Can you be a Christian AND (insert sin here)

:laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Sorry...never heard of that statement.

Well I guess if you say that trying to figure out what Scripture actually says instead of just accepting what "people" have always said it says, then I am 100% guilty.

God used different words for different reasons and it is EXTREMELY important in my view to understand exactly what is being talked about.

Being born into the family of God is a simple matter. However son-placing while easy to understand is not such an easy matter. Son-placing has to do with discipleship which is very costly and very difficult.

 

Ed you are going to run into all kinds of problems if "saint" refers to all eternally saved individuals regardless of lifestyle. Saint refers to those that are walking the walk and not just talking the talk. There are many saved individuals, contrary to what some on the BB believe, that are just as saved as the next person and are living for self, walking in the flesh, not taking up their cross daily, however you want to describe it.

Those folks are not saints, for they will not rule and reign with Christ.

 

You only do 66 in a 65??

Personally, I usually "drive with the traffic", at about 70-77 in a 65 MPH zone.

:derail smiley: :laugh: (I wish someone would invent this!)

Ed

 

I've always heard it as "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Must be a Kentucky thing. :smilewinkgrin:

 

While I definitely do understand what you are saying, do you have any Scripture to back this up?

I can cite the verses that say what I said about the designation of/as "saints", "holy", and "sanctified", if you like.

Ed

 

"Now you've quit preachin' and done gone to meddlin'!! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Well a great many times these words are used in the introduction to the epistles, which is nothing new to you I know, but one just need to continue to read the epistles to see the context of what is being spoken of in the letter itself to get this understanding. Again because a lot of what is being spoken of is about ruling and reigning in the coming kingdom of Christ. And if we lump all believers regardless of lifestyle in the group that is going to rule and reign with Christ we have a whole heap of trouble, because Scripture says that only the faithful, obedient overcomers are going to reign. Not everyone that cries Lord, Lord will rule and reign with Christ.

 

I do not question your revelence. I question the way people are viewing the word and using it today.

As an adopted son, we recieve the firstborn rights. If we as believers become adopted, conditionaly, we are placed into the family as a son, a firstborn son. This changes nothing. Being born from above and adopted are two different things.


Question: Do you believe that ALL believers recieve the rewards of the first born right?

Example: We have two believers. Believer #1 lives a seperated life for the Lord. He serves Him with all of his might, suffers persecution, studies, and serves God to his greatest capability.

Believer two believes upon Christ, is now saved, lives for the Lord for a while then drifts away from fully serving Christ. He goes to church, tithes, etc. but doesn't give God 100%.

Are the two given equal rewards at the Judgement seat or can we see that #2 will recieve less and possibly suffer loss?

Believer 2 cannot recieve the firstborn rights for he has not earned them.

 

So we do not need a Spiritual Birth? Only a spiritual adoption.

At Birth we recieve life. Eph. 2:2. We do not recieve spiritual life at adoption.

So to agree with your theology would be to believe we, as believers, were adopted and we are still spiritually dead. The breath of God brings life, not adoption.

 

Romans 8
29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Colossians 1
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

Christ is the "firstborn". We are the brethren.

 

Just for starters, since I will let Bro. Jump answer since is implied to him, I have a few to show for sure there is a difference in terminology just in the greetings of the Epistle of Colossians: Colossians 1:2 To the saints AND faithful brethren.

While I will not go into great detail, it is obvios both were saved but Paul verbaly gave a distinct difference to the two.

 

Amy, you are going to run into problems with your revelance. None of your scriptures have pertained to the question I have presented. You cannot just type a word into the Strong's concordinance and site everything that comes up. (Or wherever you sought your scriptures) Are you seriously trying to say there are no firstborn rights given unto faithful believers? Do you believe that Jesus, the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God should be typed with Rueben, the first born of Jacob?

Example of why you can't just jump on a word "band wagon":

Type in the word saved. Do you honestly believe that everywhere the word saved is used it is dealing with everlasting life? This is far from true.

The bibloe says that a woman can be saved through child bearing. My wife has delivered 5 children and will deliver #6 in September. If this is true. She definitely has everlasting life!!! If I believed this, 100% of those blogging on the BB would have a stroke! Why? I would not have properly used the word.

Be careful my friend to always study and be assured of your answer to fit scripture.


.

 

Does anyone really "give God 100%"? Wouldn't that imply sinlessness? It would to me.

Ed

 

One could take it that way, but that doesn't mean it means that. We certainly can not be sinless, however we can be and must be blameless when we stand before the Judge.

 

Ed, you know what I'm trying to say. Non are sinless but we are to strive for perfection. You have bypassed my point on a technicality. I will try to do better within my writnings.
Now, can you please responed to the blog now that I have cleared this up. Thank you.

 

Ed,
Also I might add that according to Romans 12 it is our reasonable service to live holy and seperated. It isn't unreasonable.

Not for salvation but for authority.

 

We will be blameless when we stand before the Judge if we have placed our faith in Christ Jesus. He is the atonement for our sins. If the Child of God is not blameless, then the atonement was not satisfactory.

 

This is not a true statement, because by this statement you are saying that the judgment will be a judgment of whether we are saved or not. However that judgment happens during this lifetime. When we stand before the Judge on that day it will not to be judged whether we are eternally saved or not. We will be judged based on our works not eternal salvation.

So yes we can be eternally saved, but also be found with blame. If that was impossible then why does Scripture tell us it is possible?