eyes you are GOD'S editor on earth and I"m a lowly ignorant Peon. BUT IF THAT WERE TRUE you should have had really easy answers to put my previous comments aside. I'm referring not to your initial objections but my refutation of them.

Until you can discuss like an adult, you are just blowing hot air. Avoid conversing with me until you can converse instead of lecture from hubris please.

AN excellent and very respectable post.

I'd say you could feel the Spirit working with you and on you but not in you yet.... But I'm not saying He's NOT in you, I don't know you.

And I'd love to have this chat with you in the future. Do we have one on one debate rooms? That would keep the chat uncluttered and make it easy to follow. Debate is simply taking opposing ideas and working to commonality or resolution. It shouldn't be a fight. So when i say debate it would just be an unemotional thing where we just beat out the differences. I think I can safely say we'd both feel the other was a blind idiot at times, but we know that going in and I don't think you would and I know I don't assume that I am absolutely right so we know we disagree.

Could be fun.
I'm sure you and I both would learn some new things, face some new thoughts and benefit from it. But think of anyone that was interested in the topic saw two people making realistic, rational, substantiated arguments for opposing sides. THEY can then reconcile them for themselves as God sees fit to reveal to them.

Hey Xian. Look, I actually don't have time to get into a deep theological debate with you (as much as I do enjoy it!) because I've just started moving house!
But generally, I feel I have to say in regards to your reply, that I disagree. And I don't just disagree because it's what I've heard preached to me since I was a kid. I disagree because I see the bible teaching differently. I disagree because I see and feel the evidence of the Holy Spirit living within me.
To me, this is an essential difference between the gospel, and what you are talking about, because it gives more glory to God. If 'full regeneration' is only gained (does that mean only true justification comes then as well?) by you working hard throughout your life...it puts salvation on your behaviour. With grace...true grace that is a free gift from God, it's all on his shoulders...all the work, and therefore all the glory. That way I get to spend my life living for him and growing towards him out of joy and out of a real desire to give more glory to him....not for the hope that I can in any way 'earn' my position in his eyes.

So yeah....that's my brief answer, and I suppose we could get into it later, but honestly, I can't see us agreeing. If we're both interested in discussing the 'semantics' after I've moved and have time, then I'm happy to do that.

Forget however the crap I said it; see how Rach says it. That's a lot better... I guess we moved into a "once saved, always saved" area of discussion, but that's what this would have lead back to anyway. That's a tricky one to comprehend rationally. The Holy Spirit is our comforter. Comfort is something we can both "know" and "feel".

Once sanctified always sanctified, but as saved in the growth process you can turn left or right out of the race. <<< my official position.

 

[Nomad]

By your theology Paul is a damnable liar. The FLESH that he is serving in 7:25, He said in 7:5 he is not in.
You ignore the two big glaring IFS in previous verses demonstrating the nature of His comments here.

I'm afraid the flaw is in your theology. You not only force John to contradict himself in his first epistle, now you're forcing Paul to do the same. It's clear why this is happening. Instead of allowing Scripture to determine your theology, you force your theology to determine what Scripture says. The results are glaring.

Now, to be "in the flesh" is to be controlled by the flesh. The regenerate are not "in the flesh" because we are not controlled by the flesh, but we certainly do battle with the flesh. This is what Paul is talking about in the latter portion of Romans 7. Once again, we meet with our old friend the "present tense." Paul's comments in the latter portion of Romans 7 are full of present tense verbs. He is describing a situation that was true for him at the time he was writing. Plain and simple.

So, if we fail to consider the difference between being "in the flesh" and doing battle with the flesh we force Paul to contradict himself. The same holds true for 1 John. Here's an analogy: A soldier who is bound by the enemy has no choice but to submit completely. The soldier who is on his feet and armed to the teeth is capable of fighting the enemy and is under no obligation to submit. Proper distinctions, such as those actually made by Paul and John, are crucial.

Look Nomad. I know in your eyes you are GOD'S editor on earth and I"m a lowly ignorant Peon. BUT IF THAT WERE TRUE you should have had really easy answers to put my previous comments aside. I'm referring not to your initial objections but my refutation of them.

