PDA

View Full Version : The wanderer from faith - a mini crisis in theology



Nick
Nov 24th 2013, 04:17 AM
James 5: 19-20 "My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins." (James 5:19-20, ESV)

I'm hopeful my reformist brothers can help me out here. These verses spoke to me tonight. How does one who is saved wander to where he needs to be brought back or else his soul will perish?

My notes tell me:

James has in mind here those with dead faith (cf. James 2:14–26), not sinning, true believers. wandering. Those who go astray doctrinally (James 5:19) will also manifest an errant lifestyle, one not lived according to biblical principles. save his soul from death. A person who wanders from the truth puts his soul in jeopardy. The “death” in view is not physical death, but eternal death—eternal separation from God and eternal punishment in hell (cf. Isa. 66:24; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 13:40, 42, 50; 25:41, 46; Mark 9:43–49; 2 Thess. 1:8–9; Rom. 6:23; Rev. 20:11–15; 21:8). Knowing how high the stakes are should motivate Christians to aggressively pursue such people. cover a multitude of sins. See Ps. 5:10. Since even one sin is enough to condemn a person to hell, James’ use of the word “multitude” emphasizes the hopeless condition of lost, unregenerate sinners. The good news of the gospel is that God’s forgiving grace (which is greater than any sin; Rom. 5:20) is available to those who turn from their sins and exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8–9).

Diggindeeper
Nov 24th 2013, 04:42 AM
Nick, to me, to wear the name of 'Christian...this is serious business. To me, anyway.

Too many don't see the seriousness of bearing the name of Christ and that not only grieves the Holy Spirit, but it must hurt Christ terribly.

It really should be taken VERY seriously. Too often it's not really serious business to too many.

Slug1
Nov 24th 2013, 02:47 PM
James 5: 19-20 "My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins." (James 5:19-20, ESV)

I'm hopeful my reformist brothers can help me out here. These verses spoke to me tonight. How does one who is saved wander to where he needs to be brought back or else his soul will perish?

My notes tell me:

James has in mind here those with dead faith (cf. James 2:14–26), not sinning, true believers. wandering. Those who go astray doctrinally (James 5:19) will also manifest an errant lifestyle, one not lived according to biblical principles. save his soul from death. A person who wanders from the truth puts his soul in jeopardy. The “death” in view is not physical death, but eternal death—eternal separation from God and eternal punishment in hell (cf. Isa. 66:24; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 13:40, 42, 50; 25:41, 46; Mark 9:43–49; 2 Thess. 1:8–9; Rom. 6:23; Rev. 20:11–15; 21:8). Knowing how high the stakes are should motivate Christians to aggressively pursue such people. cover a multitude of sins. See Ps. 5:10. Since even one sin is enough to condemn a person to hell, James’ use of the word “multitude” emphasizes the hopeless condition of lost, unregenerate sinners. The good news of the gospel is that God’s forgiving grace (which is greater than any sin; Rom. 5:20) is available to those who turn from their sins and exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8–9).Nick, I'm sure this will be an edifying thread for you. You know how I exhort this Biblical warning/verse many times in the past when refuting the reformed position. For me, this is one of the strongest warnings in the Bible that clearly refutes the reformed position.

The term "brethren" is the key to accepting the warnings that God speaks through James. I will say that all who follow the reformed position will attempt to say that James in NOT addressing those in Christ. They have to "change" the meaning of the word, "brethren" to make this work and surprisingly, they actually will say that term does not mean James is addressing those in Christ.

Watchman
Nov 24th 2013, 03:11 PM
Galatians 6:1 Brothers and sisters, if a person is discovered in some sin, you who are spiritual restore such a person in a spirit of gentleness. Pay close attention to yourselves, so that you are not tempted too.

This fragment supports the returning of an errant one to Christ, as does the parable of the prodigal son.

blessings,

Watchman :)

Nick
Nov 24th 2013, 04:46 PM
Nick, I'm sure this will be an edifying thread for you. You know how I exhort this Biblical warning/verse many times in the past when refuting the reformed position. For me, this is one of the strongest warnings in the Bible that clearly refutes the reformed position.

The term "brethren" is the key to accepting the warnings that God speaks through James. I will say that all who follow the reformed position will attempt to say that James in NOT addressing those in Christ. They have to "change" the meaning of the word, "brethren" to make this work and surprisingly, they actually will say that term does not mean James is addressing those in Christ.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Those verses caught my eye, I did some digging and came up with unanswered questions. I'm sure there's a logical explanation that I must be overlooking.

Slug1
Nov 24th 2013, 05:08 PM
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Those verses caught my eye, I did some digging and came up with unanswered questions. I'm sure there's a logical explanation that I must be overlooking.Overlooked? Hmmmm... divide with the verse Watchman raised. With those who follow the reformed position, it's not about overlooking, it's about ignoring or changing the meaning of scripture to fit within the boundaries of that doctrine. Not only are we to restore, and ONLY those in Christ previously CAN be restored, but we are also warned NOT to fall into the same sin ourselves. This is a LOUD warning but for those who choose to follow the reformed position, MUST be ignored because if those scriptures are accepted for God's truth, then a reformist is refuting the very doctrine they chose to follow.

Edit:

Another point to not overlook, when a "Christian" falls into error, a reformist is quick to say, "they were never really in Christ in the first place". This speaks volumes!! As the verse from Galatians teaches, brothers and sisters ARE to be restored. So, this refutes any "claim" by a reformist that the person was "never really" in Christ. A reformist HAS TO say what they say... to accept those scriptures and to help "restore" a brother/sister... refutes the reformed position.

Nick
Nov 24th 2013, 08:46 PM
slug - I'm not entirely convinced James isn't addressing the unregenerate sinner in those verses. He could be, which would mean he is speaking about the unsaved. The wording however does seem to support your view but it's always open to interpretation. If all the translators agreed we would have one version of the bible and one indisputable uniform message. There wouldn't be different commentaries or scholarly biblical debate. Discussion forums like this would cease to exist because everything would be crystal clear and beyond refute. Unfortunately those aren't the cards were dealt so we have to unpack, digest and process Scripture based on what we think with the guidance of the Holy Spirit the author means.

Slug1
Nov 24th 2013, 09:09 PM
slug - I'm not entirely convinced James isn't addressing the unregenerate sinner in those verses. He could be, which would mean he is speaking about the unsaved. The wording however does seem to support your view but it's always open to interpretation. If all the translators agreed we would have one version of the bible and one indisputable uniform message. There wouldn't be different commentaries or scholarly biblical debate. Discussion forums like this would cease to exist because everything would be crystal clear and beyond refute. Unfortunately those aren't the cards were dealt so we have to unpack, digest and process Scripture based on what we think with the guidance of the Holy Spirit the author means.Well... I hope you don't find yourself surfing and as you can tell, I don't like to surf waves. I go with what the Bible says, not what any position says.

Nick
Nov 24th 2013, 09:34 PM
Well... I hope you don't find yourself surfing and as you can tell, I don't like to surf waves. I go with what the Bible says, not what any position says.

Do you disagree with everything the reformed position says? I wouldn't think so. I don't have to agree with everything a position says either. I reserve the right to change my mind based on new or different information. You can read the same passage day after day, and each time get something a little different from it if you're open to it. That main thing for me is to be teachable. It's not always black or white. Sometimes it's gray, and I believe it is that way by design.

Slug1
Nov 24th 2013, 09:45 PM
Do you disagree with everything the reformed position says? I wouldn't think so. I don't have to agree with everything a position says either. I reserve the right to change my mind based on new or different information. You can read the same passage day after day, and each time get something a little different from it if you're open to it. That main thing for me is to be teachable. It's not always black or white. Sometimes it's gray, and I believe it is that way by design.There is nothing "gray" about scripture. Scriptures may illuminate "more" as a Christian matures but the scriptures never change... the Christian changes and aligns with the truth of the scriptures. This is why it's called, RENEWING of the mind.

Nick
Nov 24th 2013, 09:51 PM
There is nothing "gray" about scripture. Scriptures may illuminate "more" as a Christian matures but the scriptures never change... the Christian changes and aligns with the truth of the scriptures. This is why it's called, RENEWING of the mind.

Or Sanctification. I never suggested Scripture changes but my interpretation of it sure does and so does yours. If it doesn't then you're not growing spiritually.

Slug1
Nov 24th 2013, 09:53 PM
Or Sanctification. I never suggested Scripture changes but my interpretation of it sure does and so does yours. If it doesn't then you're not growing spiritually.I wouldn't even say my interpretation changes... my understanding changes as the renewing continues.

Guess this is a semantics thANG :)

Nick
Nov 24th 2013, 09:56 PM
I wouldn't even say my interpretation changes... my understanding changes as the renewing continues.

Guess this is a semantics thANG :)

Interpretation is synonymous with understanding. When you held an entirely different view, the one I hold now, I'm sure you felt you had the correct understanding to use your vernacular. Things change. People change. We never stay stagnant. We're either maturing in the sanctification process or moving towards apostasy.

Obfuscate
Nov 24th 2013, 11:11 PM
We're either maturing in the sanctification process or moving towards apostasy.

Maybe you answered the question? We can't do anything about our conversion and justification but don't we do have to co-operate with sanctification?

Romans 6:19...For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification

Slug1
Nov 24th 2013, 11:28 PM
Do you disagree with everything the reformed position says? I wouldn't think so. I don't have to agree with everything a position says either. Do you know what makes any position or teaching a "false" teaching?

Nick
Nov 25th 2013, 01:06 AM
Do you know what makes any position or teaching a "false" teaching?

No slug, tell me. If a position disagrees with another's interpretation of sound doctrine then I guess it's false teaching, and those that hold to that "false teaching" will be cast into the lake of fire on Judgment Day? That is basically what you're saying when you refer to the reformed position as "false teaching". I know you're familiar with Revelation. I would rather not take such an extremist view. It's sad when Christians refer to other Christian theology as false teaching. They think they're helping the person but in reality it just further alienates believers, creates division and causes strife.

Slug1
Nov 25th 2013, 01:34 AM
No slug, tell me. If a position disagrees with another's interpretation of sound doctrine then I guess it's false teaching, and those that hold to that "false teaching" will be cast into the lake of fire on Judgment Day? That is basically what you're saying when you refer to the reformed position as "false teaching". I know you're familiar with Revelation. I would rather not take such an extremist view. It's sad when Christians refer to other Christian theology as false teaching. They think they're helping the person but in reality it just further alienates believers, creates division and causes strife.What makes any teaching "false" is when it does not align with the Word of God. Has nothing to do with not aligning with anyone's "interpretation" of the Word of God as you imply in your 2nd sentence of your reply.

As a leader in any church, when there is false teaching, is it a RESPONSIBILITY to call false teaching... false. So don't go around saying that it's sad that Christians do this. Turning a Christians AWAY from error is what your thread is ALL about. Based on your reply, you would NOT call a false teaching, false and thus... would allow a brethren to continue in error... now THAT is what is sad.

That alienation, division, and strife is what satan is causing (emotions) within the person who is IN error so they turn AWAY from the CORRECTION (being told their teaching is false) and thus, they remain in error. Alienation, division, and strife are examples of what the Bibles calls, "wiles" of the devil. They are forms of influence and in worse cases, oppression by satan to KEEP a person away from those attempting to DO, JUST what the James verses are all about and what you are trying to learn about.

Nick
Nov 25th 2013, 01:42 AM
What makes any teaching "false" is when it does not align with the Word of God. Has nothing to do with not aligning with anyone's "interpretation" of the Word of God as you imply in your 2nd sentence of your reply.

As a leader in any church, when there is false teaching, is it a RESPONSIBILITY to call false teaching... false. So don't go around saying that it's sad that Christians do this. Turning a Christians AWAY from error is what your thread is ALL about. Based on your reply, you would NOT call a false teaching, false and thus... would allow a brethren to continue in error... now THAT is what is sad.

That alienation, division, and strife is what satan is causing (emotions) within the person who is IN error so they turn AWAY from the CORRECTION (being told their teaching is false) and thus, they remain in error. Alienation, division, and strife are examples of what the Bibles calls, "wiles" of the devil. They are forms of influence and in worse cases, oppression by satan to KEEP a person away from those attempting to DO, JUST what the James verses are all about.

Let's distill this down further. Would people like R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur be considered false teachers in your view? Isn't a person's salvation the relevant factor here? How he or she got saved is of lesser relevance.

Slug1
Nov 25th 2013, 01:45 AM
Let's distill this down further. Would people like R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur be considered false teachers in your view?I don't know enough about either except that John MacArthur is a stanch cessationist. I once heard him say in a radio show that God will not even heal a person's marriage... I turned him off after that statement.

Nick
Nov 25th 2013, 01:53 AM
I don't know enough about either except that John MacArthur is a stanch cessationist. I once heard him say in a radio show that God will not even heal a person's marriage... I turned him off after that statement.

How many hundreds of thousands of people has he brought to Christ? That's what matters and that's the only thing that should matter.

Slug1
Nov 25th 2013, 01:59 AM
How many hundreds of thousands of people has he brought to Christ? That's what matters and that's the only thing that should matter.I agree. Your thread is about error that DOES cause a person to NOT make it to heaven... so when we are talking about "false teaching", lets focus on such error. You are telling me that informing a person of their error (in light of these James scriptures) IS SAD because it causes the person in error to feel alienated, divided, and feels strife. I'm telling you that to be in such error means such a Christian is in the clutches of satan, THUS the following of error when BEFORE, they were NOT. So when a Christian comes to HELP turn them AWAY from error, satan will lash out and make the person he's lured into error to FEEL those emotions you raised.

It is NOT sad they feel that way... what IS sad, is that the Christian offering correction BACKS DOWN because the person in error "feels" offended.

Redeemed by Grace
Nov 25th 2013, 02:55 AM
James 5: 19-20 "My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins." (James 5:19-20, ESV)

I'm hopeful my reformist brothers can help me out here. These verses spoke to me tonight. How does one who is saved wander to where he needs to be brought back or else his soul will perish?

My notes tell me:

James has in mind here those with dead faith (cf. James 2:14–26), not sinning, true believers. wandering. Those who go astray doctrinally (James 5:19) will also manifest an errant lifestyle, one not lived according to biblical principles. save his soul from death. A person who wanders from the truth puts his soul in jeopardy. The “death” in view is not physical death, but eternal death—eternal separation from God and eternal punishment in hell (cf. Isa. 66:24; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 13:40, 42, 50; 25:41, 46; Mark 9:43–49; 2 Thess. 1:8–9; Rom. 6:23; Rev. 20:11–15; 21:8). Knowing how high the stakes are should motivate Christians to aggressively pursue such people. cover a multitude of sins. See Ps. 5:10. Since even one sin is enough to condemn a person to hell, James’ use of the word “multitude” emphasizes the hopeless condition of lost, unregenerate sinners. The good news of the gospel is that God’s forgiving grace (which is greater than any sin; Rom. 5:20) is available to those who turn from their sins and exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8–9).

Hi Nick,

James 5:19,20 My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, 20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

Two quick points: 1st, every church has true believers, then folks who say they believe but when tested will fall away, then folks who don't believe but one day will, and then non-believers who just come for the ride. This reference is to those folks who fit the third category, folks who will one day be saved. Why? 2nd point. How can I be sure. Search the scriptures and look for another reference to believers who have come to faith, see if the bible still calls them sinners. It does not. The bible calls them saints, brethren, elect, but no longer sinners. They may still sin, bit repentance comes quickly, but never again are believers referred to as sinners. Thus this passage is not toward a true believer, but to someone within the church who may come to true saving faith, and thus saves his soul from death, just like you and I.

[Now watch how some folk here will twist this in a huff and say that this is toward Christians and not a testimony of salvation to those who if they turn now become a Christian.]

Nick
Nov 25th 2013, 04:57 AM
I agree. Your thread is about error that DOES cause a person to NOT make it to heaven... so when we are talking about "false teaching", lets focus on such error. You are telling me that informing a person of their error (in light of these James scriptures) IS SAD because it causes the person in error to feel alienated, divided, and feels strife. I'm telling you that to be in such error means such a Christian is in the clutches of satan, THUS the following of error when BEFORE, they were NOT. So when a Christian comes to HELP turn them AWAY from error, satan will lash out and make the person he's lured into error to FEEL those emotions you raised.

It is NOT sad they feel that way... what IS sad, is that the Christian offering correction BACKS DOWN because the person in error "feels" offended.

See that's the difference here. I'm not offended. I was sharing an opinion about the strife and division that is caused by differences in theology when the only thing that should really matter is whether the person is saved or not; not how he got saved or by whom. In the OP, I was asking for an explanation to verses that seemed to run counter to a position I hold, and RbG just answered it. Why not be grateful for your cessationist teachers? They gave you a foundation in the word and now you have a different view. Without the foundation you got from your cessationist teachers where would you be? Do you think you were not a Christian when you thought you were bound by doctrine? That's an important question.

chad
Nov 25th 2013, 05:45 AM
The NT records of people who have wander from the faith. One in Timothy due to the love of Money and one in Peter due to false teachers and prophets.


1 Timothy 6:10
10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.


2 Peter 2:1-22
15 They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer,[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%202&version=NIV#fen-NIV-30516f)] who loved the wages of wickedness. 16 But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—an animal without speech—who spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness.

Nick
Nov 25th 2013, 05:49 AM
Thanks chad. Neither of those verses seem to be apply to a believer that wandered. 1 Tim reads like a general statement to those that were checking it out but pursued a different path (money) and 2 Pet sounds like they were "hanging out" with the converted but never took the step themselves.

chad
Nov 25th 2013, 06:27 AM
IMO, in order for you to have wandered from the faith, you would first have to have faith. People can read into or believe what they want, but IMO - the verses are writing of believers who have wandered from the faith.


Thanks chad. Neither of those verses seem to be apply to a believer that wandered. 1 Tim reads like a general statement to those that were checking it out but pursued a different path (money) and 2 Pet sounds like they were "hanging out" with the converted but never took the step themselves.

mailmandan
Nov 25th 2013, 01:26 PM
Hi Nick,

The arguments that I've heard in defense of the reformed position are, "the wanderer is either a professing Christian, whose faith is not genuine, or a sinning Christian, who needs to be restored. For the former, the death spoken of in vs. 20 is the "second death" (Revelation 21:8); for the latter, it is "physical death" (1 Corinthians 11:29-32; 1 John 5:16).

Notice - Brethren, if anyone "among" you wanders from the truth..turns a "sinner" from the error of his way.. Some would argue that James says this one who turned from the truth was a "sinner," and was "among" but not of the Brethren, so he wasn’t previously saved.

In Matthew 26:38, Jesus said: "My soul [psuche] is deeply grieved, to the point of death." Jesus was not saying that His soul was deeply grieved to the point of spiritual death, Rather, Jesus was talking about his human life. Jesus covered our sins in one way by bringing forgiveness for all who believe, yet sins can also be covered in a different way. In Proverbs 10:12, we read: Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all sins. In 1 Peter 4:8, we read: And above all things have fervent love for one another, for love will "cover a multitude of sins." Where there is strife, unless love prevails, the strife will get worse. Love covers offences and sins when someone turns back from error. :2cents:

Regardles of what our views are on this passage of scripture, let's just be sure that WE are rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith with no wandering. :)

Slug1
Nov 26th 2013, 02:40 AM
Do you think you were not a Christian when you thought you were bound by doctrine? That's an important question. [/COLOR]I was a product of that "church" back then and quite frankly, the church died. Then, many years of struggle under the bondages that, that church put upon those who attended. Only through Christ have I been freed of those bondages.

Some years ago I received a dream and I know the examples in that dream is about those produced by such churches and remain a product of such churches and never know Christ.

Churches filled with the Holy Spirit, faithful to and know Christ, do NOT dry up or die out.

Dream: http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/213774-Dream-Judgement-upon-the-Body-of-Christ

MaryFreeman
Nov 26th 2013, 05:36 AM
Well I read through this thread and I have two things to bring up....

1: It does indeed matter HOW a person is brought to salvation.... And that all has to do with casting stumbling blocks in the path of a weaker brother.... Who is a weaker brother if not a NEWBORN in the Kingdom? And how will each one react to finding irrefutable evidence from the bible that they believed a false teaching? And IF that person ends up straying.... Ends up thinking that all of it is false and finding themselves unable to heal.... WHO are we to say that they were never really saved in the first place?

To me these are the sinners needing us to restore them.... They were truly saved and something sent them crashing to the ground from a great height.... Imagine my devastation should I find the reason for that to be something I got wrong....

2: The reformist CANNOT reconcile these scriptures without impugning and repudiating real brothers and sisters who lost their confidence.... So I find it hard to understand that this thread was originally addressed only to them.... Or maybe it is just me....

Nick
Nov 26th 2013, 06:35 AM
Mary - being saved requires true repentance, belief and faith. That's it. Whether you're a reformist or not, that is the formula for being saved. That is the "HOW" of it. If you agree with that, and I hope you do, then what really matters is whether the person is saved.

Nick
Nov 26th 2013, 06:37 AM
I was a product of that "church" back then and quite frankly, the church died. Then, many years of struggle under the bondages that, that church put upon those who attended. Only through Christ have I been freed of those bondages.

Some years ago I received a dream and I know the examples in that dream is about those produced by such churches and remain a product of such churches and never know Christ.

Churches filled with the Holy Spirit, faithful to and know Christ, do NOT dry up or die out.

Dream: http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/213774-Dream-Judgement-upon-the-Body-of-Christ

slug - you dodged the question. Were you or were you not a saved Christian while you were a cessationist?

Slug1
Nov 26th 2013, 02:50 PM
slug - you dodged the question. Were you or were you not a saved Christian while you were a cessationist?I accepted Christ as a child but was being turned into twice a son of hell by the church and their doctrine that they all followed. If you were not baptized, you were hell bound and treated as hellbound until you got baptized. If you used any Bible other than the KJV, you were hellbound and if you had any other Bible, you were treated as if you were hellbound. If you believed in the supernatural, all of it was fake or demonic and if you believed God moved in the miraculous, you were hell bound and NO testimony was allowed of God's supernatural movment. If you moved in praise to God during worship, you were hell bound, sit still, don't make a sound because God was being worshipped by the preachers wife. If you yelled out AMEN, you were hell bound. Every moment of song was nothing but a dirge and if oyu listened to anything else, you were hellbound... need I go on with what this church was all about? Now I know spirits (demons) of legalism and religion (at the minimum) were in authority over that church. The Lord, Lord scriptures come to mind when I think back and in a way, moving away from that church before it even closed was what was the long road to freedom from the bondage and oppression placed upon all who attended that church.

This has me thinkning concerning your thread about wandering from the faith... can a person accept Christ but be PUSHED away from the faith by false teachers?

Bible is FULL of verses warning of wolves, false teachers, false prophets... so for MYSELF... I was a person who accepted Christ BUT was being discipled by a false teacher and thus, PUSHED away from a relationship in Christ. If I stayed in such a position and LIVED a life as "twice a son of hell" as the Bible calls it under that false teacher (the 2 Peter 2 verses come to mind)... I would stand before Jesus thinking (deceived) that I was saved at my judgement. It would be at this moment the OSAS doctrine I was discipled with as a youth... would be false.

Also, concerning your topic of wandering away from faith... if this is not posible, then ALL the scriptures about Apostasy have no meaning.

So, a crisis in the life of a Christian and they backslide (as the Christianese word entails and is understood)... or "wander" away as you put it for this thread... well, the Lost Sheep parable is about this. So scripturally, we CAN wander due to TEACHINGS that LURE us away (wolves) from faith and a PROPER relationship,with God which falls under a "theology" problem/situation of teaching.

MaryFreeman
Nov 26th 2013, 10:22 PM
Mary - being saved requires true repentance, belief and faith. That's it. Whether you're a reformist or not, that is the formula for being saved. That is the "HOW" of it. I agree with this....


If you agree with that, and I hope you do, then what really matters is whether the person is saved.
I disagree quite vehemently with this....

I do not believe it is ok to spread a teaching that quite clearly goes against Gods word ESPECIALLY if it is done in order to win souls.... The foundation of our faith is truth.... The facts as GOD sees them.... Not as you see them.... Not as I see them.... And I believe that one on whom such falsehood and trickery was used suffers a huge crisis of faith.... If not suffering the loss of faith.... Especially one who is taught that we do not control whether or not we are saved.... I find the thought of people being born just so some great cosmic toddler can toss them in hell to make himself look good to the ones he does love very disturbing.... Along with those who blithely accept it....

TrustGzus
Nov 26th 2013, 11:02 PM
I don't know enough about either except that John MacArthur is a stanch cessationist. I once heard him say in a radio show that God will not even heal a person's marriage... I turned him off after that statement.

I find a lot of people like to say X or Y about MacArthur. Of course, like all of us, he is flawed. Yes, he is a cessaionist. This means he believes the gift of healing is no longer in effect but it does not mean that he thinks God doesn't heal at all. But having listened to him quite a bit over 25 or so years, I find that he is often misunderstood and I don't know why because I don't think he is unclear. It makes me think a lot of people talk about him more second-hand in their experience than directly. Let me quote him directly . . .

Does this that God no longer heals? Of course not! God may choose to heal today in response to the prayers of His children, when that is consistent with His will. But it is a far cry from the miraculous supernatural healing ability given the apostles on behalf of non-Christians. They were the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20), but they have passed from the scene. With them went the miraculous gifts that were uniquely associated with them (2 Cor. 12:12). It is an unfounded assumption without biblical support that healing should be expected as commonplace in the church. Never in all history has there been a time of such healing power as exhibited by Christ and the apostles. There is no time before or since when God manifested such prolific healing miracles. It was rare before the ministry of the Lord and the apostles and equally, if not more, rare since.

That's from pages 97-98 of his commentary of Acts 1-12.

If MacArthur allows in his teaching for actual healing today (just not via a spiritual gift such as "Brother Slug has the gift of healing"), then I find it hard to imagine that he'd say God will not even heal a marriage. I'd love to hear the quote and the context it came from.

Nick asked if John MacArthur or R.C. Sproul would be considered false teachers. If cessationists were false teachers, we'd have to toss out all of the Moody network such as Chuck Swindoll and Tony Evans and J. Vernon McGee and David Jeremiah. We'd have to toss Norman Geisler. The list is incredible of people we'd have to toss or at very least attribute as "false teachers".

I reject Calvinism and so I don't agree with MacArthur and Sproul on some soteriological points, but I think they are outstanding teachers of the Word, nonetheless.

MaryFreeman
Nov 26th 2013, 11:25 PM
I find a lot of people like to say X or Y about MacArthur. Of course, like all of us, he is flawed. Yes, he is a cessaionist. This means he believes the gift of healing is no longer in effect but it does not mean that he thinks God doesn't heal at all. But having listened to him quite a bit over 25 or so years, I find that he is often misunderstood and I don't know why because I don't think he is unclear. It makes me think a lot of people talk about him more second-hand in their experience than directly. Let me quote him directly . . .

Does this that God no longer heals? Of course not! God may choose to heal today in response to the prayers of His children, when that is consistent with His will. But it is a far cry from the miraculous supernatural healing ability given the apostles on behalf of non-Christians. They were the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20), but they have passed from the scene. With them went the miraculous gifts that were uniquely associated with them (2 Cor. 12:12). It is an unfounded assumption without biblical support that healing should be expected as commonplace in the church. Never in all history has there been a time of such healing power as exhibited by Christ and the apostles. There is no time before or since when God manifested such prolific healing miracles. It was rare before the ministry of the Lord and the apostles and equally, if not more, rare since.

That's from pages 97-98 of his commentary of Acts 1-12.

If MacArthur allows in his teaching for actual healing today (just not via a spiritual gift such as "Brother Slug has the gift of healing"), then I find it hard to imagine that he'd say God will not even heal a marriage. I'd love to hear the quote and the context it came from.

Nick asked if John MacArthur or R.C. Sproul would be considered false teachers. If cessationists were false teachers, we'd have to toss out all of the Moody network such as Chuck Swindoll and Tony Evans and J. Vernon McGee and David Jeremiah. We'd have to toss Norman Geisler. The list is incredible of people we'd have to toss or at very least attribute as "false teachers".

I reject Calvinism and so I don't agree with MacArthur and Sproul on some soteriological points, but I think they are outstanding teachers of the Word, nonetheless.
LoL.... The gift of healing no longer exists? I think MacArthur and Spraul would have a nervous breakdown in my church....

Slug1
Nov 27th 2013, 12:57 AM
LoL.... The gift of healing no longer exists? I think MacArthur and Spraul would have a nervous breakdown in my church....:) :)

Slug1
Nov 27th 2013, 12:58 AM
I reject Calvinism and so I don't agree with MacArthur and Sproul on some soteriological points, but I think they are outstanding teachers of the Word, nonetheless.I agree.... they just need to get out into the world where God is moving supernaturally so they can be 100% in the race.

TrustGzus
Nov 27th 2013, 01:12 AM
I agree.... they just need to get out into the world where God is moving supernaturally so they can be 100% in the race.

Again, what do you mean by that? MacArthur does believe supernatural things happen today. Another quote similar to what I gave above . . .

God may still heal directly and miraculously today; in response to the faithful prayers of His children. But no Christian today has the gifts of healings. This is apparent because no one today can heal as did Jesus and the apostles—who with a word or touch instantaneously and totally healed all who came to them, and who raised the dead. The Corinthian church may have seen God perform healings through Paul or others who had those abilities, and in that case Paul mentions them here simply to remind the Corinthians of the variety of ways in which God equips His people to do His work.

MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1984). 1 Corinthians (p. 300). Chicago: Moody Press.

Notice he doesn't reject healing today.

Another example of him speaking about the supernatural today is in his book Our Sufficiency in Christ on page 236-237 where MacArthur spends several paragraphs describing a demon possessed woman that he and some others ministered to.

My point isn't to defend MacArhtur to the nth degree, but just to point out that I think we need to be careful how we caricature a person's views.

So . . . what truly demon possessed people have we dealt with lately? Can we say he's not "100% in the race" when he has been involved with things like that?

Slug1
Nov 27th 2013, 01:39 AM
Again, what do you mean by that? MacArthur does believe supernatural things happen today. Another quote similar to what I gave above . . .

God may still heal directly and miraculously today; in response to the faithful prayers of His children. But no Christian today has the gifts of healings. This is apparent because no one today can heal as did Jesus and the apostles—who with a word or touch instantaneously and totally healed all who came to them, and who raised the dead. The Corinthian church may have seen God perform healings through Paul or others who had those abilities, and in that case Paul mentions them here simply to remind the Corinthians of the variety of ways in which God equips His people to do His work.

MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1984). 1 Corinthians (p. 300). Chicago: Moody Press.

Notice he doesn't reject healing today.

Another example of him speaking about the supernatural today is in his book Our Sufficiency in Christ on page 236-237 where MacArthur spends several paragraphs describing a demon possessed woman that he and some others ministered to.

My point isn't to defend MacArhtur to the nth degree, but just to point out that I think we need to be careful how we caricature a person's views.

So . . . what truly demon possessed people have we dealt with lately? Can we say he's not "100% in the race" when he has been involved with things like that?I agree... and like Mary made comment, MacCarther would not believe what is going on out there in the world. So while he's speaking agaisnt those who freely allow the Holy Spirit to use them and when prompted, layon of hands to any who God prompts them to layon of hands so the person can be healed... those who are being used this way are simply stating that MacArthur is wrong, WHILE he's saying those being used by God to heal, are wrong.

So in the end... who's wrong? Those who God is using freely to heal others, or MacArthue who says such healing is not happening?

I know that there are hands and feet, arms, legs, eyes, ears... all parts of the Body... but when the hand (MacArthur - for example), says to the arm (someone with the gift of HEALING - for example), that they can't do what the Holy Spirit USES them for and teaches (falsely) that God don't give the gift of healing to ANY part of the Body... someone is wrong.

At the end of the day, the one exercising their gift of Healing... isn't the one wrong as they are led in the Spirit.

TrustGzus
Nov 27th 2013, 02:09 AM
I agree... and like Mary made comment, MacCarther would have not believe what is going on out there in the world. So while he's speaking agaisnt those who freely allow the Holy Spirit to use them and when prompted, layon of hands to any who God's prompts them to layon of hands so the person can be healed... those who are being used this way are simply stating that MacArthur is wrong, WHILE he's saying those being used by God to heal, are wrong.

So in the end... who's wrong? Those who God is using freely to heal others, or MacArthue who says such healing is not happening?

Slug, I'm not sure what you read in those direct MacArthur quotes I offered. He says God can heal today through the prayers of the saints. He doesn't deny that or say it's not happening.

He does state it's not normative.

I think to fairly represent MacArthur, he states no one has a spiritual gift of healing. He doesn't say God doesn't heal. I'm using multiple books of his and all of his books that I am using are consistent in how he states this.

So, if I can word it in another way, MacArthur would say neither Slug1 nor TrustGzus have the gift of healing today. It isn't a gift for today. It was a gift only the apostles had and people the apostles laid hands on and transferred the gift to. The gift of healing ceased within that generation. But while the gift ceased, healing did not cease in totality.

Charles Ryrie, another cessationist, summarizes this distinction very well . . .

If this is so, then it does not follow that if one considers the gifts of miracles and healings temporary, he is also saying that God does not perform miracles or healings today. He is simply saying that the gifts are no longer operative because the need for them has ceased; i.e., to authenticate the Gospel message.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. (1999). Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (p. 430). Chicago, IL: Moody Press.

J. Vernon McGee, another cessationist says something similar. He tells us at one point the spiritual gift of healing has ceased . . .

Notice that the apostles exercise the apostolic gifts. Gifts of healing and gifts of miracles were sign gifts which were given to the apostles.

McGee, J. V. (1997). Thru the Bible commentary (Vol. 4, p. 532). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

But then McGee goes on to acknowledge healing today . . .

We hear a lot about healing today, and I thank God that He has healed me. How wonderful it is! But I know some saints of God who are a lot more wonderful than I ever hope to be. These people are lying right now on beds of pain, beds of affliction, and they have the joy of the Lord in their hearts.

McGee, J. V. Thru the Bible commentary (Vol. 5, p. 376). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

So according to informed cessationist theology maybe you and I and a few others pray over someone and God heals them via our collective prayer, but not because Slug1 or Slug2 or 3 or 4 or TrustGzus has the spiritual gift of healing.

Even many charismatics would say healing isn't normative today. Hank Hanegraaff isn't a cessationist and he would say healings aren't normative today.

These are important distinctions in their thinking that I think we need to be clear about. To say that these men deny healing today is a straw man of their view.

Slug1
Nov 27th 2013, 02:13 AM
Slug, I'm not sure what you read in those direct MacArthur quotes I offered. He says God can heal today through the prayers of the saints. He doesn't deny that or say it's not happening.

He does state it's not normative.

I think to fairly represent MacArthur, he states no one has a spiritual gift of healing. He doesn't say God doesn't heal. I'm using multiple books of his and all of his books that I am using are consistent in how he states this.

So, if I can word it in another way, MacArthur would say neither Slug1 nor TrustGzus have the gift of healing today. It isn't a gift for today. It was a gift only the apostles had and people the apostles laid hands on and transferred the gift to. The gift of healing ceased within that generation. But while the gift ceased, healing did not cease in totality.

Charles Ryrie, another cessationist, summarizes this distinction very well . . .

If this is so, then it does not follow that if one considers the gifts of miracles and healings temporary, he is also saying that God does not perform miracles or healings today. He is simply saying that the gifts are no longer operative because the need for them has ceased; i.e., to authenticate the Gospel message.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. (1999). Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (p. 430). Chicago, IL: Moody Press.

