Got God?

According to Matt 7 -- yes.

 

Sorry, Bob, but where in Matthew 7 does it say that a person can be without God, or "not have God" to used the words of the OP, yet still have a certain hope of eternal life? I am assuming that the OP's "certain hope" was the same hope referred to in Hebrews 6.17-19:

17 Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath,
18 that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.
19 This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil. ​

 

This refers to the gospel. It seems to be to be rather elementary. The verse posses little mystery.

 

No, what this is...is a Puritan leaning Calvinist favoring person taking what is elementary and clear and hoping to twist it to fit their view of salvation. I am sorry the simple has become your hangman.

 

Sorry, Mr.M, but which particular message on this thread were you replying to? I can't seem to make your reply fit to any of them. Perhaps you could help me out.

 

Gladly. HP stated about this passage:

HP here believes that this is to be understood that it not simply represents the gospel but also a "process that begins with an act of faith, is proved out as we 'abide' and will be consumated as we stand before the Lord in judgment".

This is clearly both a Puritan and Calvinistic view and belief. Of course this is not what it means. So let me provide some illumination regarding what I mean and how my earlier post fits.

Here is 1 John more completely instead of the isolated passage (King James):

3Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

4I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth,as we have received a commandment from the Father.

5And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.

6And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

7For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

8Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.

9Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

10If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

11For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Notably first is John's writing that he is glad he found believers walking in truth or as he says "children walking in truth". Obviously then an alternative is possible, that they be found NOT walking in truth. So it is established that children of God can be found walking in truth and not walking in truth otherwise John would have no purpose to rejoice at what would be something that could not have any exceptions. Much like someone writing and saying, I rejoiced that I found you to be a human being...ridiculous because a human being is just that a human being and there is no possible alternative. The point is of course that John understands he could have found them NOT walking in truth but is rejoicing that he found them walking in truth.

Then John warns the church in light of the importance of walking in the truth that there are many "deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."
Obviously the satanic and the sinful human assault on the gospel is real and a threat to the church. Again, John recognizes that believers can be found NOT walking in the truth and therefore he buttresses the context of this important issue with this severe warning. These teachers are NOT acceptable teachers, they are counter to Christ and offer only doctrinal deception.

Then verse 8 makes an important statement being overlooked: John says: "Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward." Obviously he is addressing believers to "look to yourselves, that we lost not", clearly these are not unbelievers. So it is possible for believers to lose what they have wrought, that being the Christian faith, particularly the right teaching of the doctrine of Christ. Here comes a very significan part of the passage, he warns that we look to ourselves that we loose not so..."we receive a full reward". Apparently if we DO lose what we have wrought (not that which Christ has wrought mind you but what WE have wrought) we will receive a reward, simply not a FULL reward.

Hence, the Puritan and Calvinist idea that this is passage is teaching the expectation of perseverance can now be dismissed because John makes clear that the full reward belongs to those who do NOT lose what they have wrought and those that DO lose it get a reward, just not a full reward. God obviously isn't going to reward a non-believer but clearly rewards a believer that has lost what he has wrought, the believer just does not get a full reward.

I understand that does not answer the initial OP but is answers the question of my charge of this being an attempt to slant it in favor of the Puritan and Calvinist view of salvation when this is NOT at all the context of the passage. As far as how a believe can be without God but still be in Christ can be answered but I invested this post answering you and if you wish I can later deal with the actual OP.
M

 

John has made it clear in John 15 those who DO NOT abide in Christ - DIE and are "burned in the fire" as being totally worthless. John 15:1-6.

Those who read the text above and imagine that "without Christ and God" it is STILL possible to go to heaven or remain saved - are not paying attention to the Gospels.

in Christ,

Bob

 

HP, 85% of your post fails to intellectually acknowledge even the most simple context of my comments and by that same percentage is non sequitur. I leave you with the Puritan Crusaders to find witches and warlocks where none exist. :tonofbricks:

 

This is an excellent point. EVEN in the NT Adam is stated to have been created as "the son of God" in terms of family relationship as we are the "children of God" when we come to Christ.

Adam did not "unchild himself" to become lost and in need of a Savior.

Rather he became spiritually dead and in need of "the NEW Birth" as we all are in ALL AGES until we come to Christ.

Indeed that is exactly what we find to be the issue in Matt 18, in Romans 11, in John 15 ... etc etc.

in Christ,

bob

 

That is true - and I am not certain that our differences on the nature of man and "sinful propensities" is as far apart as you might think. Often you are arguing the same point that some people in my own church take when they debate against my view in that area.

True -

I notice that when I am in agreement with someone they never complain about the texts I bring up or the details in scripture that I highlight - nor even the arguments I make showing that this point is clear in scripture. (Steaver being the one exception to that rule - when it comes to my pointing out that "there is a form of 4-and-5 point Calvinist argument" that is often explicitly stated in the "it's all about the saved" context).

This is true on the Sabbath debates - where Ben, Tamborine Lady and others have agreed with my views there.

This is true on the Evolution vs Bible debates where a number here have agreed with my views.

The is true with the many-catholic-errors vs the Bible debates where even DHK himself can at times find himself posting in favor of one of my Bible examples.

This is true on the OSAS vs Bible debates where I post in agreement with you and a number of others posting in the affirmative for the Bible against the man-made-tradition of OSAS.

This is true on the premillennial 2nd coming where many on both Arminian and Calvinist groups agree with my Bible examples.

It is even true on the subject of spiritual gifts in 1Cor 12 and 14 and a number of others here who accept the Bible teaching there as valid for the NT.

There are in fact very few cases where "it is just me". My acceptance of the Judgment in Dan 7 might be one case of that - and possibly my views on the fact that there is no mention at all in scripture of "an immortal soul". (Actually in that last case - I think there was at least one person here who agreed on that point as well).

in Christ,

Bob