Your refutations refute themselves, XP. They amount to no more than obvious scripture twisting and good old eisogesis.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

I'm afraid the flaw is in your theology. You not only force John to contradict himself in his first epistle, now you're forcing Paul to do the same. It's clear why this is happening. Instead of allowing Scripture to determine your theology, you force your theology to determine what Scripture says. The results are glaring.

Heheheh and in logic this is called the Pee Wee Herman defense. It's called deflecting in psychological discussions. Let's see if you address my reasoning or ignore it and just rant against me....

Now, to be "in the flesh" is to be controlled by the flesh. The regenerate are not "in the flesh" because we are not controlled by the flesh, but we certainly do battle with the flesh.

According to Paul if the Spirit indwells you, YOU ARE NOT IN THE FLESH, and according to Paul, whichever state you belong to, flesh or spirit you obey it. According to Paul the FLESH when it's not there as romans 8:9 states, has been removed by a circumcision. Dude, it doesn't grow back. So it's gone, no longer there to make you misbehave. If it's not there, how you still gonna struggle in it? How's it still gonna make you do what you don't wanna do and not do what you wanna do?

If you aren't in the flesh, that which makes you misbehave is gone.
The Spirit resides IN you then.
And you won't give into temptation, gal 5:16.
If you still give into temptation you aren't yet walking in the Spirit.
Since you obey the Spirit if it's the mindset you live in, then that is proof the spirit isn't there.
If the Spirit isn't in you yet, it may be working ON you or leading you, you aren't without, but you ARE still in the flesh.
Those are biblical benchmarks. You can go dance and wriggle and wiggle all you want, editing words, taking them out, assuming the most favorable way to intrerpret it, the most favorable definition of the words all you want. But if you are wrong and dont' change it, it might affect your walk in a detrimental way.

Look, I've changed from where you are to where I am because I had to change to be in line with scripture. I have less an absolute claim now than I did then. I have no emotional ties to the argument. I've proven to change, you've proven to do anything you can to avoid changing. Who are you gonna trust here?

This is what Paul is talking about in the latter portion of Romans 7. Once again, we meet with our old friend the "present tense." Paul's comments in the latter portion of Romans 7 are full of present tense verbs. He is describing a situation that was true for him at the time he was writing. Plain and simple.

This has been answered already. Fifty times. FIRST you have to ignore the word IF in a sentence to make your argument as an absolute claim.
SECOND O GREAT GREEK THEOLOGIAN, using a present tense doesn't make it an absolute claim that it's you nor now that you discuss.
THIRD you have to ignore 7:5.
FOURTH since you avoid the reasoning but repeat the same tripe, it's evident your goal is to prove me wrong, not get scripture right.
Fifth, anyone reading your posts should use that character fact as the canon to measure your comments value.

So, if we fail to consider the difference between being "in the flesh" and doing battle with the flesh we force Paul to contradict himself.

From Pee Wee Herman to false dilemma. Impressive.

The same holds true for 1 John. Here's an analogy: A soldier who is bound by the enemy has no choice but to submit completely. The soldier who is on his feet and armed to the teeth is capable of fighting the enemy and is under no obligation to submit. Proper distinctions, such as those actually made by Paul and John, are crucial.


Your refutations refute themselves, XP. They amount to no more than obvious scripture twisting and good old eisogesis.

Are you Strat's older brother?

 

[martinlawrencescott]

I'm almost thinking we have the same view concerning salvation and sanctification Xian, but we're using different terminology for each. I would like to say I agree with you, but we have to find some common ground on our terminology.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi XP,

Could you please stop shouting, (using capitals unnecessarily) and calling posters names just because they don't hold the same view as you?

There is a very simple system for using bolds, underlining and italics. Use Ctrl + B, to switch on first and then to cancel after. Ctrl + U and Ctrl + I do the same for the other two. It makes reading a much more pleasant experience for us all.

Thank you.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

I'm almost thinking we have the same view concerning salvation and sanctification Xian, but we're using different terminology for each. I would like to say I agree with you, but we have to find some common ground on our terminology.

Well, we agree mostly, but we put a different threshold on when the Spirit indwells is the difference. Terms won't fix that. We don't have to agree. You are close enough to right. hehe

Hi XP,

Could you please stop shouting, (using capitals unnecessarily) and calling posters names just because they don't hold the same view as you?

There is a very simple system for using bolds, underlining and italics. Use Ctrl + B, to switch on first and then to cancel after. Ctrl + U and Ctrl + I do the same for the other two. It makes reading a much more pleasant experience for us all.

Thank you.

I won't start yelling. That's our deal. It's emphasis, same as you'd have in a normal, non violent, conversation. It's showing the emphatic. italics and bold take a split second longer than the other, but it messes up the thinking. For those of us with trauma induced Aphasia.... that's important.

Would you please stop saying I"m yelling when I'm not?

Would you please complain and notice the relative things to a conversation, like people misrepresenting, painting false pictures of another etc, and comment to them rather than the ticky tack inconsequential things like this?

 

[epostle1]

Q: I was told by a friend that the only way you were Christian was if you "asked Jesus into your heart." What is my friend talking about?

A: He is talking about having a conversion experience in which one prays to God or Jesus and asks to be forgiven of one's sins on the basis of Christ's death on the cross. The phrase "ask Jesus into your heart" is not found in the Bible, but originates in a later, Protestant evangelism campaign. It is not definitive of what a Christian is either according to the Bible or according to Church history. A person is a Christian if he is baptized and professes the Christian faith.

All Christians should take their faith seriously and devoutly cultivate his relationship with God and with Jesus, but that is not presented to us in either the Bible or the history of the Church as one of the requirements for being Christian. The New Testament regularly refers to people as Christians even though their walk with the Lord may be very shaky. Once they have been baptized, the New Testament does not deny them the title "Christian." Only by a total repudiation of the Christian faith can one lose this title.
Your friend is confusing a particular evangelistic campaign with the essence of Christianity. Periodically, to get people to take their faith seriously, evangelists have come up with questions to get people to think about their level of faith in and committment to God.

Examples of these questions are "Have you ever received Jesus into your heart?", "If God asked you why he should let you into heaven, what would you say?", "Have you made a personal committment to the Lord Jesus?", "Have you accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?", and so forth.

Questions like this are well and good--people need to be given a jolt every so often to consider whether they are living in harmony with God (St. Paul, for example, gives his Corinthian readers such a jolt when he tells them: "Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? -- unless indeed you fail to meet the test!"; 2 Corinthians 13:5).

However, sometimes such evangelistic questions get repeated so often that people forget they aren't in the Bible and that Scripture does not present salvation in those terms (that is the point of coming up with the question in the first place--to phrase the idea of salvation and committment to God in a new way, a mode of expression not used in the Bible, so that people will be jolted into thinking about it).

When this happens, people end up confusing their own particular evangelistic campaign and way of phrasing things with the essence of Christianity. They then go around asking people their evangelistic question as if it the test for whether someone is a Christian, and anyone who does not give their group's formula answer is then told they are not a Christian and need to question their salvation. It sounds like this is what your friend is doing.

If you were baptized (irrespective of your age at the time) then you were by that very fact given a personal relationship with God and put into the sphere of his grace. If you are not in state of grace now it will be because you have committed a mortal sin, not because you haven't followed the particular formula of a particular evangelistic campaign.

source

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Posting a cut and paste is not a discussion.

If that is Grudem, bring him to the site I'd love to discuss it with him.

 

[epostle1]

Posting a cut and paste is not a discussion.

Agreed, but the content is relevant to the topic. And this thread isn't much a discussion. More like the Tower of Babel, everyone confused with speaking different languages.

If that is Grudem, bring him to the site I'd love to discuss it with him.

I always post my sources, unlike some. I don't know Grudem from a hill of beans. Anyone who wants to trace the author of any of my pastings can do so by following up with the source. It's by James Akin, who is as gentle as Scott Hahn...easy to read, thorough, and scholarly. He has his own blog to deal with.

