1st one....
I think you need to learn the difference between labeling someone and identifying characteristics of someone's beliefs.
1st one....
Thank you BillG!
This whole gnostic slander does and did cause a lot of strife.
What you described I call front-door anti-nomianism. Back-door anti-nomianism doesn't teach doing anything is OK, but it does teach that behavior can't affect salvation. So they are effectively the same things. One is just more blatant than the other.
Formally, the former is called libertine anti-nomianism, and the latter is called Sandemanian anti-nomianism, named after Robert Sandeman who in the 18th century taught a heretical doctrine of grace in which behavior was irrelevant to salvation.
I call it back-door anti-nomianism because it's like saying, "I don't care who you bring home with you, just use the back door".
Christians are saved because they have been born again as eternal spiritual beings who cannot be lost no matter what they do in life
So did gnosticism just disappear from the face of the earth? It was a very serious heresy during the first few centuries of the church. John devoted most of 1 John (if not all of it) to refuting its teachings.
You are welcomeBless you for the feedback. That was exactly how I strove to conduct myself, so it's good to hear that's how you perceived it.
Are you quoting the ideas of a specific gnostic here?
What you described I call front-door anti-nomianism. Back-door anti-nomianism doesn't teach doing anything is OK, but it does teach that behavior can't affect salvation. So they are effectively the same things. One is just more blatant than the other.
Formally, the former is called libertine anti-nomianism, and the latter is called Sandemanian anti-nomianism, named after Robert Sandeman who in the 18th century taught a heretical doctrine of grace in which behavior was irrelevant to salvation.
I call it back-door anti-nomianism because it's like saying, "I don't care who you bring home with you, just use the back door".
I don't care what you call it and or care for your fancy words.
You accuse others who believe in grace as using it as I licence to sin.
And me thinks you would just write someone off as being Gnostic if they are caught up in sin or tell them they have lost their salvation without even wanting to walk with them. I hope I'm wrong.
What I care about is
Ephesians 2:8-10
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
If i see a fellow brother struggling I will walk with them.
If it's apparent that they are struggling and need help I will help.
If it's apparent they think it's ok to sin I will remind them of Romans 6.
If they have no desire to change I will leave them alone.
A genuine believers behaviour does not affect their salvation, it affects their relationship with God and his blessings.
You haven't called me Gnostic yet but by inference I think you have.
But you have called me a front door, back door something or other and obviously believe that I think it's ok to sin because grace will cover it.
Ta muchly
You accuse others who believe in grace as using it as I licence to sin.
This is completely untrue. What I do is call a certain doctrine lawless. You turn that into a personal accusation for some reason.
So did gnosticism just disappear from the face of the earth? It was a very serious heresy during the first few centuries of the church. John devoted most of 1 John (if not all of it) to refuting its teachings.
How is this calling someone a gnostic?
I think you need to learn the difference between labeling someone and identifying characteristics of someone's beliefs.
Is there any verse in the Bible saying something about losing salvation that the person already had?
I do not recall any.
I think you need to learn the difference between labeling someone and identifying characteristics of someone's beliefs.
What you described I call front-door anti-nomianism. Back-door anti-nomianism doesn't teach doing anything is OK, but it does teach that behavior can't affect salvation. So they are effectively the same things. One is just more blatant than the other.
Formally, the former is called libertine anti-nomianism, and the latter is called Sandemanian anti-nomianism, named after Robert Sandeman who in the 18th century taught a heretical doctrine of grace in which behavior was irrelevant to salvation.
I call it back-door anti-nomianism because it's like saying, "I don't care who you bring home with you, just use the back door".
Where you are missing the point is this: You say I would still "know in my heart that Jesus is Christ, that heaven is heaven, and that hell is hell, and that every singe letter in the bible is inspired". You are right - that is something I can never get away from though I might deny I know it. But that is not saving faith.
I repeat - Saving faith is not to "know in my heart that Jesus is Christ, that heaven is heaven, and that hell is hell, and that every single letter in the Bible is inspired." The devils believe that and tremble. There are unbelievers in the world that believe (know) that and ignore it. That will not save you!
Biblical saving faith is to believe and act upon that belief and to grab hold of Christ with a sense of desperation, knowing that without Him I will die, and be doomed to hell forever. Saving faith leans upon Christ, depends upon him, and then has a relationship with Him.
I was paraphrasing what Irenaeus, a 2nd century church father, wrote about what the gnostics that he knew believed.