Two useless/inappropriate/wrong accusations

[Stunnedbygrace]

but you just think a person can lose faith right?

That is different than saying we can sin our way out of salvation. Like others believe.

Whatever is not of faith IS sin...

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I think Chester might believe like I do, that the only thing that may lose ones salvation is unbelief/mistrust.
But it certainly isn't a simple thing to discuss. Because it is possible to be trusting in some areas and not in others.
And to compound the difficulty, it is possible to also believe we are in complete trust and then He shows us we were not...

That's why it is so hard. and all we could do is try to stick to the word and try to discuss it, Which I am always open to. To say that is legalism would be hard.. because the issue is faith, not works. So I would not go there.

again, that is different than saying one has to maintain a certain lifestyle or they can lose salvation. And certain people do.

 

[PeterJens]

I asked peter simple questions so we could discuss them. He refused.. like he has since day 1.

Lol. If only this was true. If one really wanted a discussion you go down the different theological
frameworks and see where they lead. I have done this in my blog again.

But the conclusions are not the problem, it is the faith assumptions which are different.

And the problem with faith assumptions is you can only agree to disagree.
I am happy to do this, except I am told I believe something I do not.

Odd that from someone who hates this, must be a double standard being operated here, lol.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Whatever is not of faith IS sin...

see why so difficult. If we say this, Then sin is lack of faith, and if we sin, and lose salvation. then we believe in works..

now if we say, I just am not sure jesus died for me,, I am not sure his work is sufficient, I am worried because I can not seem to stop doing some things (sin) (I lose faith) then that is a different story.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Lol. If only this was true. If one really wanted a discussion you go down the different theological
frameworks and see where they lead. I have done this in my blog again.

Yep. See Peter wants to control the discussion. He does not want or care what others want to discuss.

No Peter. I am not going to go to your blog to see what you believe, When all you have to do is say yes or no. I am very sure you did not say yes or no in your blog.

Plus, sending people who ask you a yes or no question to your blog is rude, and unfriendly.

But the conclusions are not the problem, it is the faith assumptions which are different.

Yes Peter. the conclusions ( your answers to those question.s or should I say lack of answering those questions ) is the problem. How can we discuss if your not being honest, but instead hiding.

And the problem with faith assumptions is you can only agree to disagree.
I am happy to do this, except I am told I believe something I do not.

then we are at a standstill. Because you will nto tell us what you believe (yes or no) and you tell us we believe things we do not.

Odd that from someone who hates this, must be a double standard being operated here, lol.

no double standard. Your the only person (well except one guy who left awhile ago HEROSE) and a few others who have not come into this thread, and there JP vendettas. do I even have this issue with, and I do nto agree with everyone. yet we do not have this issue.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

if you go back and read. I think he said one can lose by losing faith. That could be contemplated as works based. But faith is not a work of men, but is a work of God. so it would not be works based.

That is different, and would need further discussion to see what he really believes..



There is a difference, Why can people not see it?

peter said I am lying about my belief, And says his only proof is his own feeling..

when we try to explain what we believe, peter does not even want to discuss it, His only cry is we are wrong, and we are just just attacking him..

Now, if I am doing that to Chester. then I am just as bad as peter. And I would expect all my brothers and sisters to stand in unison and call me out for it. And if I did not listen to them, to ignore me..




no. Because I am not calling Chester a lyer, slandering him, and have actually been open to have him discuss what he really believes. and not make judgment until then. (I have said, if he believes in losing salvation that means he works for it, that is my opinion. and I did not judge him, or say he was wrong, and attack him, and when he tellsme I am wrong, get angry at him and etc etc..

something peter has never done.

Of course I see that there is a big difference. You and chester see some things differently but you both walk in the Spirit in your conversation with each other. You do not say chester is a foul and lost liar.

My point was that chester says he is not OSAS because he does believe that unbelief/mistrust can cause salvation to be lost but that he is rabidly against works based salvation.

You did not say: you are a foul and lost liar. What you said was: then I would say that you ARE works based, even though you say you are not. You have remained gentle, kind and respectful, but in essence you are doing the same thing you complain peter does to you. You are basically saying: chester SAYS he is not works based and is rabidly against it, but this is not REALLY true, because despite what he says he believes, he IS works based.

Yes, I see a difference too though, because you are being kind and controlling your tongue instead of having no control as peter does when he screams LIAR! And in the end, it wouldn't be the disagreement that God was displeased with. It would be the lack of love He would be concerned with.

