"The doctrine by which the church stands or falls."

HP : I knew a man once that cried himself to sleep many times over the sins he committed. But the proof of the pudding was in the fact that he would go out and do it again the next night, only to repeat his ‘remorse’ on his pillow. I would consider such a man as nothing more than a convicted sinner, not a born again believer.

 

Heavenly Pilgrim,

You could be right. But maybe not.

The fact that he was sorrowfull and remorsefull is a good sign, but with such limited information its hard to say.

You said you knew this man.

Did he have a conversion testimony?

Was he plugged into a true new testament fellowship of believers where the true gospel is proclaimed?

Did he understand he was saved through faith alone, or was he caught in the tenticles of a works based theology. Being under Law (salvation conditional on maintaining "goodness") streghthens the allure of sin and can lead to frequent failure.

Had there been a great change, only to have him fall back, or was their never a great change?

Did he understand His eternal security? (that is VERY important regarding consistant living)



The reason I am asking all of these questions is because these are the questions I would ask HIM if I were in a position to give him counsel.

Need more information. As it is its entirely possible he was born again, but struggling greatly. Or he might be one who *professes* Christ but does not *possess* Christ.

Mike

 

The object of my faith is likewise Christ; I seek to follow Him and keep His commandments.

 

Mike (and others) - I wonder what you make of this and this? It's pretty similar to what I believe.

 

Rev 14:12 "Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus"

 

1. The initial gift of salavation is conditional - you must accept it. "To as many as RECEIVED him to THEM he gave the right to be called the children of God" john 1.

"If anyone hears my voice AND OPENS the door I WILL come in ... and fellowhip with him" Rev 3.

"Whosoever BELIEVES on him might not perish" John 3.

2. CONTINUING in salvation is conditional - "saved - IF you persevere FIRM until the end"

Col 2 "AS you have RECEIVED Christ Jesus - so WALK in him".

The rules never changed.

There is no "as you were ZAPPED by God so instruct God to have you stay ZAPPED"

in Christ,

Bob

 

On this at least you and I can be agreed, Bob.

 

Hey - wait -- are we both Arminian? (Free will - choice? "Or zapping"?)

 

"Augustinian":laugh:

 

so "zapping"?

 

Not quite - more synergist than monergist and continuously flowing grace rather than 'zaps'. See here and scroll down to the doctrine of grace.

 

If I mentioned anything about synergist - I did not mean to -

 

I don't believe that brother Matt is a Calvinist. Notice he didn't clarify what kind of "Augustinian" he was--whether "hyper-Augustinian", "semi-Augustinian", etc. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Oops..you're post beat mine.
(I consider myself a semi-Augustinian, or a synergist)

 

Sorry, later editing caught you out! (Actually, I think you'll find that Augustine was what we would today call 'semi-Augustinian'.)

 

True, particularly if one looks at his writings as a whole. His position seems to change somewhat over the course of time. The bottom line is that even the WESTERN half of the Church tended stick with the more moderate Augustine's position on grace and free will (ie "semi-Augustinian"). During the Reformation, however, certain folks (Luther, Calvin, Beza and many of their followers) took the more "hyper-Augustinian" position and ran with it! Despite this unfortunate tendancy, I'm not prepared to boot Augustine out of the Church just yet (like some would appear to advocate). :smilewinkgrin:

 

Eliyahu: All the sins came from the Unbelief of what has been done at the Cross. When we rely on the Holys Spirit and follow Him, we cease the sins and make the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

I have been busy in the meantime, but notice some posters are continuously posting the wrong beliefs.

Your soteriorology is quite defective. That's why you continue to reveal your misunderstanding about how God saved us.

If the Atonement of Jesus Christ is limited only to the Believers, then none of this generation on this world could have been saved, because all the people of this world, 7 billion people, were Unbelievers at that time when Jesus died. We were born as Unbelievers. What could we do in order to get saved? Only thing was to accept Jesus, to believe in Jesus as commanded in Acts 16:31.

If the Atonement by Jesus Christ is limited only to the nice people except Hitler and Stalin, then what about John Newton of Amazing Grace?
To what extent of horrendous sinners can people be saved?
Was the Robber at the Cross saved because he was less sinful?

You are adding the condition for the Salvation which is free and based on vast Grace.

You must distinguish between all the sins and the sin of blasphemy against Holy Spirit.
The Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the continuous and ultimate rejection of the Holy Spirit.

Mt 12
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.


What is the meaning of Speaking against the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit witnesses what Jesus has completed already at the Cross. (John 16:13-15).

If you have received the Holy Spirit, you must have remembered that the first thing that the Holy Spirit did for you was to get you realize your sins, repent, discover what Jesus has done at the Cross, discover that all the sins were forgiven at the Cross.

If you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit and reject His Words reproving you about your sins, there is no way for the Salvation.

So, the Word " Believe" include many things, realizing what are the sins of the person, realizing the punishment for the sins, realizing what Jesus has done for them, and accepting the Grace from God due to what Jesus has done.

If you claim that something was left unforgiven or un-fulfilled despite the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ at the Cross, then Jesus has to come again to die the terrible death at the Cross again, whenever the wicked unbelievers repent. If so, you are quite ready to kill Jesus again. This is a horrendous crime against God.

You owe 10 Billion US Dollars to God because of your sins.

Jesus paid all the debt in full amount on behalf of you, for your account.

You could pay nothing for it, but Jesus paid it in your stead.

If you deny it, and try to reimburse the amount as much as you can, you are rejecting and treading down the boundless grace by Jesus.

Again, what kind of good works did the Robber at the Cross do for the Salvation?

 

HP: You must have me confused with someone else. Where have I ever presented an argument like you speak of?

 

Matt,

A couple of pages back you asked what we thought of 2 links that you offered.

1st, although they arent RCC sources they suffer from the same malady that Catholic theologians many times suffer from. That being...why say with 50 words what can be said with 500 words! :laugh:

But regarding the teaching, its classic RCC style "double talk".

After a wonderful few paragraphs extolling the greatness of Gods grace and faith based justification,(I applaud them for that) they turn right around and cancel it all out with the usual "all of this is yours as long as you do your part and maintain good works and obedience" error.

Rather than the truth that the fruit that follows justification is evidence of true salvation, they teach that the error the fruit is a contributing factor in being/staying justified.

Double talk. Speaking with forked tongue. Flip flopping.

God is clear that it is not a fusion of "grace/faith" with "works/obedience".

It is either one or the other, but not a blending of the 2.

From the scriptures...

I also saw in your material the error of failing to understand that when God contrasts the Law with Faith He does not mean simply the Old Covenant Law given to Israel.

He is using the Law in the sense of, and to refer to, any works based justification theology.

God bless,

Mike

 

Really? On what basis do you adopt that particular interpretation of Scripture when the plain words suggest otherwise?