J. Vernon McGee, another cessationist says something similar. He tells us at one point the spiritual gift of healing has ceased . . .

Notice that the apostles exercise the apostolic gifts. Gifts of healing and gifts of miracles were sign gifts which were given to the apostles.

McGee, J. V. (1997). Thru the Bible commentary (Vol. 4, p. 532). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

But then McGee goes on to acknowledge healing today . . .

We hear a lot about healing today, and I thank God that He has healed me. How wonderful it is! But I know some saints of God who are a lot more wonderful than I ever hope to be. These people are lying right now on beds of pain, beds of affliction, and they have the joy of the Lord in their hearts.

McGee, J. V. (1997). Thru the Bible commentary (Vol. 5, p. 376). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

So according to informed cessationist theology maybe you and I and a few others pray over someone and God heals them via our collective prayer, but not because Slug1 or Slug2 or 3 or 4 or TrustGzus has the spiritual gift of healing.

Even many charismatics would say healing isn't normative today. Hank Hanegraaff isn't a cessationist and he would say healings aren't normative today.

These are important distinctions in their thinking that I think we need to be clear about. To say that these men deny healing today is a straw man of their view.I heard ya.... I'm saying, those with the gift of healing, at the end of the day and they exercise the gift as led in the Spirit, and someone is healed... who's right at the end of that day?

Those who say this gift is not active in the Body of Christ, even though the Bible says it is... or those who simply are obedient and as a servant given this gift, heal ANYONE God prompts them to heal?

edit... stand by... OK done, read on.

See, here is a problem with those who say that "healing" isn't normative today. In the church God has me serving, I will honestly say, there are about 10 people healed of whatever in a years period of time. So, I would agree, healing is NOT normative. One specific not even in the church, or part of the church... he was healed outside on the front lawn after the auction of this building we use as a church. But that was last year, so I can't count him for this year :)

BUT... along with those 10 a year, 10 more in another church a year from China, 10 in some other church in England, 10 more in some church in Russia, 10 more in the fields in Africa, 10 more, 10 more, 10 more...

So, what is normative for MAN?

God is healing many EVERY DAY because it's COMPLETELY NORMAL for God to heal. Now imagine this glorifying good work of God if people like MacArthur were not falsely teaching as they are that healing in NOT normative.. JUST HOW MANY more people could God freely use to heal others?

I'll let you in on a secret... NO PERSON CAN HEAL ANOTHER! It is NEVER NORMAL for ANY PERSON TO HEAL another person.

Cept for those who BELIEVE and exercise the faith they are given by God and God uses them freely because as an arm (for example), they are given the gift of healing for the benefit of the Body.

I truly can't believe that when God informed His entire Body that He gave TO THE BODY, all those gifts... people today are saying those gifts were ONLY for the Apostles and actually NOT for the entire Body of Christ. That is FALSE TEACHING!

Nick
Nov 27th 2013, 04:58 AM
I disagree quite vehemently with this....

I do not believe it is ok to spread a teaching that quite clearly goes against Gods word ESPECIALLY if it is done in order to win souls.... The foundation of our faith is truth.... The facts as GOD sees them.... Not as you see them.... Not as I see them.... And I believe that one on whom such falsehood and trickery was used suffers a huge crisis of faith.... If not suffering the loss of faith.... Especially one who is taught that we do not control whether or not we are saved.... I find the thought of people being born just so some great cosmic toddler can toss them in hell to make himself look good to the ones he does love very disturbing.... Along with those who blithely accept it....

It's interesting. Reformers have their controversial views on things (the elect, predestination, OSAS, etc.) but they certainly don't go around saying people are unsaved if they don't hold the same theology. You're saying people that hold this theology have their faith built on lies and will be eternally condemned as a result of it. To hold such an extremist view is the antithesis of what being a follower of Christ is all about. There's no love in that. That's self-righteous condemnation of another. Reformers believe in the right Gospel + the right Response = Being a Christian + Good deeds. That's the formula. The Gospel message properly understood, coupled with a biblical response to the Gospel (repentance & faith) makes one a Christian who then bears fruit (good deeds).

Slug1
Nov 27th 2013, 05:04 AM
It's interesting. Reformers have their controversial view on things (the elect, predestination, etc.) but they certainly don't go around saying people are unsaved if they don't hold the same theology. You're saying people that hold this theology have their faith built on lies and will be eternally condemned as a result of it. To hold such an extremist view is the antithesis of what being a follower of Christ is all about. There's no love in that. That's self-righteous condemnation of another. Reformers believe in the right Gospel + the right Response = Being a Christian + Good deeds. That's the formula. The Gospel message properly understood, coupled with a biblical response to the Gospel (repentance & faith) makes one a Christian who then bears fruit (good deeds).I can't agree with you Nick... because the moment a "Christian" stumbles, the Reformer is the first to say.... "guess they were never really in Christ in the first place". True Reformists will not attempt to turn such brethren away from their error because if they (the one stumbling) were truly a Christian, they would not be in such error that can cost them the death of their soul.

Nick
Nov 27th 2013, 05:11 AM
I find a lot of people like to say X or Y about MacArthur. Of course, like all of us, he is flawed. Yes, he is a cessaionist. This means he believes the gift of healing is no longer in effect but it does not mean that he thinks God doesn't heal at all. But having listened to him quite a bit over 25 or so years, I find that he is often misunderstood and I don't know why because I don't think he is unclear. It makes me think a lot of people talk about him more second-hand in their experience than directly. Let me quote him directly . . .

Does this that God no longer heals? Of course not! God may choose to heal today in response to the prayers of His children, when that is consistent with His will. But it is a far cry from the miraculous supernatural healing ability given the apostles on behalf of non-Christians. They were the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20), but they have passed from the scene. With them went the miraculous gifts that were uniquely associated with them (2 Cor. 12:12). It is an unfounded assumption without biblical support that healing should be expected as commonplace in the church. Never in all history has there been a time of such healing power as exhibited by Christ and the apostles. There is no time before or since when God manifested such prolific healing miracles. It was rare before the ministry of the Lord and the apostles and equally, if not more, rare since.

That's from pages 97-98 of his commentary of Acts 1-12.

If MacArthur allows in his teaching for actual healing today (just not via a spiritual gift such as "Brother Slug has the gift of healing"), then I find it hard to imagine that he'd say God will not even heal a marriage. I'd love to hear the quote and the context it came from.

Nick asked if John MacArthur or R.C. Sproul would be considered false teachers. If cessationists were false teachers, we'd have to toss out all of the Moody network such as Chuck Swindoll and Tony Evans and J. Vernon McGee and David Jeremiah. We'd have to toss Norman Geisler. The list is incredible of people we'd have to toss or at very least attribute as "false teachers".

I reject Calvinism and so I don't agree with MacArthur and Sproul on some soteriological points, but I think they are outstanding teachers of the Word, nonetheless.

Thank you for your post. Hopefully it causes some people to do some serious soul searching. To suggest that MacArthur or Sproul are false teachers leading hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of people to everlasting damnation is absolutely ludicrous.

Nick
Nov 27th 2013, 05:48 AM
I can't agree with you Nick... because the moment a "Christian" stumbles, the Reformer is the first to say.... "guess they were never really in Christ in the first place". True Reformists will not attempt to turn such brethren away from their error because if they (the one stumbling) were truly a Christian, they would not be in such error that can cost them the death of their soul.

You think reformers believe they are incapable of stumbling? You know enough about their views to know that's not true. What they believe is that a true Christian will get back up and dust himself off after he stumbles, as opposed to falling away completely.

TrustGzus
Nov 27th 2013, 07:33 AM
I can't agree with you Nick... because the moment a "Christian" stumbles, the Reformer is the first to say.... "guess they were never really in Christ in the first place". True Reformists will not attempt to turn such brethren away from their error because if they (the one stumbling) were truly a Christian, they would not be in such error that can cost them the death of their soul.

Well, let's look at the words of a Reformer/Reformist . . .

The first responsibility of a spiritual believer who seeks to restore a fallen brother is to help pick him up. When a person stumbles, his first need is to get up, and often he needs assistance in doing it. An integral part of church discipline, therefore, is helping a fallen brother get back on his feet spiritually and morally.

MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1983). Galatians (p. 177). Chicago: Moody Press.

This is from a chapter and a message entitled Restoring the Sinning Brother.

Just because a Christian stumbles doesn't mean Reformed people say they were never in Christ in the first place. Look at what R.C. Sproul writes in commenting about 2 Peter 1:10-12 . . .

The apostle calls us to pursue assurance with diligence. It is the assurance of our election, which translates into an assurance of our salvation. All the elect are saved, so if we can be sure that we are the elect, we can also be sure that we are saved. To what end does the apostle exhort us to make our election sure? “If you do these things,” he says, “you will never stumble.”
What does this mean? Does it mean that if we gain an assurance of our election, we will never trip up and sin? Obviously not. The Bible is replete with examples of elect and saved people who fall into sin.

Sproul, R. C. (2000). Grace unknown: the heart of reformed theology (p. 200). Grand Rapids: Baker Books.


And theologian Louis Berkhof writes . . .

They who have experienced a true conversion may temporarily fall under the spell of evil and fall into sin; they may at times even wander far from home; but the new life is bound to re-assert itself and will eventually cause them to return to God with penitent hearts.

Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (p. 484). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.

Those who have experience true conversion may wander far from home? That's what he said.

Anyway, words from those who hold to Reformed theology and what they say about stumbling. All three of those men acknowledge real Christians stumble and sometimes in big ways. And MacArthur's quote talks about restoring them and that was one blurb from an entire message about restoring the fallen. I'm not sure where you're getting your ideas from about what they think.

Neanias
Nov 27th 2013, 07:51 AM
The wanderer of the faith only creates a crisis in our theology if we are attempting to fit every man into a 'saved' or 'not saved' category in the sense of a final and sealed eternal destiny.

The wanderer does not fit this theology, but he does exist! ;)

Slug1
Nov 27th 2013, 12:05 PM
You think reformers believe they are incapable of stumbling? You know enough about their views to know that's not true. What they believe is that a true Christian will get back up and dust himself off after he stumbles, as opposed to falling away completely.If the reformed position was true then... all the verses in the Bible about the Apostasy mean nothing. All scriptures that wolves, false teachers/prophets can lure sheep away, mean nothing.

Slug1
Nov 27th 2013, 12:08 PM
Well, let's look at the words of a Reformer/Reformist . . .

The first responsibility of a spiritual believer who seeks to restore a fallen brother is to help pick him up. When a person stumbles, his first need is to get up, and often he needs assistance in doing it. An integral part of church discipline, therefore, is helping a fallen brother get back on his feet spiritually and morally.

MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1983). Galatians (p. 177). Chicago: Moody Press.

This is from a chapter and a message entitled Restoring the Sinning Brother.

Just because a Christian stumbles doesn't mean Reformed people say they were never in Christ in the first place. Look at what R.C. Sproul writes in commenting about 2 Peter 1:10-12 . . .

The apostle calls us to pursue assurance with diligence. It is the assurance of our election, which translates into an assurance of our salvation. All the elect are saved, so if we can be sure that we are the elect, we can also be sure that we are saved. To what end does the apostle exhort us to make our election sure? “If you do these things,” he says, “you will never stumble.”
What does this mean? Does it mean that if we gain an assurance of our election, we will never trip up and sin? Obviously not. The Bible is replete with examples of elect and saved people who fall into sin.

Sproul, R. C. (2000). Grace unknown: the heart of reformed theology (p. 200). Grand Rapids: Baker Books.


And theologian Louis Berkhof writes . . .

They who have experienced a true conversion may temporarily fall under the spell of evil and fall into sin; they may at times even wander far from home; but the new life is bound to re-assert itself and will eventually cause them to return to God with penitent hearts.

Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (p. 484). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.

Those who have experience true conversion may wander far from home? That's what he said.

Anyway, words from those who hold to Reformed theology and what they say about stumbling. All three of those men acknowledge real Christians stumble and sometimes in big ways. And MacArthur's quote talks about restoring them and that was one blurb from an entire message about restoring the fallen. I'm not sure where you're getting your ideas from about what they think.These statements by them ignore many scriptures about falling away, the Apostasy, and how Christians can be swayed by wolves and false teachers/prophets. It is also clear that many reformists don't hold these views because even on this board, when an example is given of falling away, many reply with... that just shows us the person in question was never really in Christ.

mailmandan
Nov 27th 2013, 12:35 PM
You think reformers believe they are incapable of stumbling? You know enough about their views to know that's not true. What they believe is that a true Christian will get back up and dust himself off after he stumbles, as opposed to falling away completely.

Is this what you mean? Proverbs 24:16 - For a righteous man may fall seven times and rise again, But the wicked shall fall by calamity.

Boo
Nov 27th 2013, 12:45 PM
Would it not be wonderful if someone who can actually demonstrate God's healing of known blind men to the public - men whom everyone knew was blind for years prior to receiving sight? I know someone I can take to that event.

Wouldn't it be very difficult for anyone to be a cessationist if someone held a healing service where people took their wheelchair-bound children and parents and let the media cameras film them walking out without their wheelchairs? We can get these people from a nursing home. That would work!

I went to see some people who put out a video of a miraculous healing of a crippled woman. I was so excited to go see these people. I waiting for weeks to attend this revival.

What I saw disillusioned me.

I saw snake oil salesmen in sheep's clothing. Very good speakers, though.

The actors on stage need better training, though.

Slug1
Nov 27th 2013, 04:15 PM
Would it not be wonderful if someone who can actually demonstrate God's healing of known blind men to the public - men whom everyone knew was blind for years prior to receiving sight? I know someone I can take to that event.

Wouldn't it be very difficult for anyone to be a cessationist if someone held a healing service where people took their wheelchair-bound children and parents and let the media cameras film them walking out without their wheelchairs? We can get these people from a nursing home. That would work!

I went to see some people who put out a video of a miraculous healing of a crippled woman. I was so excited to go see these people. I waiting for weeks to attend this revival.

What I saw disillusioned me.

I saw snake oil salesmen in sheep's clothing. Very good speakers, though.

The actors on stage need better training, though.This does not mean what you want to see for proof, isn't happening out in the world where God is truly glorified because people are exercising faith, not wanting proof.

Slug1
Nov 27th 2013, 04:20 PM
Is this what you mean? Proverbs 24:16 - For a righteous man may fall seven times and rise again, But the wicked shall fall by calamity.Hooah!

What happens to a righteous man who is in a fallen state away from God (in error) and is killed before they turn back from their error?

Nick
Nov 27th 2013, 04:22 PM
Is this what you mean? Proverbs 24:16 - For a righteous man may fall seven times and rise again, But the wicked shall fall by calamity.

Yes, dan. Something like that.

Redeemed by Grace
Nov 27th 2013, 04:54 PM
If the reformed position was true then... all the verses in the Bible about the Apostasy mean nothing. All scriptures that wolves, false teachers/prophets can lure sheep away, mean nothing.


When will you be able to understand, the Apostasy is separation, the wheat from the chaff, the real from the false, the good from the bad. Those warnings are open for all to heed, and yet only the true will understand and obey. If you yourself are saved, is it just a today thing or do you fear tomorrow that you will walk away? If you yourself claim that the Holy Spirit enables you to cast out demons as you say you do, yet how can the same Holy Spirit then one day leave you if you walk away from the faith?

Not all believers are true believers, so the call is self examination. And we can know that we are saved, for His Spirit testifies with our Spirit that we are His.... reformed position or not.

Redeemed by Grace
Nov 27th 2013, 04:58 PM
Hooah!

What happens to a righteous man who is in a fallen state away from God (in error) and is killed before they turn back from their error?

Since God sets the standard and the declaritive of who is righteous through the finished work of Jesus on the cross -- 1st --- that man will never fall away in unbelief for his spirit is now conjoined with The Holy Spirit, and 2nd if this man is in sin, he is still forgiven and in death -- will instantaniously be absent from the body and present with the Lord, with no doubt!!!

Slug1
Nov 27th 2013, 06:27 PM
Since God sets the standard and the declaritive of who is righteous through the finished work of Jesus on the cross -- 1st --- that man will never fall away in unbelief for his spirit is now conjoined with The Holy Spirit, and 2nd if this man is in sin, he is still forgiven and in death -- will instantaniously be absent from the body and present with the Lord, with no doubt!!!Then why the warning in James 5 concerning turning a brethren in error back before death, to save his soul from death? If the soul is not gonna die, based on your statement, then why that warning?

Slug1
Nov 27th 2013, 06:29 PM
When will you be able to understand, the Apostasy is separation, the wheat from the chaff, the real from the false, the good from the bad. Those warnings are open for all to heed, and yet only the true will understand and obey. If you yourself are saved, is it just a today thing or do you fear tomorrow that you will walk away? If you yourself claim that the Holy Spirit enables you to cast out demons as you say you do, yet how can the same Holy Spirit then one day leave you if you walk away from the faith?

Not all believers are true believers, so the call is self examination. And we can know that we are saved, for His Spirit testifies with our Spirit that we are His.... reformed position or not.Apostasy can not be done by those who are false... only those "in" Christ can fall away. Those who are false are not falling away from anything, they are remaining in the unsaved state that they are... even though they are deceived and may honestly "think" they are in Christ.

Oregongrown
Nov 27th 2013, 07:03 PM
You think reformers believe they are incapable of stumbling? You know enough about their views to know that's not true. What they believe is that a true Christian will get back up and dust himself off after he stumbles, as opposed to falling away completely. Reformers are just humans, in the flesh, all fall short of the glory of God, without Jesus that is;) I agree with you Nick, denise, ysic.

LookingUp
Nov 27th 2013, 07:17 PM
James 5: 19-20 "My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins." (James 5:19-20, ESV)

I'm hopeful my reformist brothers can help me out here. These verses spoke to me tonight. How does one who is saved wander to where he needs to be brought back or else his soul will perish?

My notes tell me:

James has in mind here those with dead faith (cf. James 2:14–26), not sinning, true believers. wandering. Those who go astray doctrinally (James 5:19) will also manifest an errant lifestyle, one not lived according to biblical principles. save his soul from death. A person who wanders from the truth puts his soul in jeopardy. The “death” in view is not physical death, but eternal death—eternal separation from God and eternal punishment in hell (cf. Isa. 66:24; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 13:40, 42, 50; 25:41, 46; Mark 9:43–49; 2 Thess. 1:8–9; Rom. 6:23; Rev. 20:11–15; 21:8). Knowing how high the stakes are should motivate Christians to aggressively pursue such people. cover a multitude of sins. See Ps. 5:10. Since even one sin is enough to condemn a person to hell, James’ use of the word “multitude” emphasizes the hopeless condition of lost, unregenerate sinners. The good news of the gospel is that God’s forgiving grace (which is greater than any sin; Rom. 5:20) is available to those who turn from their sins and exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8–9).Nick, James just finished writing that if one is sick, he is to be prayed over so that he will be restored and his sins will be forgiven (vv. 14-15). This is done "so that you may be healed" (v. 16). The "save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins" is in this context. It's about physical death. A child of God through Christ is already dead to the law which once condemned him to eternal death because of his sin. The sin he commits while in Christ may cause physical illness leading to death, but the law cannot ask more of an already dead man. But James' previous point about dead faith is still relevant here. Both testing the substance of one's faith and confession of sin are vital components to continually living in victory in Christ.

Oregongrown
Nov 27th 2013, 08:26 PM
Well, let's look at the words of a Reformer/Reformist . . . The first responsibility of a spiritual believer who seeks to restore a fallen brother is to help pick him up. When a person stumbles, his first need is to get up, and often he needs assistance in doing it. An integral part of church discipline, therefore, is helping a fallen brother get back on his feet spiritually and morally. MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1983). Galatians (p. 177). Chicago: Moody Press. This is from a chapter and a message entitled Restoring the Sinning Brother. Just because a Christian stumbles doesn't mean Reformed people say they were never in Christ in the first place. Look at what R.C. Sproul writes in commenting about 2 Peter 1:10-12 . . . The apostle calls us to pursue assurance with diligence. It is the assurance of our election, which translates into an assurance of our salvation. All the elect are saved, so if we can be sure that we are the elect, we can also be sure that we are saved. To what end does the apostle exhort us to make our election sure? “If you do these things,” he says, “you will never stumble.” What does this mean? Does it mean that if we gain an assurance of our election, we will never trip up and sin? Obviously not. The Bible is replete with examples of elect and saved people who fall into sin. Sproul, R. C. (2000). Grace unknown: the heart of reformed theology (p. 200). Grand Rapids: Baker Books. And theologian Louis Berkhof writes . . . They who have experienced a true conversion may temporarily fall under the spell of evil and fall into sin; they may at times even wander far from home; but the new life is bound to re-assert itself and will eventually cause them to return to God with penitent hearts. Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (p. 484). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co. Those who have experience true conversion may wander far from home? That's what he said. Anyway, words from those who hold to Reformed theology and what they say about stumbling. All three of those men acknowledge real Christians stumble and sometimes in big ways. And MacArthur's quote talks about restoring them and that was one blurb from an entire message about restoring the fallen. I'm not sure where you're getting your ideas from about what they think. This rocks, I enjoyed the read, and you make an excellent point. I was out looking around for "reformers" info, and you show up with it, praise God;) denise, ysic

Redeemed by Grace
Nov 27th 2013, 09:19 PM
Then why the warning in James 5 concerning turning a brethren in error back before death, to save his soul from death? If the soul is not gonna die, based on your statement, then why that warning?

I think it is because you are not reading the text correctly, for you are reading into it that James is stating that ALL are brethren, when in context, James is writing to just believers here - the brethren --- who are amongst others in the grouping and sharing that they need to reach out and share the gospel to them... and if they believe --- BAM - they are now saved.... See Post #22

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/252143-The-wanderer-from-faith-a-mini-crisis-in-theology?p=3075670#post3075670

Redeemed by Grace
Nov 27th 2013, 09:26 PM
Apostasy can not be done by those who are false... only those "in" Christ can fall away.

How do you know that? Where is there the rule that false believers need to know that they are false believers today? Then Matthew 7 must be a typo. I believe that there will be many folks who claim they are saved but at death will find out that their faith was false.



Those who are false are not falling away from anything, they are remaining in the unsaved state that they are... even though they are deceived and may honestly "think" they are in Christ.

Your statement is confusing -- for it begins with false believers not falling away, and then 'they declare that they honestly think they are in Christ'. Which is it?

Th bible declares that those who are given to Christ are also kept by Christ. The challenge then instead becomes, are you in Christ?

Slug1
Nov 27th 2013, 10:30 PM
How do you know that? Where is there the rule that false believers need to know that they are false believers today? Then Matthew 7 must be a typo. I believe that there will be many folks who claim they are saved but at death will find out that their faith was false.



Your statement is confusing -- for it begins with false believers not falling away, and then 'they declare that they honestly think they are in Christ'. Which is it?

Th bible declares that those who are given to Christ are also kept by Christ. The challenge then instead becomes, are you in Christ?The Bible also says that those who Apostasy are those IN the faith who fall away. This is not about those who "think" they are in the faith... 1) Those who are not in Christ, can't fall away. 2) Those who are not in Christ cannot be lured away.

This is because a person can't fall from a place that are not at and they also can't be lured away from a place they are not at.

Slug1
Nov 27th 2013, 10:38 PM
I think it is because you are not reading the text correctly, for you are reading into it that James is stating that ALL are brethren, when in context, James is writing to just believers here - the brethren --- who are amongst others in the grouping and sharing that they need to reach out and share the gospel to them... and if they believe --- BAM - they are now saved.... See Post #22

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/252143-The-wanderer-from-faith-a-mini-crisis-in-theology?p=3075670#post3075670I don't agree with you because the context is set in previous chapters. Even chapter 5, in verse 7... those not in Christ are not addressed as in waiting upon the Lord. Verse 9, those not already in Christ are already condemned so the context shows us that James is referring only to those in Christ who fall into error if they grumble against one another, if they continue in this error, its clear... lest they be condemned (if they are doing this error). James even puts a SERIOUS importance to this with the warning, the "Judge" is at the door. Verse 11, "those who endure"... those not in Christ are not enduring, James is referring only to those in Christ. Verse 12, those not in Christ can't make oaths.

Need I go on in showing you that the context of "brethren" IS all about those OF faith in God?

But... I know that you can't accept this because if you would, that means you have to be against the reformed position. I get it.

LookingUp
Nov 28th 2013, 12:50 AM
The Bible also says that those who Apostasy are those IN the faith who fall away. "In the faith" is not "in Christ."


This is because a person can't fall from a place that are not at and they also can't be lured away from a place they are not at.People can be lured away from "places" they are "at" but they can't be lured away from a "Person" they are "in."

Slug1
Nov 28th 2013, 12:53 AM
"In the faith" is not "in Christ."

People can be lured away from "places" they are "at" but they can't be lured away from a "Person" they are "in."I agree to a point... in the faith is referring to those in Christ. If not in Christ, you are not in or of the faith that the Bible is in context about.

LookingUp
Nov 28th 2013, 02:10 AM
I agree to a point... in the faith is referring to those in Christ. If not in Christ, you are not in or of the faith that the Bible is in context about.One can be “of the faith” (i.e. practicing the faith, traditions, etc.) but not be “in Christ” by believing in the resurrection with the heart and confessing Christ as Lord.

Nevertheless, James is speaking about believers who become ill (v. 15) and, at times, die as a result of their sin (v. 20). Sin does not have the power of eternal death over those in Christ, but it can still do damage.

Slug1
Nov 28th 2013, 02:37 AM
One can be “of the faith” (i.e. practicing the faith, traditions, etc.) but not be “in Christ” by believing in the resurrection with the heart and confessing Christ as Lord.

Nevertheless, James is speaking about believers who become ill (v. 15) and, at times, die as a result of their sin (v. 20). Sin does not have the power of eternal death over those in Christ, but it can still do damage.What? Negative... James moves on from healing the sick to helping brethren who have strayed from the truth and are in error and in jeopardy of losing their soul if they remain in error. You fail to notice that verse 18 concludes the context of 15 and verse 19 sets the context for 20, not 15.

LookingUp
Nov 28th 2013, 07:19 AM
What? Negative... James moves on from healing the sick to helping brethren who have strayed from the truth and are in error and in jeopardy of losing their soul if they remain in error. You fail to notice that verse 18 concludes the context of 15 and verse 19 sets the context for 20, not 15. James just finished writing that if one is sick, he is to be prayed over so that he will be restored and his sins will be forgiven (vv. 14-15). This is done "so that you may be healed" (v. 16). The "save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins" is in this context. It's about physical death. A child of God through Christ is already dead to the law which once condemned him to eternal death because of his sin. The sin he commits while in Christ may cause physical illness leading to death, but the law cannot ask more of an already dead man. But James' previous point about dead faith is still relevant here. Both testing the substance of one's faith and confession of sin are vital components to continually living in victory in Christ.

Let me add 1 Cor. 11 to think about. "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world."

mailmandan
Nov 28th 2013, 11:35 AM
James just finished writing that if one is sick, he is to be prayed over so that he will be restored and his sins will be forgiven (vv. 14-15). This is done "so that you may be healed" (v. 16). The "save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins" is in this context. It's about physical death. A child of God through Christ is already dead to the law which once condemned him to eternal death because of his sin. The sin he commits while in Christ may cause physical illness leading to death, but the law cannot ask more of an already dead man. But James' previous point about dead faith is still relevant here. Both testing the substance of one's faith and confession of sin are vital components to continually living in victory in Christ.

Let me add 1 Cor. 11 to think about. "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world."

So you would agree that the wanderer is a sinning Christian who needs to be restored and the death spoken of in vs. 20 is "physical death" (1 Corinthians 11:29-32; 1 John 5:16).

In Matthew 26:38, Jesus said: "My soul [psuche] is deeply grieved, to the point of death." Jesus was not saying that His soul was deeply grieved to the point of spiritual death, Rather, Jesus was talking about his human life.

Jesus covered our sins in one way by bringing forgiveness for all who believe, yet sins can also be covered in a different way. In Proverbs 10:12, we read: Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all sins. In 1 Peter 4:8, we read: And above all things have fervent love for one another, for love will "cover a multitude of sins." (Compare with James 5:20 - "cover a multitude of sins.") Where there is strife, unless love prevails, the strife will get worse. Love covers sins when someone turns back from error.

MartindeBeer
Nov 28th 2013, 12:47 PM
I grew up charismatic, found my way into the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa, and moved away again recently. In approximately twenty years in the reform grouping I can't say that I ever encountered a single minister or member who actually propagated the Calvinist TULIP doctrine. I think that contemporary ministers realize that their congregations comprise absolutely nobody who is illiterate and that when one reads the Bible the whole foundation of the doctrine falls apart at Genesis Chapter 3 (don't need to read very far either).

TULIP sees the Original Sin as having led to the total depravity of mankind? By eating the forbidden fruit mankind became totally depraved and as such further removed from God. Genesis 3:22 actually says man moved so close to God that he had to be put out of the Garden lest he eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life and live forever! Now if the Bible says we moved closer to God, by becoming totally depraved (according to Calvin), then God must be the superlative of totally depraved, whatever that is? This doctrine is an obvious blasphemy in its logical result. To consider its other four points is almost pointless, except if one would wish to sink a sunken ship, if that is possible?

From my take on the whole reformation these guys were unhappy with the Roman Catholic Church, who knows how much subjective or personal motivation was involved, so they broke away. We should not be hyper critical of them as they did much to advance the world on the road to discovering the Truth for themselves, but objectively they replaced one "establishment" with a another, maintaining some doctrines and practices and formulating others, like TULIP. Some of these doctrines are totally unscriptural. Given the blatant flaws in TULIP and the supposed religious education of its author and supporters, one can rightly wonder if the reformation was the will of God or Satan re-positioning himself in the Rennaissance world? But God glorifies Himself, even through the work of Satan - from here on out people started searching for their own salvation instead of trusting in the interpretation of religious leaders and clerics.

That any literate person of average ability to comprehend language in the 21st century, can still subscribe to the TULIP doctrine, defies all logic. That is why, although I know many people of the reformed denomination, I cannot mention a single one who (openly) believes in this doctrine.

Boo
Nov 28th 2013, 01:15 PM
This does not mean what you want to see for proof, isn't happening out in the world where God is truly glorified because people are exercising faith, not wanting proof.


Meaning that places where these supposed events take place are the only places where God is "truly glorified."

Nice.

Slug1
Nov 28th 2013, 01:25 PM
Meaning that places where these supposed events take place are the only places where God is "truly glorified."

Nice.Hmmmm, interesting how words can be construed into whole new meanings.

Did I mean what you just accused me of... or are you just misconstruing my words so you are able to accuse me of what you did?

So... like with ALL the other posts where people are reduced to doing nothing but accuse other people, some accusations requiring the misconstruing of words, which is bearing false witness, gonna raise this post and your post to the MODS of this forum to deal with what is now an accusation.

Boo
Nov 28th 2013, 01:28 PM
Hmmmm, interesting how words can be construed into whole new meanings.

Did I mean what you just accused me of... or are you just misconstruing my words so you are able to accuse me of what you did?

So... like with ALL the other posts where people are reduced to doing nothing but accuse other people, some accusations requiring the misconstruing of words, which is bearing false witness, gonna raise this post and your post to the MODS of this forum to deal with what is now an accusation.

So, the fault is mine and not yours. Again, nice.

Slug1
Nov 28th 2013, 01:38 PM
So, the fault is mine and not yours. Again, nice.Gonna post a devo I received today in email... I ask that you read this devo.

No, it's not my fault that I can discuss the truth that God is glorifying Himself out there in the world in ways many Christians DO NOT accept. I am not responsible for those Christians who do not glorify God through abuse, faking, and even false s/w/m.

What I am responsible for is ensuring that people can make discussion in threads like this and not have their words twisted and then accused of something they are not doing, or are responsible for.

So, if you find that the Mods delete your post, my post and any other post that is false accusation... know that they are doing their job too.

Boo
Nov 28th 2013, 01:45 PM
Gonna post a devo I received today in email... I ask that you read this devo.

No, it's not my fault that I can discuss the truth that God is glorifying Himself out there in the world in ways many Christians DO NOT accept. I am not responsible for those Christians who do not glorify God through abuse, faking, and even false s/w/m.

What I am responsible for is ensuring that people can make discussion in threads like this and not have their words twisted and then accused of something they are not doing, or are responsible for.

So, if you find that the Mods delete your post, my post and any other post that is false accusation... know that they are doing their job too.

The post you made which started this line of posts merely claimed that people who were not witnessing these supposed miracles were not truly glorifying God. You made no statement as to referring only to those scam artists who fake it.

You said:

This does not mean what you want to see for proof, isn't happening out in the world where God is truly glorified because people are exercising faith, not wanting proof.

If I have not seen these miraculous healings, then I must assume because of your words that I am not attending services where God is truly glorified because people are not exercising faith, right?

Those are your words, brother. I see them for what they say, but you think they say something else?

My interpretation is based on your words. If you have a different thought in mind, rewrite your words, OK?

Slug1
Nov 28th 2013, 02:01 PM
The post you made which started this line of posts merely claimed that people who were not witnessing these supposed miracles were not truly glorifying God. You made no statement as to referring only to those scam artists who fake it.

You said:


If I have not seen these miraculous healings, then I must assume because of your words that I am not attending services where God is truly glorified because people are not exercising faith, right?

Those are your words, brother. I see them for what they say, but you think they say something else?

My interpretation is based on your words. If you have a different thought in mind, rewrite your words, OK?Boo... do you know what "perception" is and how the enemy uses perception?

Let me give you an example... you may perceive that my question implies that the enemy is in control of you in some way and your ability to reason out/understand what you are reading is what it is, leading to how you responded.

NO... I'm saying that God does glorify Himself miraculously out there in the world. That is it! You on the other hand understood this to mean that when no miracles are being done, then God is not being glorified. I did not say that, I did not mean that, I did not imply that, I did not intend to mean that, I did not do anything warranting the accusation you posting in reply to what I did write.

The point of what I wrote is to show readers (like yourself) that God IS doing what they say He is NOT doing out there in the world.

Oregongrown
Nov 28th 2013, 04:42 PM
Hmmmm, interesting how words can be construed into whole new meanings.

Did I mean what you just accused me of... or are you just misconstruing my words so you are able to accuse me of what you did?

So... like with ALL the other posts where people are reduced to doing nothing but accuse other people, some accusations requiring the misconstruing of words, which is bearing false witness, gonna raise this post and your post to the MODS of this forum to deal with what is now an accusation.

I've made some remarks on this board out of misunderstandings, and actually, at least one on your posts Slug. For me, many of your words are confusing. If you "raise" Boo's post to the mods, I am going to stand with Boo on this because I feel called to do that. I don't think you are a bad person, but I do think that some of your posts are easily "either" taken wrong, or they are exactly what you mean to say, I don't know which. I believe as grown, adult christians we should be able to work these things out ourselves, not running off tattling to the mods. True, there are some vulgar, downright rude posts, and snarky, don't forget snarky, LOL! But yeah, haven't we all made those types of posts, I mean the ones that are confusing, like this one:) denise, a sister in Christ

Slug1
Nov 28th 2013, 04:57 PM
I've made some remarks on this board out of misunderstandings, and actually, at least one on your posts Slug. For me, many of your words are confusing. If you "raise" Boo's post to the mods, I am going to stand with Boo on this because I feel called to do that. I don't think you are a bad person, but I do think that some of your posts are easily "either" taken wrong, or they are exactly what you mean to say, I don't know which. I believe as grown, adult christians we should be able to work these things out ourselves, not running off tattling to the mods. True, there are some vulgar, downright rude posts, and snarky, don't forget snarky, LOL! But yeah, haven't we all made those types of posts, I mean the ones that are confusing, like this one:) denise, a sister in ChristAccused of tattling now too :)

No... it's called "TRANSPARENCY" for those who are in leadership. There is a problem and I am going to assist in stopping the problem, so when someone makes unwarrented accusations on the open board... they are ALL getting reported to the MODS. 1) This makes them aware of problems and 2) By this transparency, I hope others learn to not make such unwarrented accusations because words are not understood.

So... with all problems, there must be a solution offered and here is the solution... when something is not understood, then ASK what is being said instead of taking offense and making false accusations.

You will notice throughout many threads questions like... "define such-in-such", "can you please help us all understand what your words mean", "can you please elaborate what your statement means"... etc.

I do this all the time and most of the time the person never replies because the intent of their statement was negative, they knew/know it and they are not honest enough to fess up.

I am, honesty brings freedom... I do all I can to be transparent openly on this board an in life in general.

In the end, people will begin to learn... don't bear false witness and accuse people of what they are not doing.

The reason I took our situation in a private discussion through PMing (last month) is because I discerned that your intent is NOT to cause dissension in the thread and that you are here to LEARN.

Oregongrown
Nov 28th 2013, 05:39 PM
Accused of tattling now too :)

No... it's called "TRANSPARENCY" for those who are in leadership. There is a problem and I am going to assist in stopping the problem, so when someone makes unwarrented accusations on the open board... they are ALL getting reported to the MODS. 1) This makes them aware of problems and 2) By this transparency, I hope others learn to not make such unwarrented accusations because words are not understood.

So... with all problems, there must be a solution offered and here is the solution... when something is not understood, then ASK what is being said instead of taking offense and making false accusations.

You will notice throughout many threads questions like... "define such-in-such", "can you please help us all understand what your words mean", "can you please elaborate what your statement means"... etc.

I do this all the time and most of the time the person never replies because the intent of their statement was negative, they knew/know it and they are not honest enough to fess up.

I am, honesty brings freedom... I do all I can to be transparent openly on this board an in life in general.

In the end, people will begin to learn... don't bear false witness and accuse people of what they are not doing.

The reason I took our situation in a private discussion through PMing (last month) is because I discerned that your intent is NOT to cause dissension in the thread and that you are here to LEARN.

Ok then by me reading what you said above in bold, why not be sure to ask Boo what he meant? Seems you jumped to a conclusion as well. That's what I'm talking about.

Slug1
Nov 28th 2013, 05:49 PM
Ok then by me reading what you said above in bold, why not be sure to ask Boo what he meant? Seems you jumped to a conclusion as well. That's what I'm talking about.Because Boo was clear. In another post of his, he raises an issue about "unbelievers" so I asked him to define what he means by unbelievers.

Boo stated "meaning that places..." which is him APPLYING meaning to my words, this is what is false witness (we discussed this in that PMing we did last month, or this month), anyway... he changed what I said by putting a new/changed/different meaning to what I said. This is bearing false witness AND then accused me of meaning something my words hardly meant.

So... this will stop, one way or another and by ILLUMINATING the problem openly for ALL to see... then all can either come to an understanding or not. Those who don't, will be asked to STOP posting in a thread where all they are doing, based on their replies and attitude, is to cause dissension and thus, do all they can to hinder the discussion and remove all edification.

Oregongrown
Nov 28th 2013, 06:25 PM
Because Boo was clear. In another post of his, he raises an issue about "unbelievers" so I asked him to define what he means by unbelievers.

Boo stated "meaning that places..." which is him APPLYING meaning to my words, this is what is false witness (we discussed this in that PMing we did last month, or this month), anyway... he changed what I said by putting a new/changed/different meaning to what I said. This is bearing false witness AND then accused me of meaning something my words hardly meant.

So... this will stop, one way or another and by ILLUMINATING the problem openly for ALL to see... then all can either come to an understanding or not. Those who don't, will be asked to STOP posting in a thread where all they are doing, based on their replies and attitude, is to cause dissension and thus, do all they can to hinder the discussion and remove all edification.

Well, I do understand, a day doesn't go by when someone is not misunderstood, or thought to be a false witness. I think that if we can discuss things, amicably, it is much better. I need to practice this myself, every day. For me one of the best verses to hear/read is
James 1:19
English Standard Version
Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger;

God bless, denise, a sister in Christ

Nick
Nov 28th 2013, 06:56 PM
Not taking sides, but I would hope we could follow, myself included, the governing principles of Matt 18:15-17 when issues arise. It's a formula, that if practiced, actually works but it requires two willing participants:

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

Oregongrown
Nov 28th 2013, 07:11 PM
Not taking sides, but I would hope we could follow, myself included, the governing principles of Matt 18:15-17 when issues arise. It's a formula, that if practiced, actually works but it requires two willing participants:

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

This is a good thing to pray over the forum about. I prayed earlier, about things that arise here, get out of hand, especially things I do wrong. I was thinking how some have said this "isn't" church but the "church" is present here. It is all the more reason that we distinguish ourselves "different" from the world, amen. I just read a verse in the last couple days about that.

LookingUp
Nov 28th 2013, 08:18 PM
So you would agree that the wanderer is a sinning Christian who needs to be restored and the death spoken of in vs. 20 is "physical death" (1 Corinthians 11:29-32; 1 John 5:16).

In Matthew 26:38, Jesus said: "My soul [psuche] is deeply grieved, to the point of death." Jesus was not saying that His soul was deeply grieved to the point of spiritual death, Rather, Jesus was talking about his human life.

Jesus covered our sins in one way by bringing forgiveness for all who believe, yet sins can also be covered in a different way. In Proverbs 10:12, we read: Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all sins. In 1 Peter 4:8, we read: And above all things have fervent love for one another, for love will "cover a multitude of sins." (Compare with James 5:20 - "cover a multitude of sins.") Where there is strife, unless love prevails, the strife will get worse. Love covers sins when someone turns back from error.Exactly! Here are some others that may relate:

"For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much..." (Luke 7:47). Jesus said her sins were forgiven as a result of her love--"love will cover a multitude of sins."

There's also Matthew 9:2 where we see a connection of being forgiven of sins and being healed. "Jesus said to the paralytic, 'Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven.'"

It seems it was known in Jesus' day that sickness/disease could be connected to sin. When they came upon the blind man from birth, they asked, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?"

Nick
Nov 29th 2013, 04:03 AM
Nick, James just finished writing that if one is sick, he is to be prayed over so that he will be restored and his sins will be forgiven (vv. 14-15). This is done "so that you may be healed" (v. 16). The "save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins" is in this context. It's about physical death. A child of God through Christ is already dead to the law which once condemned him to eternal death because of his sin. The sin he commits while in Christ may cause physical illness leading to death, but the law cannot ask more of an already dead man. But James' previous point about dead faith is still relevant here. Both testing the substance of one's faith and confession of sin are vital components to continually living in victory in Christ.

I don't disagree with any of the above. Were you making an opposing point to my OP?

The audience for James’s letter is almost certainly Jewish Christians, as evidenced by the designations "the twelve tribes in the Dispersion" (1:1) and "assembly", the Jewish reasoning throughout, and James’s frequent reflection on Mosaic law. If "Dispersion" is literal as well as metaphorical then these are a group of Jewish Christian house churches outside Palestine, which fits the situation of persecution and poverty in the letter. More than that cannot be said, but the social situation can be gleaned from the letter. As a result of the troubles, conflict has entered the churches, and they have splintered into fighting factions. Moreover, some have fallen into a worldly lifestyle (James 1:27; 4:4) and have failed to put their faith into practice (1:19–26), with the result that they have become “double-minded,” wavering between God and the world (1:8; 4:8).

James is calling out those that claim to be a Christian and telling them to prove it through their deeds. In v. 19 a person is straying from the truth. Then in v. 20 this person is called a sinner and his sin is described as his wandering will. " . . . whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will…." James assumes exactly what John assumes in 1 John 2:19. Some people had left the faith and the church without being persuaded to turn back…"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."

The first characteristic mentioned of antichrists, i.e., false teachers and deceivers (vv. 22–26), is that they depart from the faithful (see vv. 22–23 for the second characteristic and v. 26 for the third). They arise from within the church and depart from true fellowship and lead people out with them. The verse also places emphasis on the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Those genuinely born again endure in faith and fellowship and the truth (1 Cor. 11:19; 2 Tim. 2:12). The ultimate test of true Christianity is endurance (Mark 13:13; Heb. 3:14). The departure of people from the truth and the church is their unmasking.

TrustGzus
Nov 29th 2013, 04:10 AM
Then in v. 20 this person is called a sinner and his sin is described as his wandering will. " . . . whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will…."

Hey Nick, it's not a "wandering will". I don't know if it's how you typed this or if you're misreading the passage. "Will" isn't a noun here as in "God's will v. my will", it's a verb.

Whoever brings back a sinner from the sinner's wandering, the one who bring back the sinner will have saved the sinner's soul from death and a multitude of sins. "Will" is a verb here.

TrustGzus
Nov 29th 2013, 04:24 AM
Nick, back to your OP, I see your notes are from the MacArthur Study Bible. It's interesting that out of a handful of commentaries I just glanced at in the last few minutes, only MacArthur takes this to be a non-believer. I'm sure others do, but I haven't run into any yet. I can't imagine the Greek clarifies it or surely, one of these writers would point this out.

Referring to Reformed writers, Sproul appears takes this to be a believer . . .

James encourages us to watch for wandering sheep and “turn them from error,” back to the Lord. When we repent and return, our sins are forgiven. Those who helped us have the privilege of partaking in the mercy of forgiveness.

Sproul, R. C. (1994). Before the face of God: Book 4: A daily guide for living from Ephesians, Hebrews, and James (p. 481). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House; Ligonier Ministries.

Nick
Nov 29th 2013, 04:29 AM
Hey Nick, it's not a "wandering will". I don't know if it's how you typed this or if you're misreading the passage. "Will" isn't a noun here as in "God's will v. my will", it's a verb.

Whoever brings back a sinner from the sinner's wandering, the one who bring back the sinner will have saved the sinner's soul from death and a multitude of sins. "Will" is a verb here.

You're right. Good catch.

Nick
Nov 29th 2013, 04:31 AM
Nick, back to your OP, I see your notes are from the MacArthur Study Bible. It's interesting that out of a handful of commentaries I just glanced at in the last few minutes, only MacArthur takes this to be a non-believer. I'm sure others do, but I haven't run into any yet. I can't imagine the Greek clarifies it or surely, one of these writers would point this out.

Referring to Reformed writers, Sproul appears takes this to be a believer . . .

James encourages us to watch for wandering sheep and “turn them from error,” back to the Lord. When we repent and return, our sins are forgiven. Those who helped us have the privilege of partaking in the mercy of forgiveness.

Sproul, R. C. (1994). Before the face of God: Book 4: A daily guide for living from Ephesians, Hebrews, and James (p. 481). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House; Ligonier Ministries.

I use the the notes from the regular Crossway ESV and the MacArthur ESV Study Bible. Usually there is harmony, but not always. Sproul has an ESV translated Study Bible too that I plan to get soon.

LookingUp
Nov 29th 2013, 05:55 PM
I don't disagree with any of the above. Were you making an opposing point to my OP?

The audience for James’s letter is almost certainly Jewish Christians, as evidenced by the designations "the twelve tribes in the Dispersion" (1:1) and "assembly", the Jewish reasoning throughout, and James’s frequent reflection on Mosaic law. If "Dispersion" is literal as well as metaphorical then these are a group of Jewish Christian house churches outside Palestine, which fits the situation of persecution and poverty in the letter. More than that cannot be said, but the social situation can be gleaned from the letter. As a result of the troubles, conflict has entered the churches, and they have splintered into fighting factions. Moreover, some have fallen into a worldly lifestyle (James 1:27; 4:4) and have failed to put their faith into practice (1:19–26), with the result that they have become “double-minded,” wavering between God and the world (1:8; 4:8).

James is calling out those that claim to be a Christian and telling them to prove it through their deeds. In v. 19 a person is straying from the truth. Then in v. 20 this person is called a sinner and his sin is described as his wandering will. " . . . whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will…." James assumes exactly what John assumes in 1 John 2:19. Some people had left the faith and the church without being persuaded to turn back…"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."

The first characteristic mentioned of antichrists, i.e., false teachers and deceivers (vv. 22–26), is that they depart from the faithful (see vv. 22–23 for the second characteristic and v. 26 for the third). They arise from within the church and depart from true fellowship and lead people out with them. The verse also places emphasis on the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Those genuinely born again endure in faith and fellowship and the truth (1 Cor. 11:19; 2 Tim. 2:12). The ultimate test of true Christianity is endurance (Mark 13:13; Heb. 3:14). The departure of people from the truth and the church is their unmasking.Nice post, Nick.

Oregongrown
Nov 29th 2013, 06:46 PM
This verse helps me stay on track, well, I get off track so I need to say "get back on track":

2 Peter 1: 19-20
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,[a] which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,[b] 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God[c] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

I think it is easy for us to drift off into our own understanding/interpretation, and that to me is why there is so much disagreement. If we are taught by God Himself, through His Holy Spirit, that is the only, true way to know the Truth of the Word. That is my take on it.

Diggindeeper
Nov 30th 2013, 12:57 AM
Meaning that places where these supposed events take place are the only places where God is "truly glorified."

Nice.

Could I please share what happened to me?
I remember some years ago when I was much younger. My husband had a job where the business shut down and suddenly, he was out of work due to no reason on his part. He was hunting for work, but meanwhile since he could be at home with our children, I went to work at a Levi factory, sewing seat seams in jeans.

A purple ‘knot’ came up on top of my hand, beneath 2 knuckles. I was wearing as ace bandage on it and taking aspirin to relieve the pain of using my hand. I’m right handed and this was my right hand. But the knot kept getting bigger and bigger and was by then the size of half a hen egg. It was hurting so bad that it was difficult to hold a fork or spoon to cook or to eat.

One day at work I went to the clinic to see if I could get another aspirin or two. The nurse looked at my hand and informed me that I had to go home and would need a doctor’s statement to verify that my problem had been taken care of. Luckily, I was able to get in to see my doctor the next morning, on a Friday. I really needed that job, at least until my husband could find another job and begin getting paydays.

But what the doctor told me was not what I needed to hear. (My doctor had sent me on to see a surgeon.) He said this kind of ‘growth’ (I don’t remember the long medical name for it) grew similar to the ‘eyes’ on potatoes that grow sprouts. That I would definitely need surgery, but that from the tests, he said he may need to cut all the way up to the bend of my arm! The ‘sprouts’ could grow that long and could entwine around ligaments or even bone.

Well, of course, Bill and I began to pray. With 3 children to feed and keep a roof over our heads, we needed an income. Bill was feverishly hunting another job, but had found nothing thus far. The next day, on Saturday, I said to my husband, “Tomorrow at church, I’m going to ask for the Elders to anoint my hand with oil and pray for my hand, and I honestly believe the Lord can heal me. That’s what James said to do in James 5:14.” I was at the time trying my best to eat by using my left hand and was not doing well at that.

But Bill said, “Judy, I don’t find where the Lord EVER went out of the healing business or stopped doing miracles. But, we don’t need to wait till we go to church to ask them to pray for you. I’ll pray for your hand right now.” With that said he gently took my hurting hand in his and began to pray for my hand to be healed, right there at our kitchen table. I closed my eyes as he prayed, more out of respect to him than anything. He had not prayed long, when he suddenly said, “It’s gone! Judy, it’s GONE. THANK YOU, JESUS.” He let go of my hand.

Well, I opened my eyes and looked down at my hand and this is the truth…that huge purple-yellowish ‘knot’ was GONE! I was amazed and astounded. (Bill still had his hands (both of them) raised and was still thanking the Lord for healing my hand.) I looked at my hand again and said, “How did you know it was gone before I did? “ I had felt no ‘heat’, no ‘electricity’ or anything that I had thought one would ‘feel’ with a healing miracle! I really wondered how HE knew it was gone before I did.

He said, “Judy, as I was praying, I felt that thing roll away, from under my hand!”

On Monday, I was supposed to hear from the hospital to call me to tell me my surgery date, so early that morning I went back to the surgeon. I had to almost beg them to just let me in to see him. I said, “It’s about my hand and the surgery he scheduled.” Finally, they said they would work me in to see him and they did after an hour or so of waiting.

He could not believe it. He even ordered retesting. Finally, he came back in and said, “Well, you are right. I can’t explain how this happened. I’ve never seen it happen before, but it is gone. It was there, and we have the pictures to prove it. But now, we have the pictures showing me it’s not there.” He had even cancelled my surgery at the hospital.

I told that surgeon I COULD explain it, and I told him about my husband’s praying for me. This is all in my medical records….in the archives by now, but it is there! Strangely, the next Sunday I couldn’t hardly wait to testify about what the Lord had done and that I was already back at work. But…here comes the shocking part…although we had gone to that church for over 4 years, we did not know they did not believe in healing or miracles for TODAY! They did not preach that from the pulpit, so we had no idea they believed that way!

After the service that morning, everyone of the deacons and elders cornered me at the back of the sanctuary to inform me that God does not do such things today and that Bill must have ‘squeezed’ my hand kind of hard or something because such things just did not happen in this day and time. I could not believe what I was hearing. I finally told them, “Listen, I can’t help it that you don’t believe God took this away. But gentlemen…you are done telling me this TOO LATE. Bill did nothing but pray for my hand to be healed, and I am glad now that I did not ask any of you to anoint my hand and pray for me according to James. The Lord healed my hand, whether you believe it or not, and now, you are too late in telling me that miracles went out with the disciples.”

Now, I do not believe that scripture in James (or anywhere else in the Holy scriptures) it THE guaranteed formula for a healing. There is no formula or man would have found it by now and the hospitals would be emptied. Neither do I believe there is a ‘place’ where God does his miracles or healings. I was in my kitchen!

But I do believe God heals sometimes but not every time. i don't know why. Since that time, I have received 2 more instant healings. But there were other times I truly believed for healing, but nothing happened. I did have to go through other surgeries.

But friends, it really is true…God never went out of the miracle or healing business!

I hope this helps someone here.

Diggindeeper
Nov 30th 2013, 01:58 AM
Meant to add......
There is no need to go to any certain big-name meetings or any special 'place' to find God at work. I didn't. I was at home, in my kitchen, of all places. God is still God and he's God no matter where we are.

Slug1
Nov 30th 2013, 02:24 AM
Meant to add......
There is no need to go to any certain big-name meetings or any special 'place' to find God at work. I didn't. I was at home, in my kitchen, of all places. God is still God and he's God no matter where we are.Amen Judy! As I stated and meant... all it takes is faith for God to be glorified.

MaryFreeman
Nov 30th 2013, 03:37 AM
It's interesting. Reformers have their controversial views on things (the elect, predestination, OSAS, etc.) but they certainly don't go around saying people are unsaved if they don't hold the same theology. You're saying people that hold this theology have their faith built on lies and will be eternally condemned as a result of it.
This is not what I said....

Which is why I am not answering this....:

To hold such an extremist view is the antithesis of what being a follower of Christ is all about. There's no love in that. That's self-righteous condemnation of another. Reformers believe in the right Gospel + the right Response = Being a Christian + Good deeds. That's the formula. The Gospel message properly understood, coupled with a biblical response to the Gospel (repentance & faith) makes one a Christian who then bears fruit (good deeds).

Diggindeeper
Nov 30th 2013, 03:46 AM
I have to say, MaryFreeman...I never saw you say that either!

Nick
Nov 30th 2013, 05:36 AM
This is not what I said....

Which is why I am not answering this....:

Really? Please explain what you actually meant by this: Referring to reformists….If our belief is not founded in truth then it is based on lies, is it not? How can one be saved if their faith is based on a "falsehood" as you put it below? If they're not saved what does that imply about their eternal dwelling place? Nice try. You actually did say the reformers are condemned so just own it. You can't plausibly come up with a different rationale based on your statements below, but if there one, I'm all ears. That is if you care to actually engage and be honest about your views/judgments. I truly wait with bated breath for your response.


I disagree quite vehemently with this....

I do not believe it is ok to spread a teaching that quite clearly goes against Gods word ESPECIALLY if it is done in order to win souls.... The foundation of our faith is truth.... The facts as GOD sees them.... Not as you see them.... Not as I see them.... And I believe that one on whom such falsehood and trickery was used suffers a huge crisis of faith.... If not suffering the loss of faith.... Especially one who is taught that we do not control whether or not we are saved.... I find the thought of people being born just so some great cosmic toddler can toss them in hell to make himself look good to the ones he does love very disturbing.... Along with those who blithely accept it....

Boo
Nov 30th 2013, 12:16 PM
Meant to add......
There is no need to go to any certain big-name meetings or any special 'place' to find God at work. I didn't. I was at home, in my kitchen, of all places. God is still God and he's God no matter where we are.

I remember you posting this before, Sister, and I know that God does such things. I do not deny God's power. I do not deny God's healing based on His will, and not based on command from some pretender in front of a TV camera. The miracles that God performed for me were not for the public to see. They were not the biblical type of walking cripples and blind people regaining sight.

Perhaps the real problem with God's providing healing is not the belief of the observers, but the heart of the people praying. Whatever the reason, it is His.

It is sad that those who are the most public in their "healing on demand" charades do so much damage to God's mission for us. It even makes skeptics out of believers.

Slug1
Nov 30th 2013, 02:47 PM
I remember you posting this before, Sister, and I know that God does such things. I do not deny God's power. I do not deny God's healing based on His will, and not based on command from some pretender in front of a TV camera. The miracles that God performed for me were not for the public to see. They were not the biblical type of walking cripples and blind people regaining sight.

Perhaps the real problem with God's providing healing is not the belief of the observers, but the heart of the people praying. Whatever the reason, it is His.

It is sad that those who are the most public in their "healing on demand" charades do so much damage to God's mission for us. It even makes skeptics out of believers.Your final statement I've been saying for years on this site and in other mediums of communication as well. Your second part, I include in what is sad though as well.

Making Christians doubt is what the enemy begins to do with what he does out there in the world. By his inspired charades through those who fake it, or worse... those charades he actually empowers with his power and false signs/wonders are done... all this is to cause the Body of Christ to doubt (become skeptics), or worse fall away from God.

The Bible tells us that we are to test the spirit(s) and I know you know the verses, if not, I can post them. By such testing, we can determine what is of God, what is of man (fake) and what is of the devil (false and imitation). In so DOING this, the Body of Christ SHOULD NOT be skeptical. Through the gifts of the Spirit, through the KNOWLEDGE of the Word of God, testing of the spirit(s) is possible. However, when a Christian simply doubts and thus, is skeptical... how are they to test and discern?

The devil makes skeptics of believers... how is this possible Boo? Serious question... I don't want to make this post super long and it will be better to discuss this piece by piece.

teddyv
Nov 30th 2013, 05:31 PM
Your final statement I've been saying for years on this site and in other mediums of communication as well. Your second part, I include in what is sad though as well.

Making Christians doubt is what the enemy begins to do with what he does out there in the world. By his inspired charades through those who fake it, or worse... those charades he actually empowers with his power and false signs/wonders are done... all this is to cause the Body of Christ to doubt (become skeptics), or worse fall away from God.

The Bible tells us that we are to test the spirit(s) and I know you know the verses, if not, I can post them. By such testing, we can determine what is of God, what is of man (fake) and what is of the devil (false and imitation). In so DOING this, the Body of Christ SHOULD NOT be skeptical. Through the gifts of the Spirit, through the KNOWLEDGE of the Word of God, testing of the spirit(s) is possible. However, when a Christian simply doubts and thus, is skeptical... how are they to test and discern?

The devil makes skeptics of believers... how is this possible Boo? Serious question... I don't want to make this post super long and it will be better to discuss this piece by piece.I disagree that skepticism is of the devil. That is the route to blind faith. Skepticism is a healthy attitude to approach experiences in many aspects of life if it is does with a goal to verify (i.e. Bereans). It can also temper the extremes of fears and sometimes joys and keep us well grounded in reality. If it descends into cynicism I will agree with you. Also, everyone faces doubts. I fail to see this to be a manifestation of the devil every time. How many of the people of the Bible doubted at times? How many times in the Bible is this actually credited to the devil (and I mean specifically credited to him).

Nick
Nov 30th 2013, 05:48 PM
The devil makes skeptics of believers... how is this possible Boo? Serious question... I don't want to make this post super long and it will be better to discuss this piece by piece.

TV evangelists that possess these so-called healing "on-demand" powers make a mockery out of our faith. There was only man who possessed the power and authority to say "pick up your bed and walk" and that was Jesus. The disciples were given healing powers on occasion during and after his ministry on earth to validate his ministry to those that did not personally witness these miraculous acts. We don't need miracle healers anymore because we have the written word.

Oregongrown
Nov 30th 2013, 06:00 PM
I remember you posting this before, Sister, and I know that God does such things. I do not deny God's power. I do not deny God's healing based on His will, and not based on command from some pretender in front of a TV camera. The miracles that God performed for me were not for the public to see. They were not the biblical type of walking cripples and blind people regaining sight.

Perhaps the real problem with God's providing healing is not the belief of the observers, but the heart of the people praying. Whatever the reason, it is His.

It is sad that those who are the most public in their "healing on demand" charades do so much damage to God's mission for us. It even makes skeptics out of believers.

Yes, there will always be those that at least "seem" to be on a mission to derail true christianity. I think what goes on behind the scenes, brings more glory to God then those that make sure man/woman knows of their works.

Oregongrown
Nov 30th 2013, 06:12 PM
I disagree that skepticism is of the devil. That is the route to blind faith. Skepticism is a healthy attitude to approach experiences in many aspects of life if it is does with a goal to verify (i.e. Bereans). It can also temper the extremes of fears and sometimes joys and keep us well grounded in reality. If it descends into cynicism I will agree with you. Also, everyone faces doubts. I fail to see this to be a manifestation of the devil every time. How many of the people of the Bible doubted at times? How many times in the Bible is this actually credited to the devil (and I mean specifically credited to him).


Some verses do tell me to be skeptical, vigilant, aware (in short, discerning between spirits):

1 John 4:1 ESV

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

That is why I read the bible myself, not just listen to some, other finite person, and take it as gospel. If I am skeptical ( which means: having or expressing doubt about something, such as a claim or statement, that does not mean it is from satan. Yes, it can be, but it is not always.

Oregongrown
Nov 30th 2013, 06:16 PM
There are fakes, false-teachers, the bible says so, we have to use discernment.

2 Peter 2:1-22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+2%3A1-22&version=ESV) ESV But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; ...

Slug1
Nov 30th 2013, 06:24 PM
TV evangelists that possess these so-called healing "on-demand" powers make a mockery out of our faith. There was only man who possessed the power and authority to say "pick up your bed and walk" and that was Jesus. The disciples were given healing powers on occasion during and after his ministry on earth to validate his ministry to those that did not personally witness these miraculous acts. We don't need miracle healers anymore because we have the written word.Nick... not all have ever even seen a Bible out there in the world... God is still doing for them as He did back then for those who had no Word. God is still God.

Slug1
Nov 30th 2013, 06:31 PM
I disagree that skepticism is of the devil. That is the route to blind faith. Skepticism is a healthy attitude to approach experiences in many aspects of life if it is does with a goal to verify (i.e. Bereans). It can also temper the extremes of fears and sometimes joys and keep us well grounded in reality. If it descends into cynicism I will agree with you. Also, everyone faces doubts. I fail to see this to be a manifestation of the devil every time. How many of the people of the Bible doubted at times? How many times in the Bible is this actually credited to the devil (and I mean specifically credited to him).This will always boil down to terms (semantics) then. What God does, does not cause people to be skeptics. People may not understand but the Holy Spirit does not cause a person to be skeptical. What causes a person to be skeptical is when it's NOT God and there is no Holy Spirit to counsel and draw people.

Christians on the other hand, have the Word of God so when they witness/experience supernatural moves of either God or the devil, then BY THE Word of God, testing of the spirit(s) is done. So Christians are not skeptical because they have the Holy Spirit, they KNOW the voice of God and they have the Bible... all of which is for testing of the spirit(s). Also, toss in specific Gifts of the Holy Spirit and the move of the enemy is KNOWN and this will remove any doubt, deceit, falseness, etc.

Slug1
Nov 30th 2013, 06:32 PM
Some verses do tell me to be skeptical, vigilant, aware (in short, discerning between spirits):

1 John 4:1 ESV

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

That is why I read the bible myself, not just listen to some, other finite person, and take it as gospel. If I am skeptical ( which means: having or expressing doubt about something, such as a claim or statement, that does not mean it is from satan. Yes, it can be, but it is not always.How long does skepticism last once you are complete with the testing of the spirits?

My point, just because you take time to do testing, does not mean you ARE "a" skeptic.

I mean, to me... to say a person is a "skeptic" because they take a moment to test the spirit(s) is akin to calling a Christian a "drunkard" because they enjoy a glass of wine a few times a year.

Slug1
Nov 30th 2013, 06:37 PM
TV evangelists that possess these so-called healing "on-demand" powers make a mockery out of our faith. There was only man who possessed the power and authority to say "pick up your bed and walk" and that was Jesus. The disciples were given healing powers on occasion during and after his ministry on earth to validate his ministry to those that did not personally witness these miraculous acts. We don't need miracle healers anymore because we have the written word.But those secure in their walk with God... are AWARE this is going on and don't let this cause them to be skeptics or even cause themselves any heartache. The Bible warns us about what will be happening as we come close to the end of this age. Christians need to stand firm on their FOUNDATION in Christ and NOT allow anything fake or false to hinder them to cause them to doubt, be skeptical, etc.

Ya know what... you know those verses in James about surfing the waves in the ocean... these "faith healers" are issuing surfboards, but who are takers?

Clearly those who don't take one (a surfboard), aren't gonna be surfing any wave due to what these people are doing.

Nick
Nov 30th 2013, 06:38 PM
Nick... not all have ever even seen a Bible out there in the world... God is still doing for them as He did back then for those who had no Word. God is still God.

Perhaps. I've talked to some missionaries that have been to some of those far reaching places. They would concur with you. Let me rephrase my statement to be more specific to those geographic regions that have been heavily exposed to the written word like the US. I don't believe in faith healers that get on stage on and make a mockery out of our faith. They, in my opinion, do more harm than good. And they do it all in the name of Jesus Christ which is even a greater abomination to the Lord.

Slug1
Nov 30th 2013, 06:40 PM
Yes, there will always be those that at least "seem" to be on a mission to derail true christianity. I think what goes on behind the scenes, brings more glory to God then those that make sure man/woman knows of their works.It is Biblical to testify of God's work in ones life.

Slug1
Nov 30th 2013, 06:40 PM
Perhaps. I've talked to some missionaries that have been to some of those far reaching places. They would concur with you. Let me rephrase my statement to be more specific to those geographic regions that have been heavily exposed to the written word like the US. I don't believe in faith healers that get on stage on and make a mockery out of our faith. They, in my opinion, do more harm than good. And they do it all in the name of Jesus Christ which is even a greater abomination to the Lord.I agree..............

Oregongrown
Nov 30th 2013, 06:50 PM
this really is about "words" so I think the best word, as well as biblical word to be concerned about in this discussion is discernment. I agree with this definition, and scripture:
http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A314
Discernment -- the ability to think biblically about all areas of life -- is indispensable to an uncompromising life. It is incumbent upon the Christian to seize upon the discernment that God has provided for in His precious truth! Without it, Christians are at risk of being "tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14) 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,

If the bible says it, then there must be men/women who are about this trickery, so call it what you like, but the bible warns us against it. Where in the word does it say that skepticism, is ALWAYS of satan? I mean, if there's a verse, I will believe it is always of satan, not good, not the Holy Spirit causing us to stop, look and listen, test the Spirit.

I think we can get too far out there on our "own" understanding again, from our own brain/mind, I know I do. I think the closer we stick to what the bible actually says would save huge amounts of disagreements. And why try to reason with anyone that is unreasonable (in your opinion) or someone that downright rejects God's Word. Waste of precious time.

Oregongrown
Nov 30th 2013, 06:59 PM
It is Biblical to testify of God's work in ones life.



It is also biblical to do your good works without making them known:
Matthew 6:1-4

6 “Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 3 But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.[a]

Jesus was, and is the Word, He gave it freely, so yes, I believe sharing, teaching/preaching is also charitable.

I agree that when some are called to teach/preach, it has to be known. Some testimonies are in public situations, it's the boasting of them that I think these scriptures mention.

Slug1
Nov 30th 2013, 07:03 PM
this really is about "words" so I think the best word, as well as biblical word to be concerned about in this discussion is discernment. I agree with this definition, and scripture:
http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A314
Discernment -- the ability to think biblically about all areas of life -- is indispensable to an uncompromising life. It is incumbent upon the Christian to seize upon the discernment that God has provided for in His precious truth! Without it, Christians are at risk of being "tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14) 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,

If the bible says it, then there must be men/women who are about this trickery, so call it what you like, but the bible warns us against it. Where in the word does it say that skepticism, is ALWAYS of satan? I mean, if there's a verse, I will believe it is always of satan, not good, not the Holy Spirit causing us to stop, look and listen, test the Spirit.

I think we can get too far out there on our "own" understanding again, from our own brain/mind, I know I do. I think the closer we stick to what the bible actually says would save huge amounts of disagreements. And why try to reason with anyone that is unreasonable (in your opinion) or someone that downright rejects God's Word. Waste of precious time.Hooah, discernment is of God, skepticism... is not but I guess there must be a verse for this?

Christians have a "sound" mind... so here is a verse to prove we are not to be skeptical...


2 Tim 1:7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

Because of that sound mind we are not skeptical, we do not fear, we should not doubt... use discernment, test the spirit(s).

Slug1
Nov 30th 2013, 07:06 PM
It is also biblical to do your good works without making them known:
Matthew 6:1-4

6 “Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 3 But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.[a]

Jesus was, and is the Word, He gave it freely, so yes, I believe sharing, teaching/preaching is also charitable.

I agree that when some are called to teach/preach, it has to be known. Some testimonies are in public situations, it's the boasting of them that I think these scriptures mention.Hooah... I never said it was a must, I just pointed out that when testimony is given, it's supported.

What goes on behind the scenes does bring glory but don't forget... what "follows" also brings glory and this is THROUGH testimony. How else are those who were not present to KNOW what God has done and thus, draw them to God as well?

If no one is testifying and keeping all that God does to themselves, those who would hear of the glory, don't hear.

You have to understand... I'm a person God has operating OUTSIDE the walls of a building... I bring the Gospel TOO those who are lost, I don't wait for them to come to see what's happening inside walls of a church.. because THEY WON'T. Bring God TO THEM... testify, DO His good works OUTSIDE the church. God can glorify Himself all day long in a church... what about those who are lost on the OUTSIDE?

Testimony is for THEM! To bring the glory of God TO THEM and once they have ears turned to the speaker... THEN witnessing begins. Sometimes witnessing begins and then testimony is used.

EDIT:

Do you want to know who are the NUMBER one catagory of people that Christians never testify too, about what God has done?

Nick
Nov 30th 2013, 07:29 PM
It is Biblical to testify of God's work in ones life.

To the extent the testimony is focused on God's work in the person. Most of the testimonies I hear (not the ones posted here) are all about the person with God as a placeholder. The purpose of a testimony is to elevate God, not the person giving the testimony. The standing ovations I see in places like Celebrate Recovery after a person gives his or her testimony just reinforces that person's success over - fill in the blank. In truth, we shouldn't need AA or Celebrate Recovery. The living breathing word of God should suffice and not need to be repackaged.