 

[Yahshua]

how did we get off the topic of moses entering th epromised land /heaven.

Sneaky Sneaky.. You changed the topic

indeed he was.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Of course I see that there is a big difference. You and chester see some things differently but you both walk in the Spirit in your conversation with each other. You do not say chester is a foul and lost liar.

My point was that chester says he is not OSAS because he does believe that unbelief/mistrust can cause salvation to be lost but that he is rabidly against works based salvation.

You did not say: you are a foul and lost liar. What you said was: then I would say that you ARE works based, even though you say you are not. You have remained gentle, kind and respectful, but in essence you are doing the same thing you complain peter does to you. You are basically saying: chester SAYS he is not works based and is rabidly against it, but this is not REALLY true, because despite what he says he believes, he IS works based.

Yes, I see a difference too though, because you are being kind and controlling your tongue instead of having no control as peter does when he screams LIAR! And in the end, it wouldn't be the disagreement that God was displeased with. It would be the lack of love He would be concerned with.

again, I would say, When chester said he only believed one could lose faith. I changed my tine, and took it back.

Peter said I am lying about what I believe, what was his words. because 'what we really mean sounds so wrong"

Stunned - Let me bring a revelation to you. They are lying. This is exactly what they believe
but they want to say this is not what they are meaning because it sounds so wrong.

But that is exactly the deception.

so we are lyers
We really believe this, but do not want to admit it
and we are deceivers..

based solely on the fact. that it is his opinion. no fact. no evidence, no reasoning..

I am sorry. That is not the same

I have kept quiet and stopped responding to Peter for the most part. But when he does things like this, this needs confronted.

 

[PinkDiamond]

Of course I see that there is a big difference. You and chester see some things differently but you both walk in the Spirit in your conversation with each other. You do not say chester is a foul and lost liar.

My point was that chester says he is not OSAS because he does believe that unbelief/mistrust can cause salvation to be lost but that he is rabidly against works based salvation.

You did not say: you are a foul and lost liar. What you said was: then I would say that you ARE works based, even though you say you are not. You have remained gentle, kind and respectful, but in essence you are doing the same thing you complain peter does to you. You are basically saying: chester SAYS he is not works based and is rabidly against it, but this is not REALLY true, because despite what he says he believes, he IS works based.

Yes, I see a difference too though, because you are being kind and controlling your tongue instead of having no control as peter does when he screams LIAR! And in the end, it wouldn't be the disagreement that God was displeased with. It would be the lack of love He would be concerned with.

I understand your line of reasoning. Apart from the few instances of posters actually calling others liars, I think the examples you highlighted are par for the course in a debate. I'm not siding or agreeing with anyone in this thread, but I do think it is acceptable within a debate to point out holes or fallacies in the other person's arguments. It is like geometry proofs ( which I dreaded in school, haha). If you prove that two angles are congruent and then you find the value of angle A you can then state with certainty that angle B is also the same value as A. A person may think that they don't hold certain views. They may be honestly and genuinely convinced that they believe one thing, but if you take their expressed opinions or theological points out to their logical conclusion, it may become evident that they are actually believing something totally contradictory to what they think they believe. To point out the contradiction is not the same as calling the person a liar or telling them what they believe. I think it is easy to react and get offended in these type of discussions. Sometimes we think that a person who is pointing out our faulty logic ( or what they think is faulty) is accusing us of lying.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Who was he displeased with?

those who complained from day one, Who never trusted God. who took his gifts, and complained about them, Who rejected Gods leader. Who talked arron into making an idol when moses was with God. Who refused to trust God and would rather go back to Egypt then to allow God to give them what he promised.

Sorry. But to try to relate these people who NEVER had faith in God. proven by their lack of works. with true believers in Christ? I can't do that..

there are many people who go to church, seem to play the game, but never had faith in God. does them not living up to some standard mean they lost salvation? or did it prove they were never saved to begin with, thus they never entered Gods rest.

I asked peter simple questions so we could discuss them. He refused.. like he has since day 1.

I see a great comparison between Israel and us. And I don't think they never believed and trusted Him. How could you see what happened at the Red Sea and not believe and trust Him? I think they allowed later circumstances that weren't pleasant to their flesh and comfort to then cause their hearts to become hard and untrusting. They allowed a root of bitterness to spring up in their hearts and became unbelieving/untrusting.(and an apostle warns us to see to it that no bitter root springs up to cause us to become hardened and mistrustful of God, and if we are mistrustful can't He cut us off just as He cut them off?) And so He was displeased with those who He had saved. So God saved men but nevertheless became later displeased at their lack of trust/faith. And we are warned to not let that happen to us.

