Are You Saving Yourself?

This is the most blatant mischaracterization I have seen on this board. Most of us despise the teaching of Augustine, and many of us consider him as an heretic. I suggest you drop him from your conversations. Do you suggest that we believe in Purgatory as well?

 

HP: No. I do not believe you hold to any doctrine of purgatory, nor is such a doctrine directly related to the Augustinian notion of original sin.

DHK, your insistent denial of the facts of the authorship of the dogma of original sin in no wise changes the clear historical facts. The truth is that such a dogma never existed before him within the Church. Read concerning the trials where Pelagius was brought to trial and exonerated on at least two occasion using the defense that such a dogma was never required or taught by the Church prior to Augustine. Not until Augustine stacked the decked against him could they even come close to finding fault with Pelagius and his vocal decent against the false notions taught by Augustine including the dogma of original sin.

The truth of the matter is that you despise the logical ends the dogmas of Augustine logically gender, but are obviously unwilling to come to grips with the false notions that drive those ends, original sin being one of them. You try and hold to the foundation of Augustine’s error (OS) and then decry the logical ends of the very thing you yourself hold to. I see that as simply and clearly being inconsistent with your core beliefs.

If man is born in such a state as to not allow for any other possibility other than to sin, as is the case IF original sin is true, you cannot escape the logical conclusion that God ‘MUST OF NECESSITY’ elect some to eternal life and all others to eternal damnation. If you say you hold to original sin, and deny that logical end of your argument, first I would say, ‘Oh those blessed inconsistencies!’, but then show forth your clear inconsistency with the logical ends of the position you have taken.

I am thankful for the areas in which you disagree with Augustine, but feel it clearly in line with fair debate to show forth the clear inconsistency of your held position. I do not mean to intentionally offend, but I believe that truth demands consistency in our beliefs. How one believes will determine in the end as to how one will act, and that according to the Word of God is a life and death issue.

 

The Catholics also take credit for the "discovery" of the doctrine of the trinity.
Do you naively take them for their word on that one too--hook, line, and sinker--just swallow it all up?
The Catholics never invented the doctrine of the trinity. It is a Biblical doctrine.
Augustine never invented the doctrine of "the sin nature." It has been in the Bible ever since Genesis chapter 3. That's quite a few thousand years before the time of Augustine.

Let's not be foolish here. I haven't even read the writings of Augustine nor do care about them. I read the Bible and glean my beliefs from them. Augustine is a heretic as far as I am concerned. I have never took the time to read anything that he has written. Thus to link me to his works is nothing but a false accusation, and I will count it as such. Understood??

1. I have not defined original sin. I prefer not to use the term. Thus that in itself negates most of what you have just said.
2. More accurately put, man is born with a sin nature, a nature that he inherited from Adam, the curse that came upon the human race when Adam sinned. You can read about it in Genesis 3.
3. Election pertains only to believers. Those that go to Hell do so of their own choosing. They choose to reject Christ as Saviour. That is the only sin that will condemn a person to Hell.
4. Because God is omniscient and knows the choices that man will make, does not mean that he forces man to make those choices. Man still has a free will to choose.
5. I never said I held to original sin; you said that I did; how easy it is for you to make false accusations.
6. The Bible clearly teaches that man has a sin nature. Paul said "it is sin that dwells in me." The only way that he could overcome that sin was by yielding to the Spirit of God.

Do you mean Albert Augustine who manufactures classical guitar strings? No, I don't have any argument there.

My beliefs are consistent with the Bible.
They are not based on what I "feel" as you say (I feel with my hands), but rather on what I believe.

I believe the Bible, and can support my beliefs accordingly. You continue to refer to names such as Augustine. I believe I stand on firmer ground. You dish out false accusations and cannot back them up. You think that I am a Calvinist, and have referred to me as one, even though I have repeatedly told you that I am not.
I believe the Bible and continue to refer it as my only rule of faith and doctrine.

 

I'd be interested then on your take on the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matt 25:31ff)....

 

And what would this parable have to do with what I just said?

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

HP: Would you have any other evidence to offer the list other than you simply saying it is so?