Slug1
Nov 30th 2013, 07:46 PM
To the extent the testimony is focused on God's work in the person. Most of the testimonies I hear (not the ones posted here) are all about the person with God as a placeholder. The purpose of a testimony is to elevate God, not the person giving the testimony. The standing ovations I see in places like Celebrate Recovery after a person gives his or her testimony just reinforces that person's success over - fill in the blank. In truth, we shouldn't need AA or Celebrate Recovery. The living breathing word of God should suffice and not need to be repackaged.While I will agree with you concerning AA, faith based recovery is about DISCIPLESHIP.

Christians are not taught how to enforce/utilize their authority over satan. Some Christians are wrongly discipled and don't believe they can utilize their authority in Christ OVER the enemy and through this, resist him and make him GO away. Some Christians don't know that knowledge of the Word of God TOPPLES down strongholds. And for those Christians fully oppressed by satan, that there ARE Christians who do know how to exercise their authority and can free oppressed people which includes Christians.

Don't knock Celebrate Recovery... God led me to direct one in a church and MUCH discipling of Christians was done and in time, they glorified God through testimony of their freedoms from what led them to come to CR for help to be free.

Renewing of the mind is a MAJOR element of discipleship. Take Paul... buffetted by a demon but by renewing of the mind, when God told him to basically, "suck it up man of God, in your weakness, I am strong!!" Do you know how that is possible... because PAUL was honest and transparent and TESTIFIED to people about himself and what God did TO him and THROUGH him!! This is one of the ways that God was made strong though Paul.

Since then, God has led my wife and I to develop a new recovery program, from the ground up and in all... we've been discipling people for several years now when you put all the ministry together dealing with recovery.

I've said it many times... the MOST used forum on this WHOLE board should be the Testimonies Forum.

Nick
Nov 30th 2013, 08:02 PM
I'm not knocking CR. I've gave it a try and decided it wasn't for me, but it has helped thousands of others. It originated at Saddleback, my previous church. And I think that movie Homerun, which is based on CR might have had a positive impact on bringing people to Christ. I'm speaking from an experiential point of view. I've been to thousands of AA meetings and have been to many CR functions, meetings, step studies, etc. I get more out of the Bible study groups I attend than either of those two combined, but that's me.

Slug1
Nov 30th 2013, 08:04 PM
I'm not knocking CR. I've gave it a try and decided it wasn't for me, but it has helped thousands of others. It originated at Saddleback, my previous church. And I think that movie Homerun, which is based on CR might have had a positive impact on bringing people to Christ. I'm speaking from an experiential point of view. I've been to thousands of AA meetings and have been to many CR functions, meetings, step studies, etc. I get more out of the Bible study groups I attend than either of those two combined, but that's me.Hooah, praise God.

Oregongrown
Nov 30th 2013, 08:47 PM
Hooah, discernment is of God, skepticism... is not but I guess there must be a verse for this?

Christians have a "sound" mind... so here is a verse to prove we are not to be skeptical...


2 Tim 1:7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

Because of that sound mind we are not skeptical, we do not fear, we should not doubt... use discernment, test the spirit(s).

I'm sorry slug, but I don't get that message at all from that. So I agree to disagree, how bout you:)

Slug1
Nov 30th 2013, 08:53 PM
I'm sorry slug, but I don't get that message at all from that. So I agree to disagree, how bout you:)Hooah. What does the verse mean to you concerning wondering if something is from God and not being skeptical?

Oregongrown
Nov 30th 2013, 10:21 PM
Hooah. What does the verse mean to you concerning wondering if something is from God and not being skeptical?

Slug, I don't agree with you and you won't force-feed me anything regarding it. Thank you for your efforts in showing me what you believe. I understand you wanting to do that, but it is going to fly with me on this subject.

not going to fly, geesh, I'm tired, been working on my sisters computer all day so far:(

Slug1
Nov 30th 2013, 10:36 PM
Slug, I don't agree with you and you won't force-feed me anything regarding it. Thank you for your efforts in showing me what you believe. I understand you wanting to do that, but it is going to fly with me on this subject.

not going to fly, geesh, I'm tired, been working on my sisters computer all day so far:(I though this is a discussion? So... if the verse means something different, what? You know... we can all learn.

Oregongrown
Nov 30th 2013, 10:54 PM
I though this is a discussion? So... if the verse means something different, what? You know... we can all learn.

No, see, this is where you persist in convincing me that you are right, and I am wrong. Let's see, ok, this you should understand, I am not going to discuss this with you any longer. God bless your day, denise, a sister in Christ

Slug1
Nov 30th 2013, 10:55 PM
No, see, this is where you persist in convincing me that you are right, and I am wrong. Let's see, ok, this you should understand, I am not going to discuss this with you any longer. God bless your day, denise, a sister in Christ
No... this is a discussion and I will not be accused of something I do not do.

Oregongrown
Nov 30th 2013, 11:03 PM
No... this is a discussion and I will not be accused of something I do not do.

Slug, when I told you I wanted to agree to disagree, why is it you couldn't accept that?

Slug1
Nov 30th 2013, 11:06 PM
Slug, when I told you I wanted to agree to disagree, why is it you couldn't accept that?If there is a different meaning to the scripture then disagreeing is justified.

If you don't want to discuss it anymore, then just state that you are not gonna discuss it anymore... or, stop replying. This I can accept, and either works... but if you say you agree to disagree, I've done this... it show to MYSELF (once I listened to the Holy Spirit's conviction) I had misunderstanding and didn't want to be helped and even corrected so I AVOIDED the help by dropping... the agree to disagree card.

Oregongrown
Nov 30th 2013, 11:08 PM
If there is a different meaning to the scripture then disagreeing is justified.

If you don't want to discuss it anymore, then just state that you are not gonna discuss it anymore... or, stop replying. Either works... but if you say you agree to disagree, I've done this... it show to MYSELF I had misunderstanding and didn't want to be helped and even corrected.

I just said that I wasn't going to discuss it with you, and you still persisted. Did you not see that in my post above?

Slug1
Nov 30th 2013, 11:10 PM
I just said that I wasn't going to discuss it with you, and you still persisted. Did you not see that in my post above?:) who will stop replying first :P

Hooah, I am corrected in that you did.

Nick
Nov 30th 2013, 11:33 PM
No, see, this is where you persist in convincing me that you are right, and I am wrong. Let's see, ok, this you should understand, I am not going to discuss this with you any longer. God bless your day, denise, a sister in Christ

If I may interject an opinion. slug and often have conflicting views but it seldom rises to the point of controversy. And you can learn from him even if you disagree.

Oregongrown
Nov 30th 2013, 11:52 PM
If I may interject an opinion. slug and often have conflicting views but it seldom rises to the point of controversy. And you can learn from him even if you disagree.

I agree, I learn quite a lot from folks I disagree with, thank you nick, denise, a sister in Christ

Redeemed by Grace
Dec 1st 2013, 03:46 AM
If I may interject an opinion. slug and often have conflicting views but it seldom rises to the point of controversy. And you can learn from him even if you disagree.

OK, I'll take the bait, such as?

Nick
Dec 1st 2013, 04:22 AM
OK, I'll take the bait, such as?

Different ways of looking at the same truth. Put another way, appreciating the way someone else sees a truth that may differ from my own. I actually learn more from people that disagree with me or that I disagree with because I get to practice 1 Peter 3:15.

Redeemed by Grace
Dec 1st 2013, 12:10 PM
Different ways of looking at the same truth. Put another way, appreciating the way someone else sees a truth that may differ from my own. I actually learn more from people that disagree with me or that I disagree with because I get to practice 1 Peter 3:15.

I suppose I understand what you're trying to say, however truth is truth and not relative to someones perspective. I would see your comments more of an appreciation of anther's interpretation or opinion of that truth.

Boo
Dec 1st 2013, 01:01 PM
Sometimes, seeing a person's understanding and how it is applied prepares me for those times when people ask me questions on the subject face-to-face. I am better prepared to understand and already have a background of information to work from.

I have changed views on certain things because of disagreements as well as had my views reinforced during the discussion. It has served to solidify my understanding.

Slug and I frequently bump heads, but most of the time it stems from the use of certain words and phrases. It probably would not happen if it were not the written word as our only medium of communication. I find that I can improve these bumps if I'd take a different approaching in reading what he writes and asking questions.

The use of the word "skeptical" causes problems. It is another one that we do not all see the same way.

If I use the word in a sermon, I must take special pains to explain how I am using it. If I do not, people get messages different from what was intended.

divaD
Dec 1st 2013, 02:22 PM
James 5: 19-20 "My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins." (James 5:19-20, ESV)

I'm hopeful my reformist brothers can help me out here. These verses spoke to me tonight. How does one who is saved wander to where he needs to be brought back or else his soul will perish?

My notes tell me:

James has in mind here those with dead faith (cf. James 2:14–26), not sinning, true believers. wandering. Those who go astray doctrinally (James 5:19) will also manifest an errant lifestyle, one not lived according to biblical principles. save his soul from death. A person who wanders from the truth puts his soul in jeopardy. The “death” in view is not physical death, but eternal death—eternal separation from God and eternal punishment in hell (cf. Isa. 66:24; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 13:40, 42, 50; 25:41, 46; Mark 9:43–49; 2 Thess. 1:8–9; Rom. 6:23; Rev. 20:11–15; 21:8). Knowing how high the stakes are should motivate Christians to aggressively pursue such people. cover a multitude of sins. See Ps. 5:10. Since even one sin is enough to condemn a person to hell, James’ use of the word “multitude” emphasizes the hopeless condition of lost, unregenerate sinners. The good news of the gospel is that God’s forgiving grace (which is greater than any sin; Rom. 5:20) is available to those who turn from their sins and exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8–9).



I haven't read through the entire thread as of yet, but the following is how James 5:19-20 reads to me. So then, anyone that it reads to in the same way, I agree with their interpretation. Anyone that reads it differently, I of course disagree with their interpretation, because according to the text, only one group is being addressed here.


James 5:19,20 My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, 20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.





Who's being addressed here? The text says...My brethren. The text then goes on to say..

if any among you(meaning among the brethren) strays from the truth and one(meaning among the brethren) turns
him(meaning among the brethren) back, let him(meaning among the brethren) know, that he(meaning among the brethren) who turns a sinner(meaning among the brethren) from the error of his(meaning among the brethren) way will save his(meaning among the brethren) soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

if any among you strays from the truth equals my brethren. That has to mean a sinner in this context also equals my brethren, because according to the text, a sinner is the one among my brethren that strays from the truth . As a matter of fact, every pronoun in this passage as well equals my brethren. How can my brethren who is being addressed here also include anyone not of the brethren?

The above then is the correct way to read that passage IMO.

divaD
Dec 1st 2013, 02:36 PM
Something else I wanted to add to my last post but neglected to at the time.

James 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.


The text says..from the error of his way

I tend to think that is not including misinterpreting Scriptures, but is mainly meaning actions in this brethren's walk that is leading to sin. And besides, don't we see something similar in the OT, perhaps where this was being quoted from?

Ezekiel 33:9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

If one looks at the above verse in context, I doubt that one would conclude it has anything to do with interpreting Scriptures correctly or not.

Also in that chapter it gives us the context of whom is being addressed here.

Ezekiel 33:10 Therefore, O thou son of man, speak unto the house of Israel; Thus ye speak, saying, If our transgressions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how should we then live?
11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

It is the house of Israel that is being addressed.

Aijalon
Dec 1st 2013, 04:01 PM
I was able to follow the first 2-1/2 pages before I had to post something! :D

The following quote is from http://www.ukapologetics.net/pardon.html


Some people believe that the Unpardonable Sin is also mentioned in both Hebrews 6: 4-8 and in Hebrews 10: 26-29. But if one examines these texts carefully, there are differences. A few believe that these two texts in Hebrews "prove" that the Unpardonable Sin can only be commited by previously truly converted Christians!
This, of course, would be contradictory if we agree that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit committed by some of the Pharisees was the unforgivable sin, since nobody would claim, I am sure, that those Pharisees were converted!
Of course, if they are correct in their assertion, we cannot count on the New Testament since elsewhere the teaching is clear that nobody can snatch those under God's grace out of His hand! Obviously, there are problems in this understanding which we need to address.
So as a starting point in this discussion let us note that the gospels appear to establish that certain of the Pharisees apparently commited the unforgivable sin and they - most definitely - were not born again!
Hebrews 6 says this,
"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame."

Certain of the Jewish religious leaders apparently commited the Unforgivable Sin in their dealings with Jesus.
What did the writer mean by these comments? It is really very simple: the writer is speaking philosophically, and he is writing as a warning and a deterrent and a spur to good works. He is saying, 'Look, it is impossible for the converted to be re-converted, if it were possible, they would be - in a manner - re-crucifying Christ!
The writer is not talking about a particular group of people - in fact, in verse 9, it continues,
"But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner."

He is speaking 'in this manner' (apparently) as a spur for the Hebrews to 'stay on course,' which spur all Christians need from time to time! But the approach is philosophical: the truly converted can obviously never be re-converted!! He is not saying that this has actually happened, rather, he is speaking hypothetically and in a philosophical vein.

So backing up to the OP, for me it boils down to weighing scripture VS scripture. On one had we have what looks like "brethren" falling away and being reconvered - in James, but in Hebrews we are told it is impossible to be reconverted. :confused

This is a serious dilemma!

The Hebrews verse is not ambiguous about any groups of people, it is very clear. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to be reconverted. What glares out at me here is that this is the simplest black and white issue to be grasped, any other doctrine of salvation makes it a grey area. If salvation can be lost, that means Salvation is never able to be sure, and our Salvation is always in question. We can be reconverted over and over again, but on which side am I today? Has God let go of me? Did Christ's blood cover all my sin and then uncover it again?

I have to agree with the analysis of James 5 that explains that his vein is toward those considered members of the church who did good works and "the faith" which he speaks of is the visible outward expression of those good works. James was all about displaying our faith by good works. It seems in this instance James is talking contextually about NOT accusing the weaker brother, but reaching out to him.

He is not speaking about specific acts of unrighteousness, but rather an attitude of a weaker brother who has become disolusioned and confused about doctrine and upset with the other brethren.

JAMES 5:8-11 gives the context.
be patient, ye also; establish your hearts, because the presence of the Lord hath drawn nigh;
murmur not against one another, brethren, that ye may not be condemned; lo, the Judge before the door hath stood.
An example take ye of the suffering of evil, my brethren, and of the patience, the prophets who did speak in the name of the Lord;
lo, we call happy those who are enduring; the endurance of Job ye heard of, and the end of the Lord ye have seen, that very compassionate is the Lord, and pitying.


What doesn't appear in James chapter 5 is the word righteousness. So I can go back to Chapter 3 and find out what James thought of righteousness.


JAMES 3
Many teachers become not, my brethren, having known that greater judgment we shall receive,
2 for we all make many stumbles; if any one in word doth not stumble, this one [is] a perfect man, able to bridle also the whole body;
3 lo, the bits we put into the mouths of the horses for their obeying us, and their whole body we turn about;
4 lo, also the ships, being so great, and by fierce winds being driven, are led about by a very small helm, whithersoever the impulse of the helmsman doth counsel,
5 so also the tongue is a little member, and doth boast greatly; lo, a little fire how much wood it doth kindle!
6 and the tongue [is] a fire, the world of the unrighteousness, so the tongue is set in our members, which is spotting our whole body, and is setting on fire the course of nature, and is set on fire by the gehenna.
7 For every nature, both of beasts and of fowls, both of creeping things and things of the sea, is subdued, and hath been subdued, by the human nature,
8 and the tongue no one of men is able to subdue, [it is] an unruly evil, full of deadly poison,
9 with it we do bless the God and Father, and with it we do curse the men made according to the similitude of God;
10 out of the same mouth doth come forth blessing and cursing; it doth not need, my brethren, these things so to happen;
11 doth the fountain out of the same opening pour forth the sweet and the bitter?
12 is a fig-tree able, my brethren, olives to make? or a vine figs? so no fountain salt and sweet water [is able] to make.
13 Who [is] wise and intelligent among you? let him shew out of the good behaviour his works in meekness of wisdom,
14 and if bitter zeal ye have, and rivalry in your heart, glory not, nor lie against the truth;
15 this wisdom is not descending from above, but earthly, physical, demon-like,
16 for where zeal and rivalry [are], there is insurrection and every evil matter;
17 and the wisdom from above, first, indeed, is pure, then peaceable, gentle, easily entreated, full of kindness and good fruits, uncontentious, and unhypocritical: --
18 and the fruit of the righteousness in peace is sown to those making peace.

So ultimately we have to balance James 5:19 with Hebrews 6 for them both to be true. If it is impossible to be reconverted then James must be saying that it is possible to taste and follow the truth, yet not be in fact saved. So in picture, I suppose this is a person who is on the "path" to Salvation, but has not yet reached the end. Otherwise, if they were saved, yet became unsaved, and then were re-saved. Hebrews 6 is nonsensical.

Oregongrown
Dec 1st 2013, 04:12 PM
Sometimes, seeing a person's understanding and how it is applied prepares me for those times when people ask me questions on the subject face-to-face. I am better prepared to understand and already have a background of information to work from.

I have changed views on certain things because of disagreements as well as had my views reinforced during the discussion. It has served to solidify my understanding.

Slug and I frequently bump heads, but most of the time it stems from the use of certain words and phrases. It probably would not happen if it were not the written word as our only medium of communication. I find that I can improve these bumps if I'd take a different approaching in reading what he writes and asking questions.

The use of the word "skeptical" causes problems. It is another one that we do not all see the same way.

If I use the word in a sermon, I must take special pains to explain how I am using it. If I do not, people get messages different from what was intended.

I agree Boo, I find that definitions of words say one thing, like in Merriam Webster, but when people use the word, they are using it to mean something else. I think it's very confusing so I try to keep with biblical words, because if the bible says it, I can't argue with it, and no one else "should" argue with it. Then comes the "seeing of the Word" differently then others. That's why there are so many, different doctrines, people (christians or others) may not get their understanding of the Word by the Holy Spirit. And before someone jumps all over my case, I too misunderstand the Word if I do NOT allow God to teach it to me.

I'm out there looking at commentaries now and again, but I have to remember those people are finite, just as I am. So again, I have to go to the Source of all Truth, God, and specifically His Holy Spirit that teaches me all Truth through the Word.

God bless your day Boo, denise, ysic

Diggindeeper
Dec 1st 2013, 04:31 PM
I must go with Aijalon, above in Post #130. That is a good post. We are not all at one level of understanding, and none of us have ALL the answers and have it ALL figured out.

I do know this, as time goes by and I have studied issues out more and more and compared more and more scriptures...I have (over time) changed my views. For example, years ago I was 'pretrib/premill'. But now, I'm not. In my understanding, to me, the scriptures and especially the teachings straight from the lips of Jesus, don't support that view. Others see it differently. This does not mean that one of us is 'saved' and the other is not. Or that one of us need to be 'resaved.'

That's why we come here...to discuss differing views and to defend what we see in th scriptures.

Oregongrown
Dec 1st 2013, 05:38 PM
I agree DD, and defending without antagonizing others, or insisting others see it our way. Like you said, we could be wrong and we each must have that humility. The Word says what it say, the only problem comes when any of us may not be getting a clear understanding, but yet we are so sure we are right;) I am like you, I do learn, but it takes someone I am even willing to listen to, someone that has the "right stuff" you might say, to be teaching God's Word. That person attracts me to God's Word, instead of repelling me. God bless your day and very good post!! denise, ysic PS by the "right stuff" I mean a real gift for teaching. Some pastors for example, I could listen to all day, because they teach the Word with humility (including themselves in their points, not just pointing their finger at others like they are the sinners) grace, and Truth;)

Nick
Dec 1st 2013, 06:14 PM
I suppose I understand what you're trying to say, however truth is truth and not relative to someones perspective. I would see your comments more of an appreciation of anther's interpretation or opinion of that truth.

That's what I meant to say. You just said better.

MaryFreeman
Dec 1st 2013, 09:12 PM
I agree Boo, I find that definitions of words say one thing, like in Merriam Webster, but when people use the word, they are using it to mean something else. I think it's very confusing so I try to keep with biblical words, because if the bible says it, I can't argue with it, and no one else "should" argue with it. Then comes the "seeing of the Word" differently then others. That's why there are so many, different doctrines, people (christians or others) may not get their understanding of the Word by the Holy Spirit. And before someone jumps all over my case, I too misunderstand the Word if I do NOT allow God to teach it to me.

I'm out there looking at commentaries now and again, but I have to remember those people are finite, just as I am. So again, I have to go to the Source of all Truth, God, and specifically His Holy Spirit that teaches me all Truth through the Word.

God bless your day Boo, denise, ysic

I must add that there isn't one of us who doesn't believe they are led by the Spirit.... And all of us feel we are goingto the source.... I found it is much easier to communicate when I just keep that prt out of it....

Oregongrown
Dec 1st 2013, 09:20 PM
I must add that there isn't one of us who doesn't believe they are led by the Spirit.... And all of us feel we are goingto the source.... I found it is much easier to communicate when I just keep that prt out of it....


I think there are times people/christians know when they aren't being led by God, I know that has happened to me in the past. Now I am more willing to check with God before I blurt something out. Not saying I am perfect at that either though:) I would agree that some also are certain they are being led by the Spirit of God. But if there is disagreement, totally opposite doctrine lets say, then someone is not being led by the Spirit, unless they are in a total misunderstanding, not communicating clearly. I've seen two people argue, and what I see is, they are saying the same thing, but are not seeing that themselves.

MaryFreeman
Dec 1st 2013, 09:30 PM
Really? Please explain what you actually meant by this: Referring to reformists….If our belief is not founded in truth then it is based on lies, is it not? How can one be saved if their faith is based on a "falsehood" as you put it below? If they're not saved what does that imply about their eternal dwelling place? 1. I was not referring to reformists when I was speaking of a crisis of faith.... I was speaking of baby Christians who genuinely accept Christ and then run into false teachings such as the reformist version of predestination and free will.... It could cause them to turn away from their Savior.... But of course... The reformist will say this blessed brother or sister must not have been truly saved after all.... I said this in response to your assertion that it doesn't matter how one is saved so long as they are saved.... That is called a stumbling block.... 2. I believe they are truly saved regardless of how but are in danger of suffering a crisis of faith that could be detrimental....




Nice try. You actually did say the reformers are condemned so just own it. You can't plausibly come up with a different rationale based on your statements below, but if there one, I'm all ears. That is if you care to actually engage and be honest about your views/judgments. I truly wait with bated breath for your response.I refuse to own something I did not say.... This is bearingfalse witness brother and it is not well done of you....

MaryFreeman
Dec 1st 2013, 09:35 PM
I think there are times people/christians know when they aren't being led by God, I know that has happened to me in the past. Now I am more willing to check with God before I blurt something out. Not saying I am perfect at that either though:) I would agree that some also are certain they are being led by the Spirit of God. But if there is disagreement, totally opposite doctrine lets say, then someone is not being led by the Spirit, unless they are in a total misunderstanding, not communicating clearly. I've seen two people argue, and what I see is, they are saying the same thing, but are not seeing that themselves.
I agree with this mostly.... Except it gets sticky when two people are claiming they are being led by the Spirit and each are saying something different.... So I don't claim it.... Especially when God may be leading that person to shed new light on something I am in error about....

Nick
Dec 1st 2013, 10:18 PM
1. I was not referring to reformists when I was speaking of a crisis of faith.... I was speaking of baby Christians who genuinely accept Christ and then run into false teachings such as the reformist version of predestination and free will.... It could cause them to turn away from their Savior.... But of course... The reformist will say this blessed brother or sister must not have been truly saved after all.... I said this in response to your assertion that it doesn't matter how one is saved so long as they are saved.... That is called a stumbling block.... 2. I believe they are truly saved regardless of how but are in danger of suffering a crisis of faith that could be detrimental....


I refuse to own something I did not say.... This is bearingfalse witness brother and it is not well done of you....

And your response is exactly what I was referring to. What happens to people who turn to "false teachings" such as the reformist version"? What is their eternal fate?

MaryFreeman
Dec 1st 2013, 10:31 PM
And your response is exactly what I was referring to. What happens to people who turn to "false teachings" such as the reformist version"? What is their eternal fate?

Depends on how they react to it.... Did they search the word for the truth? Or did they shun Jesus because Mary said something that wasn't true? If they accepted Jesus they are saved and no one has the right to say otherwise! But God isn't dragging people into eternal life kicking and screaming brother mine.... If one wishes to be eternally separated from God then they can be..... It is that simple.....

Oregongrown
Dec 1st 2013, 10:50 PM
I agree with this mostly.... Except it gets sticky when two people are claiming they are being led by the Spirit and each are saying something different.... So I don't claim it.... Especially when God may be leading that person to shed new light on something I am in error about....

Yes, I agree this makes sense. God helps us to know Truth, even if two people are both saved, and not sure about what the other is saying, He will still lead us to know if we are in the same "book". I think that's what you were saying:) Oh, and yes, if either is in error. I think I got it, LOL!! God bless:)

Nick
Dec 1st 2013, 11:12 PM
Depends on how they react to it.... Did they search the word for the truth? Or did they shun Jesus because Mary said something that wasn't true? If they accepted Jesus they are saved and no one has the right to say otherwise! But God isn't dragging people into eternal life kicking and screaming brother mine.... If one wishes to be eternally separated from God then they can be..... It is that simple.....

If memory serves correct God sent a big fish to swallow Jonah after he fled to bring him back to fulfill His mission. God watches over His elect. If one of them should stray the Shepherd leaves His flock and searches for the lost one.

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”

Diggindeeper
Dec 1st 2013, 11:19 PM
If memory serves correct God sent a big fish to swallow Jonah after he fled to bring him back to fulfill His mission. God watches over His elect. If one of them should stray the Shepherd leaves His flock and searches for the lost one.

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”

So, the elect...that's what this is all about now? This is what this thread is meant to be about and what it boils down to? Those who were created to be with God for all eternity while many, many more were created without the ability to EVER choose to accept Christ as Savior?

Now I get it...........

I'm done in this thread.

Slug1
Dec 1st 2013, 11:21 PM
The Elect... the greatest ERROR of the Reformed position.

Oregongrown
Dec 2nd 2013, 12:21 AM
2 Timothy 2:10 ESV

Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

I found this in the ESV so thought I would post it, I didn't know the word was in the bible, it's in this translation. I am not saying I know what it means yet, but I am searching now;)

Ok, I see it in KJV as elect, and in a few other translations as chosen. My first thoughts are that yes, God has chose because I don't think I chose Him. I got into this because I saw someone turned off by the word, so I just had to find out more about it since I know little about chosen, elect, predestination.

Nick
Dec 2nd 2013, 12:31 AM
The Elect... the greatest ERROR of the Reformed position.

Since we're discussing the topics of parables there happens to be concerning God's elect…The parable of lost son. As much as that parable is about is the selfish older brother being compared to the Pharisees it also talks about God's flock and what length He will go to find His lost sheep.

Nick
Dec 2nd 2013, 12:34 AM
The Elect... the greatest ERROR of the Reformed position.

If even a agreed, which I don't, that doesn't mean they are not saved.

Slug1
Dec 2nd 2013, 12:43 AM
If even a agreed, which I don't, that doesn't mean they are not saved.I've never said anyone is unsaved. I do say, that the Reformed position teaching about the elect, is wrong. If a person believes what the reformed position teaches about the elect, it is not a salvic issue. It is an issue concerning what the Bible teaches and opposing this, what the reformed position believes.

Because this doctrine has such a great hold over those who have accepted it, to speak truth causes all sorts of resistance in those bound in that doctrine.

Nick
Dec 2nd 2013, 12:46 AM
I've never said anyone is unsaved. I do say, that the Reformed position teaching about the elect, is wrong. If a person believes what the reformed position teaches about the elect, it is not a salvic issue. It is an issue concerning what the Bible teaches and opposing this, what the reformed position believes.

Because this doctrine has such a great hold over those who have accepted it, to speak truth causes all sorts of resistance in those bound in that doctrine.

Well, many make it a salvic issue arguing that their salvation was based on false teachings.

Obfuscate
Dec 2nd 2013, 12:54 AM
I got into this because I saw someone turned off by the word, so I just had to find out more about it since I know little about chosen, elect, predestination.


I don't think Slug1 denies the concept of election and predestination, just the reformed (Calvinist) interpretation of double predestination (correct me if I'm wrong Slug1). Here are a few verses to check out:

Mark 13:20-31 - Matthew 24:24 - Romans 8:30-39 - Romans 9:11-22 - 1 Corinthians 1:27 - Ephesians 1:4-11 - 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 - 1 Thessalonians 5:9 - Titus 1:1-2 - 1 Peter 1:1-9 - Revelation 17:14 - Numbers 16:4-5 - Psalm 65:4

Diggindeeper
Dec 2nd 2013, 12:57 AM
Well, many make it a salvic issue arguing that their salvation was based on false teachings.

But its an issue based on pride...as in, 'I thank God that he created me to always live and be with him. I can't help it if other people were not created that way. That's their problem.'

This Cavinist teaching is so wrong, from start to finish!

Slug1
Dec 2nd 2013, 01:04 AM
Well, many make it a salvic issue arguing that their salvation was based on false teachings.This is an example of the "resistance" concerning the bondage to doctrines.

Oregongrown
Dec 2nd 2013, 01:06 AM
I don't think Slug1 denies the concept of election and predestination, just the reformed (Calvinist) interpretation of double predestination (correct me if I'm wrong Slug1). Here are a few verses to check out:

Mark 13:20-31 - Matthew 24:24 - Romans 8:30-39 - Romans 9:11-22 - 1 Corinthians 1:27 - Ephesians 1:4-11 - 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 - 1 Thessalonians 5:9 - Titus 1:1-2 - 1 Peter 1:1-9 - Revelation 17:14 - Numbers 16:4-5 - Psalm 65:4

thanks Ob, I will read them:) Denise, a sister in Christ

Curtis
Dec 2nd 2013, 01:40 AM
Understanding the "elect" of God is one of the most easiest concepts in the Bible to understand. So many Christians get all upset over it because they just do not understand it. It offends them greatly, and it should not. When we become offended it our our own fault not someone else's. Jesus lost an entire congregation because they could not understand his teaching. They left and never came back because they were offended. (John 6:51-66)

TrustGzus
Dec 2nd 2013, 01:44 AM
Understanding the "elect" of God is one of the most easiest concepts in the Bible to understand.

All due respect, Curtis, the great diversity in the body over this issue and the great minds on all sides of the issue would seem to contradict your oversimplification.

Nick
Dec 2nd 2013, 01:58 AM
All due respect, Curtis, the great diversity in the body over this issue and the great minds on all sides of the issue would seem to contradict your oversimplification.

The concept is simple but how it applies is tough to defend and/or promote.

Curtis
Dec 2nd 2013, 02:06 AM
If God knew from the beginning your reaction to the Gospel in accepting it, and then calling you his "elect" because he knew what you would do. How hard is that to understand?

Nick
Dec 2nd 2013, 04:31 AM
If God knew from the beginning your reaction to the Gospel in accepting it, and then calling you his "elect" because he knew what you would do. How hard is that to understand?

For me, it's quite straightforward but this idea that God has an "elect" is very difficult for some to stomach because they will argue profusely that God is impartial. They will ask how an impartial God that doesn't show favoritism has an elect group of people. It shouldn't that difficult to accept because it is clear in the OT that the Jews were God's chosen people. Did God change? No. He is the same immutable God now as He was when He had a chosen people.

MaryFreeman
Dec 2nd 2013, 06:48 AM
If memory serves correct God sent a big fish to swallow Jonah after he fled to bring him back to fulfill His mission. God watches over His elect. If one of them should stray the Shepherd leaves His flock and searches for the lost one.

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”
Oh great.... Its the "elect" thing again....

I think election and predestination are the two most mistaught doctrines out there.... And all because a hypothetical question from Paul is taken waaaaaay out of context....

One verse! Throws the whole thing off....

MaryFreeman
Dec 2nd 2013, 06:51 AM
For me, it's quite straightforward but this idea that God has an "elect" is very difficult for some to stomach because they will argue profusely that God is impartial. They will ask how an impartial God that doesn't show favoritism has an elect group of people. It shouldn't that difficult to accept because it is clear in the OT that the Jews were God's chosen people. Did God change? No. He is the same immutable God now as He was when He had a chosen people.
Why were they chosen Nick? They were chosen to represent Him to the world.... To bring the world to Him through their exmple.... Not just because they have cute little ringlets that bob when they rock back and forth.....

There was a reason they were chosen just as there is a reason we are....

Nick
Dec 2nd 2013, 07:01 AM
Why were they chosen Nick? They were chosen to represent Him to the world.... To bring the world to Him through their exmple.... Not just because they have cute little ringlets that bob when they rock back and forth.....

There was a reason they were chosen just as there is a reason we are....

Good. We are now aligned in truth. We are in fact chosen by God well in advance of being born and before the foundation of the world. Jacob was elected by God to be loved (even before he was born), and Esau was elected to be hated by God (also before he was born). In the end, every single Jew will one day be saved - Rom 11;26: And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,“The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; This refers to all of the elect Jews that are alive at the end of the tribulation.

Rom 11:28-32 "As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all."


Oh great.... Its the "elect" thing again....


I think election and predestination are the two most mistaught doctrines out there.... And all because a hypothetical question from Paul is taken waaaaaay out of context....


One verse! Throws the whole thing off....


God purposely blinded the eyes of most Israelites to prevent them from accepting Christ. Some people (and even entire nations) were elected by use of the divine lottery before the foundation of the world to accept the truth now; others were elected by the same divine lottery to be negative to acceptance of the truth.

Eph 1:4-5: "even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us[a] for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,"'

All who now know and receive Christ were selected by lot to receive good things concerning the Gospel in this life, while others were not. Others were selected by lot to perform negative things on earth. They were elected by the lottery (before they were born) to do evil in God’s plan. It was an election by lot.

Rom 9: 10-11 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

To summarize, God did choose those that are saved. We didn't choose Him because we were dead in our sins. We lacked the ability to choose God. The Book of Life existed before the foundation of the earth. It is set in stone. God knows who are His even before they are born, everyone whose name is written in the book of life had always been there. Phil 4:3 “Yes, I ask you also, true companion,[a] help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the Gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.”

Always when referring to the book of life it is in past tense for a reason. There is nothing to be added or subtracted from the book of life. Here's the beauty of it. Whether or not you agree with the process of election as described above, it bears no relevance to your salvation.

Oregongrown
Dec 2nd 2013, 03:27 PM
For me, it's quite straightforward but this idea that God has an "elect" is very difficult for some to stomach because they will argue profusely that God is impartial. They will ask how an impartial God that doesn't show favoritism has an elect group of people. It shouldn't that difficult to accept because it is clear in the OT that the Jews were God's chosen people. Did God change? No. He is the same immutable God now as He was when He had a chosen people.

Again, I am not sure the "doctrine" that others are upset about, I haven't read, or come across it evidently. But, I remember wondering why God's chosen were only the Jewish. What about the other folks, it was hard for me to understand that He was partial to Israel. Now I simple accept it because He is God. His ways are higher. I've often thought it was because Israel continued (not to be perfect) but those were the people that always believed in Him. The other "communities" seemed to go off to worship "other" gods. Of course to find out the rest of us were now able to join the family was indeed Good News:) (gentiles).