I am trying to share my own mind and heart with you. I could almost go along with everything you say, even more so than most others, but I think there is ONE thing that God is displeased with and it is unbelief. And I think it's why we are warned to take any area of unbelief seriously and to not let it spring up to cause us trouble, causing us to become like Israel, who He cut off because of their unbelief.

 

[Gr8grace]

Chester, please don't ignore me and my confusion.
You said you believe salvation can be lost.
Help me understand.
What would cause me to lose my salvation?
I really don't want to lose my salvation.

This is the real issue.

Not trying to be "friendly" and liked by everybody.

Loss of salvation is an attack and assassination of our Lords character and nature. It's pathetic that we "dance around in a daisy field " to care for the feelings of people who are ATTACKING our Lord.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

I understand your line of reasoning. Apart from the few instances of posters actually calling others liars, I think the examples you highlighted are par for the course in a debate. I'm not siding or agreeing with anyone in this thread, but I do think it is acceptable within a debate to point out holes or fallacies in the other person's arguments. It is like geometry proofs ( which I dreaded in school, haha). If you prove that two angles are congruent and then you find the value of angle A you can then state with certainty that angle B is also the same value as A. A person may think that they don't hold certain views. They may be honestly and genuinely convinced that they believe one thing, but if you take their expressed opinions or theological points out to their logical conclusion, it may become evident that they are actually believing something totally contradictory to what they think they believe. To point out the contradiction is not the same as calling the person a liar or telling them what they believe. I think it is easy to react and get offended in these type of discussions. Sometimes we think that a person who is pointing out our faulty logic ( or what they think is faulty) is accusing us of lying.

I completely understand. And there are HUGE differences between the conversation between peter and Eg and the conversation between chester and EG.

I so crave being able to talk from the heart with brothers who don't go all ballistic on me for sharing my struggles and my thoughts and my knots.
EG has so encouraged and helped me tonight because he is willing to put vast amounts of time in conversation to understand that what he previously thought someone believed might not be as simple a matter as he originally thought. I think when we can work hard to get to that point, we are all in for very great learning and help from each other if we continue to walk in the Spirit! It is hard work for everyone (not just one person or one side, but everyone) to come out of their trenches!

 

[PinkDiamond]

I completely understand. And there are HUGE differences between the conversation between peter and Eg and the conversation between chester and EG.

I so crave being able to talk from the heart with brothers who don't go all ballistic on me for sharing my struggles and my thoughts and my knots.
EG has so encouraged and helped me tonight because he is willing to put vast amounts of time in conversation to understand that what he previously thought someone believed might not be as simple a matter as he originally thought. I think when we can work hard to get to that point, we are all in for very great learning and help from each other if we continue to walk in the Spirit! It is hard work for everyone (not just one person or one side, but everyone) to come out of their trenches!

I completely agree. Just think how much more we would all get out of the conversations if we were patient and tried to hear out differing views. I think it's good to keep in mind that none of us understand everything perfectly and smarter men/ women than us have debated these topics throughout the history of the church. ( This is just my personal view, but I really respect Christians on both sides of the Calvinist/ Arminian spectrum. I think there have been great saints in both camps).

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

I completely agree. Just think how much more we would all get out of the conversations if we were patient and tried to hear out differing views. I think it's good to keep in mind that none of us understand everything perfectly and smarter men/ women than us have debated these topics throughout the history of the church. ( This is just my personal view, but I really respect Christians on both sides of the Calvinist/ Arminian spectrum. I think there have been great saints in both camps).

Yes, I agree. And the part that amazes me most is to find, with surprise often, that what I thought by my interpretation of what someone had been saying, was not actually what they meant! Or that I thought they were just wrong, wrong, wrong but came to find that they had actually thought more about it and struggled more with it and so were seeing something I had not BEEN seeing regarding it.

I take that back...the MOST amazing thing is to find that I thought someone was saying the complete opposite of what I was saying only to find out that we both were saying the same thing but in a different way!

