Webers_Home said:
According to Christ's testimony-- as an expert witness in all matters related
to the plan of salvation --believers are in absolutely no danger of hell and
eternal suffering for anything they might do or say.
†. John 5:24 . . I assure you: those who listen to my message, and believe
in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for
their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.
Paul concurs.
†. Rom 8:1-2 . .There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ
Jesus, because in Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from
the law of sin and death.
The law of sin and death is defined by Paul as:
"The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23)
Now; since Paul concurs with Christ that believers are in absolutely no danger
of being condemned to hell for their sins; how is it that you dare to refute Paul
by quoting passages from his own writings; and in the process of refuting Paul;
thereby refuting Christ?
I gotta say: some of you anti-OSAS people defend your position like men gone
mad; and that's just the plain truth of it.
Buen Camino
/
You should pay attention to whom you are talking. I quote John 5:24 more than anyone. I am a SO (saved once). I also promote assurance and the guarantee that comes from the indwelling to the Holy Spirit. I also believe that from God's perspective it is osas. Just read some of my posts and see.
However, I asked for an explanation of a passage in Romans. You did not deliver. You simply argued against it. That does not cut it. In any doctrinal position that I hold to, I have considered the typical objections and studied the passages used in them to get a grasp of what they mean. This is not paper-covers-rock we are playing. If one holds to a doctrine, he must be able to defend it without having the bible in conflict with itself.
musterion said:
He owns me? What does that even mean? Am I a piece of meat? Do I own my wife? She's mine. Does that make me an owner of a person?
You really don't know?
Believers are called SLAVES to both God and Christ (Rom 6:22; 1 Cor 7:22; Eph 6:6). Paul says believers are VESSELS in God's household, used by Him as He sees fit. Believers are also SEALED [marked] by the Holy Spirit as a sign of God's ownership in advance of the day of redemption. All three terms as well as others (children, sheep, etc) denote His loving ownership of the believer, all of whom - do I really need to remind you? - were BOUGHT by the blood of Christ.
If you don't like Paul's use of those words, then your argument isn't with me but with the One who inspired his very deliberate use of those words. Take it up with Him.
If you know me, you will know that I am constantly engaged in disputing those who deny or diminish assurance and guarantee. Don't confuse me with these, please. But Paul placed an "if" into the equation. This was not my doing. I can't be concerned with metaphysical concepts such as spiritual body dismemberment.
Friend, you should be concerned with it because that's the logical conclusion, if only as a hypothetical one, of your position.
The body of Christ is nothing more than a body (group) of believers. We are members of Him and one another. This is a relationship term. But we are also individuals. One does not nullify the other.
You contradict yourself. Your concept of invincible individualism not only hypothetically nullifies but trumps the organic, spiritual BUT VERY REAL unity of the Body of Christ and, in fact, thwarts His will.
If you're right, human will is potentially the most powerful force in the universe if it can self-sever a believer from Christ.
God gives us pictures that we can relate to in order to help us understand things that are spiritual. This is what a parable does. The body of Christ is also such a picture. This whole dismemberment argument cannot be proven whether or not it is a correct assessment.
The Body is not parabolic, analogical nor figurative. It is real....spiritual, even mystical, yes, but real. Paul made that clear. And your position DEMANDS that it can be severed and dismembered. Sorry...you've no way around it. Either it can't or it can. Your position says it can.
Side note: Parables, at least the way Christ used them during His earthly ministry, were not intended to reveal or illustrate deeper levels of truth but to HIDE truth from those who had rejected previously given truths. The principal of pearls before swine.
Thank you for your concern. But your opinion is also duly noted. 'My position' is merely a reflection of what I read. I am careful not to insert my own logic into my interpretations. You don't have to tell me that the body of Christ is real. It is obvious. However, you didn't give an explanation of Paul's words to the Romans in ch.11:21,22. Instead you did exactly what Webers did, above. You simply argued with it by quoting another passage. So now you are using scripture to refute scripture. My intention is to rather use scripture in a way that my conclusions from one passage do not contradict scripture somewhere else.
Paul used the words "cut off" (vs.22). I'm sorry if you are freaked out by the thought that this would somehow dismember our Lord's body. But He Himself said that if your hand causes you to sin, then cut it off. This was a metaphor, of course. But it reveals His own heart, that He would not allow anything to harm those whom He loves. So, if a member of His body of believers is poison to the rest of the body, I should hope He severs it. Instead you paint a picture of a control freak who gave mankind freewill only long enough to get a person saved, then He removes it and programs us like puppets to do His bidding. This reflects the kind of hyper-Calvinistic thinking that I oppose.
It also shows a rather shallow understanding of relationship, in my humble opinion.
As I explained earlier. I fully support the idea that God will not change His mind concerning His commitment to those whom He loves. He gives everlasting life to they who will receive it by faith. But it seems to me that you have a one-sided viewpoint about this. I assume you agree that we have the ability to humble ourselves and receive the free gift of life by faith. If so, what changes? Do you think that God takes this ability away once we are in His grasp? When Paul used the word "slaves", he admitted he was using human terms for the lack of a better way to describe it. How does this then become somewhat of a prison? Are we now locked up in the kingdom against our own will? Is this what you are proposing from the use of that word (slave)?
I would rather think that God allows free will to remain intact. Otherwise relationship and intimacy become a farce. They become unsatisfying. We love Him because He first loved us...not because He forced us to love Him or covertly programmed it into us. I love my wife because I choose to and want to, not because I feel obligated or have to. If she ever got the sense that I was insincere in my love for her, what would her response be? Do you think it is any different in our relationship with God? We are made in His image. He is a relationship Being. Do you think that He would be satisfied having intimate relationship with robots?
No, my friend. No matter how slim or unlikely the chance is that a believer would turn away, that scenario is presented in scripture as a possibility. On the other hand, God has promised that those who are of faith will not come under judgment, but have passed from death to life (John 5:24). As far as He is concerned, His commitment to us is irrevocable. But our response ...that is the question. Are we infallible?