 

Common sense? :D

Do you "know" that gravity exists? What would it take to make you change your mind and say it doesn't exist?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim

HP: Would you have any other evidence to offer the list other than you simply saying it is so?

HP:Common sense can be a subjective matter at times. Let’s see how it is with you.

Is gravity understood by faith, and are there any stated conditions that one must adhere to for it to be in force? Are we told to examine ourselves and see if in fact it is in force? Can one make shipwreck of gravity? Is gravity a force upon some and yet not equally upon all? Is it possible to be deceived about its existence?

 

The law of gravity is accepted by faith until one actually experiences it. Then it becomes absolute knowledge.

One accepts Christ by faith. When God gives His Holy Spirit at salvation, then you have experienced God and have absolute knowledge of Him.

 

I gave the Strong's definition of "ginosko". I created a seperate thread on it even. Why don't you go to the thread and answer the questions?

"ginosko" is defined as "to know (absolutely) ". Is Strong's wrong? Is Jesus wrong to say, "Jhn 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and ginosko my [sheep], and am ginosko of mine. ?

Go to the thread and let's discuss it.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

You're reliance on your interpretation of the Scripture you quoted ("not of works etc") as meaning that all we need is an intellectual assent. I submit that this phrase refers in a more narrow sense to the works of the Law; the Sheep and the Goats parable makes it clear that works of mercy etc are necessary and therefore it goes against your much wider interpretation of 'works' above

 

Did you know that "love thy neighbour as thyself" is a work of the law?

Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.

Did you know that all the law is fulfilled in love?

Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

"Works of mercy", as you call it, is fulfilling the law of love.

"Works of mercy" do not save for Paul made it very clear;

Eph 2:8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Mercy, love and doing good unto others is God's law!

...and therefore your narrow interpretation of the law excludes the very core foundation which all the law is based on, and that is love.

Now if one is truly a child of God they will love thy neighbour just as those sheep had done in the parable. Their works of the law 'loving thy neighbour as thyself' showed forth their love of Jesus Christ.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

I agree with you up to a point; love is the fulfilment of the law. But is not loving itself a work (I don't mean here the romantic, slushy-feeling kind of love but the sort of love referred to in I Cor 13)?

 

It is.

And the works of the law will not justify a man. Only the work of Christ can do this.

Most good works I do I would not if it were not for the new heart that Jesus gave me, therefore Jesus gets the preeminence of credit. For without HIm I could do nothing.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.

Jhn 15:5 I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

Again, largely in agreement. But I'd be interested on your take on 'abideth' in the Johannine passage cited...

 

Might I ask a question of those that do not believe in OSAS ? If it is possible to lose our salvation how can we then be saved again ?

Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
Heb 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

I am not trying to stir debate but I have never heard a satisfactory answer to the above question.

 

HP: When you ask a question that has no real answer the way it is worded, it is no surprise one has not heard an answer that will satisfy the mind. Your question infers a false concept of salvation, as if though it is a final completed work at ones initial act of repentance and faith. Nothing is completed ‘in finality’ until we stand before God in judgment and are found to have an Advocate, Jesus Christ the Righteous. How can one lose that which they have not gained in the absolute and final sense?

Certainly, in a sense, we are indeed saved now, but we stand by faith. Anything held by faith is subject to error, deception, and or change. One can make shipwreck of their faith, cast aside their faith, and in the end be found standing before God without an Advocate and at that time be eternally lost. Until then, even the sinner is not ‘eternally’ lost for there is still hope while he lives that he will repent and turn to Christ in faith. Here and now the believer holds by faith the hope of eternal life. At the judgment our faith and hope will be turned to absolute knowledge and that which before we only held the earnest of, and that again by faith, will be turned to an absolute and unchangeable eternal verity.

Salvation is thought of in three tenses, not one as your question implies. We have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. It is not over till it is over.

 

If you are "largly in agreement" then you will find the passages of scripture that are used to attack OSAS actually speak of something other than salavtion or are reinforcing OSAS.

Which passage are you refering to?

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

HP: Now there is a handy presupposition to work from if one is more interested in bolstering their dogmas as opposed to seeking truth. :rolleyes:

 

Still awaiting your visit to the "ginosko" thread!

:thumbs: