winstonjen

It looks like the only way to prevent future sinning is to commit suicide. But then again, suicide is itself a sin! Looks like god WANTS people to sin, in that case. What are we to do?

Angrillori

Holy smokes, so no matter what I do, not only can I not lose my salvation, but even if I never had faith in Jesus, I still couldn't avoid salvation!

Wow, if this verse is talking about our salvation status, seems we're all of us going to heaven and there's not a darn thing we can do about it!

While of course you'd hope there is more to it than my flippant remark, this comes at the end of the lengthy predestination spiel. This spiel does boil down to the 'some were chosen, some were not and there's nothing you can do about it' calvinist outlook.

But don't look so blue! On the flip side, while this talks about God's love, it does not mention salvation, simply god's love. As analogy: My father loves my mother. Though she was unfaithful and divorced him, he still loves her. Does this mean they are still married? Nope. The two are distinct. God loves the whole world, (John 3:16) does this mean the whole world is saved? No. The two notions are distinct.

To read salvation into this line is just that, reading into it. And once more we set up interpretation vs. explicit biblical verbage. Which should win?

Sabine Grant

No... it simply means that worrying about who is saved and who is not does not change God's status towards mankind.
There is no winning really..... no need to.
It is interesting that you had a need to foreread my thoughts as the only thing I expressed was by quoting two verses. I wonder who is really interpreting at this point.
The mention you make of "predestination" is of course based on pre interpreted theology around the book of Romans. That is not necessarly how a reader of this book will view the previous verses. That is if the reader does not apply the 8th chapter as an entire "spiel" based on calvinist doctrine. Which by the way differs according to how many points you abide with. Simplifying it as you have described it is known to be a "cliche" more than what covenant theology teaches.
However I am not a calvinist in your simplified and vulgarized sense.
Let me see... what can you extrapoll from " Be still and know that I am".

Radorth

Re Godless Dave and Winstonjen, in some rare flashes of insight:

Hey, you guys almost have it. In fact we would all agree if you want to define the "system" as Paul did, with the law as our "schoolmaster to bring us to Christ," or as the astringent Luther put it:

Now that pernicious and pestilent opinion of man’s own righteousness, which will not be a sinner, unclean, miserable and damnable, but righteous and holy, will not suffer God to come to his own natural and proper work. Therefore God must take his maul in hand (the Law I mean) and beat to pieces and bring to nothing this beast with her vain confidence, that she may so learn at length by her own misery that she is utterly forlorn and damned... So great is the foolishness of man’s heart, that he rather then seeks more laws...”If I live” says he, “I will amend my life. I will do this, I will do that.” But here, except [you] send Moses away with his Law... and lay hold of Christ, expect no salvation. If I, wretched and damnable sinner, through works or merits could have loved the Son of God, and so come to him, what needed he to deliver himself for me?

Yeah, the sermon on the Mount pretty much shredded my holy illusions. Don't you hate reading it?

Rad

(There's no log in my eye anyway. It's a 2 x 4).

Radorth

If you can honestly say you cannot reconcile two commandments, then you can choose one over the other. I'd error on the side of the more stringent NT however, (not that many of us come close, except maybe certain MOM's).

There was a problem with the Law you see. Some folks actually thought they were obeying it, so Jesus preached the sermon on the Mount.

Of course ering on the NT side would mean my more righteous brother Vinnie is in danger of hellfire.

Rad

Radorth

Oh my, my, my. I must read Sabine's posts through more often. That was precious.

:notworthy

Angrillori

So, you post a bible verse regarding the impossibility of escaping god's love in a thread concerning the OSAS doctrine, with no other text to speak of, and criticize me for assuming it was in defense of OSAS?

Think about it. If anonymous user X threw up a verse that had the words falling away in it, and posted nothing else, the audience is going to understand that as a defense of the ability to lose salvation. Nothing tough there right?

Perhaps, then, if you plan on posting items which will certainly be understood as other than you intend, you should clarify ahead of time.

Just a suggestion.

As to the rest of your assertions, I do not think you read my post at all.
Well, as explained, you posted verses speaking of the inescapability of god's love in a thread concerning the ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED false doctrine.
You thought we would understand what from that?

Is it really that far cry for one to imagine you're trying to defend the OSAS doctrine?

I don't think so.
If you'd care to demonstrate who's interpreting. Certainly, by pointing out how a verse does NOT speak of something is a far cry from reading into it. In fact, as you continue, you severly weaken your case:

And what did I say of predestination? That this verse came from a spiel about it? How is that not true? Does not that particular section begin with:

If this section isn't about predestination, then sheesh, what in the world IS it talking about?

Unfortunately for you, I am not a christian, I won't try to rearrange timelines for my benefit. I won't try to say that ANY of the bible is based on calvinist doctrine, since calvinism (and Calvin himself) weren't even due on the scene for hundreds of years.

I'll treat this as an aside, since what is and isn't calvinism should have its own thread, but I do want clarification on one point:

Does how one follows a set of teachings changes the teachings? Run that one by me again. Please. Is christianity different according to how many points you abide with? Am I a christian of a sort, since I abide by the do unto others point but no others?
I hope not!

What? Did I ever put up a definition of calvisim? I think, if you'll take the time to read, I simply pointed out predestination to be a calvinist bit.

Or was that another strawman! You christians love em don't you. You almost got me!

Did you actually know you can link, from secular web to an incredible on-line logic and logical fallacies page?
Well, since you've warned me that when you post bible verses, you intend to use them with no relevance to the thread they're in, why would I even hazard a guess?

Radorth

OK Agrillori (Sigh) I really hate looking up scriptures for people who claim to know them

Of course not. Read 1 Cor 3: 13-15. He is talking about someone who clealy does ungodly works but is still saved. Her we see again that some will be saved "though as through fire." Will you argue that such a pesron has not really "fallen away."

If that one desn't conveince you, read 1 Cor 5:5. Paul is talking about a SPECIFIC person, who is being "turned over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

Fine. Paul EXPLICITLY says it is NEAR to being cursed, NOT CURSED. I don't care if it's the land, it's fruit or what. It is burned but it is not cursed. Methinks you don't read so good either.

(more)

Radorth

Who's arguing that? Not me. As the scriptures I gave show, one can suffer judgement "as through fire" without being eternally lost. Thanks for opportunity to show the abundant scripturural backing for purgatory in the bargain.

Jesus also spoke of servants who will recieve "many stripes." That can only mean severe judgement on someone who is saved. Right?



No, but yours is.

Blah blah preach blah blah.

You're another atheist who bears a striking resemblance to the hard-hearted legalists which drew Jesus' well deserved sarcasm. But Mom is here, so I'm restraining myself.

Yeah "where man is lord" says it all. Self-motivated, self-sufficient, self-dependent, and almost always self-righteous as a result.

Rad