I agree with most of what you say about the "born-again Christian" phenomenon. Used that way, "born-again" is reduced to an adjective, a slogan. It suggests that those lacking in an emotional experience are not "born-again". Scripture says we are regenerated by water baptism. Scripture says it is salvific, not symbolic. I've seen good non-Catholic Christians, who have grown up in Christian families, berate themselves because they haven't had their groups definition of "born-again" and feel like second class Christians. No wonder there is an exodus of Protestants coming home to the Catholic Church.

You look hungry. Here, have some solid food. Infants will spit it out.

CATHOLIC TEACHING
ON
JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION​

by David J. Palm​

Presented to The Midwest Baptist Conference Theological Workshop​

 

[martinlawrencescott]

It's one thing to post your source, it's another to expound on what the source is saying in your own words. That is how you have a discussion, instead of a school-teacher to student relationship.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Agreed, but the content is relevant to the topic. And this thread isn't much a discussion. More like the Tower of Babel, everyone confused with speaking different languages.

Well, it's not much of a discussion when that is what you have. It's a discussion forum, not a wayne grudem teaching academy. I'm trying to get you to enter the discussion, not post someone elses thoughts.... OR if you post them at least summarize and discuss them. He's not here for me to debate with. So, that is just a ...... post..... not conversation starting.

I always post my sources, unlike some.

I don't uses Sources except the Bible, and I nearly always give the address for that when I use it.

I don't know Grudem from a hill of beans. Anyone who wants to trace the author of any of my pastings can do so by following up with the source. It's by James Akin, who is as gentle as Scott Hahn...easy to read, thorough, and scholarly. He has his own blog to deal with.

Oooops I thought I saw a "wayne grudem" up in there somewhere. My bad. Ask him if he'd like to debate his points with me, in public for the world to see.

I agree with most of what you say about the "born-again Christian" phenomenon. Used that way, "born-again" is reduced to an adjective, a slogan. It suggests that those lacking in an emotional experience are not "born-again". Scripture says we are regenerated by water baptism.

Actually it says AFTER water baptism. not by.... check it out.

Scripture says it is salvific, not symbolic. I've seen good non-Catholic Christians, who have grown up in Christian families, berate themselves because they haven't had their groups definition of "born-again" and feel like second class Christians. No wonder there is an exodus of Protestants coming home to the Catholic Church.

That's a thread I think... waiting to be made that is....RCC and baptism is salvific not representative.

You look hungry. Here, have some solid food. Infants will spit it out.

Kepha, I'm just trying to discuss points. I am not getting much of that here. I learn and anyone else that wants to will learn when that happens. I'm getting personally attacked, then attacked for not allowing the personal attacks. I'd like nothing more than to discuss points and break it down and learn.

I"m not sure the forum can handle that.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi XP,

Thanks for the undertaking not to 'shout'.... I still see quite a lot of 'loud' capital letters littered around though... <_<

For those of us with trauma induced Aphasia.... that's important.

Do you really? Did I miss something you've posted about this in somewhere? (Care to explain by PM?)

Would you please stop saying I"m yelling when I'm not?

Honestly, some simple underlining would do the same job and be far more effective at keeping this poster engaged... not necessarily agreeing, though.

Would you please complain and notice the relative things to a conversation, like people misrepresenting, painting false pictures of another etc, and comment to them rather than the ticky tack inconsequential things like this?

That's a fair question. I suppose I take the view that if a person feels misrepresented, it must be possible to go back and read what one wrote which might have given that (wrong) impression to people who already think differently from yourself. If there are facts you didn't share, then share them if they really matter. In the end, it's only you who can decide what matters in eternity, enough to sort out all the miscommunications, or, just let them pass.

Honestly, (again) most of the time I'm not clear what point you are trying to make, before you launch out against another poster in a personal way. I'm not launcing out against you, personally, but just sharing the difficulty I'm having knowing what is important and what is debris.


In a different thread, HammerStone has asked us to use the Report button to report offensive posts. If they're that bad, report them.