I do not know what a Calvinist or Armenian believes but I still understand what you're saying because I was so shocked once when I read something by a 12th century catholic and sat stunned that they knew God and I saw darn well they did and yet I still thought there was great error in places (which they didn't talk in depth about as they did other things). I realized that perfect doctrine is not what makes someone my brother and it shocked me. But after I got over my shock I thought, well, yes, how could I expect or demand perfection in knowledge about God from them while at the same time being imperfect in it myself?!

 

[LaurenTM]

At least I'm onto you and put my coffee down first this time...

good move!

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

That's why it is so hard. and all we could do is try to stick to the word and try to discuss it, Which I am always open to. To say that is legalism would be hard.. because the issue is faith, not works. So I would not go there.

again, that is different than saying one has to maintain a certain lifestyle or they can lose salvation. And certain people do.

I am really looking forward to digging into this together! I want to go kidnap chester and make him come back.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

good move!

I could not get myself under control. Even now, every time I think about that last one you posted, I am overcome by peals of laughter again. The dog looks at me like I've lost my mind! Even my mother finally said, alright, what on earth has you so broke up?? And we are on completely different floors of the house!

 

[PennEd]

No worries I don't think you are a culprit or being hurtful. I think it's to be expected that we ( all of us in this forum) are going to have some differences of opinion on certain topics. As long as we don't all call each other names we are good I think passionate or even spirited discussions or disagreements can be a positive thing actually. Differences of opinion don't bother me. At least that shows we all care enough to discuss these issues in great detail and we all might learn something from each other at some point. It's my opinion that we can learn something from everyone ( even people we don't agree with ).

I don't disagree with any of the points you made in this post. I definitely agree with your definition of Salvation: that Jesus saves, the Holy Spirit works in us to conform us to be more and more Christ like. I also agree that saved men ( the examples you used) have had instances or times of unbelief. I think you brought up some very valid points. I know I have had my own moments in my life. At times, I've messed up and tried to make things happen in my own life instead of trusting him to direct. I think that all sin could technically be traced back to unbelief. So I do agree with your point.

I think that the difference is that I view lack of submission as abiding in perpetual unbelief. I guess the way I view it is that we can often through weakness succumb to temptation and sin. We may even struggle for a season or sadly our whole life in some cases and repeatedly succumb to this sin. Some Christians never overcome in this life as they should but are still saved. I wouldn't consider that the same as a person who feels convicted over a certain practice, but refuses to acknowledge that this practice is wrong or thinks it is unfair that Christ would require them to be willing to part with certain vices. I have also known others that when it came right down to it could not stand the idea of relinquishing control of their life.

I guess I view the lack of submission as stubbornness arising from unbelief. The best example I can think of is the contrast between David and Saul. Saul was always intent on doing things his way and serving God his way. He disobeyed the instructions from Samuel, and didn't wait for him to start the burnt offerings. When corrected, his response was basically that it should be good enough. He didn't seem really intent on submitting himself to God. David probably committed one of the worst sins in the OT, but shows an entirely different attitude towards God.

Thank you for the very well said reply. You made some wonderful points.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

I liked that post too. My mind then asks, so does the Precious Blood cover even unbelief? It's a deeper question than it first appears to be.

 

[PeterJens]

The Lost
Like all good nuggets yesterday we uncovered another one.

HG believers do not accept we are lost sheep, a prodigal son or a lost coin.
In previous discussions I did find it odd people saying goats turn into sheep, and not back.

So what is the truth in what Jesus is saying and what are people ignoring and not seeing
yet claiming great spiritual authority over others, enough to call them enemies of Christ?

I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
Luke 15:7

For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.
Luke 19:10

Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.
Rev 12:17

Jesus was sent to save the lost of Israel. Through the cross, we have now become part
of Gods people, grafted in to the vine, and so the lost now include everyone in the world.

Fundamentally HG theology goes so far as to say there is nothing of value in any sinner.

This contradicts scripture and the basis of sin. But their model is people are as black as
sin, flesh so corrupted it can never walk in communion with Christ, only ones spirit, the
true gnostic heresy. It shows itself by accusing those who read Jesus words and understand
them of teaching lies. But in the end this is Jesus's word against theirs.

So you know who is their Lord and master, their model and not Jesus Christ.

Now it is not wrong to read Jesus's words, understand their meaning and say people are
denying them in their belief system. That is called pointing out heresy and false teaching.

But the ethic being put forward is this is evil, so sin and heresy should be left to rot the
church, because what matters is being nice to people. Nope. Jesus rules and His truth.