Atheists are hard to convert

[jlay]

My works are a part of faith and my faith holds my salvation. But I am not given God's grace on my works, but I am required to work those works in order to full fill God's commandment and love Christ, failing to do so with choice and no guilt will not land me in any favour with God. I hope you can see that.

Could you provide a list of works so we can know better just what you are saying you and we are "required" to do.

You know when you are sincere with God and when you're not.

Neo, I don't doubt that Jesus saved me. I sincerely believe that when I placed my faith in Chirst, I received full, complete salvation, sealed until the day. What I am saying is that you, based on what you've shared, do not. You are saying that keeping your salvation is dependent on your performance, plain and simple. Believe, plus, plus, plus.......

The only point I would like to ask you, is, do you believe that after we come to Christ we can't sin with our conscience? Because if we can then we deliberately disregard the gospel.

What do you mean, sin with our conscience? Sin is sin is sin.
The deliberate disregard for the Gospel is called apostasy. I would suggest that you distinquish the two for discussion. There is a difference in someone sinning and someone rejecting the Gospel.
Sin, by it's nature is about self. So, talkin about the "enjoyment" of sin is redundant if not ridiculous. People sin because it pleases, helps or satisfies self. This attempts to categorize sin. Bad sin is wild partying, sex, murder. Not so bad sin is neglecting the poor, losing my patiences, etc. This is the attitude that "I'm OK. It's those people who "enjoy" their sin. People avoid doing good, lose their temper, patience, etc. because of the inconenience to self. And on and on. Hebrews 6:6 says that it is impossible for those who have fallen away to be renewed to repentance. Now, I have a much different interpretation of this verse than you, but if you follow it consistently, then anyone who has fallen away from sinning, not doing enough, etc, can NOT be renewed. They are without hope. Can you show us where the threshhold is? The line where one 'enjoys' sin too much, and they are forever lost, even though they once confessed Christ.
My position is not an endorsement of sin. Not at all. I just know, from experience, that you can not argue your position and be consistnent.

Do you understand the context of Matt 25. The audience? What is being said, and to whom? Do you think you should just willy nilly pick and choose parts of scripture and say, "yes that applies to me." Do you sacrifice, participate in the feasts? No. Because you know, although true, that those parts of the scritpure are not for you today. Do you think everything written in what we call the NT was written for you? Even though we KNOW that Jesus was speaking to Israel and relating to their economy? If you chose to divide the Word that way, you will be led into confusion, and be burderend with a yoke you can not bear, and never know the freedom of having total security in Chirst. You say you believe. Believe that Christ saved you. Once for all. Until then, you CAN NOT walk in the works for which you were created. You are walking in a system of religious performance, not faith.

As and example, let's take Jesus' discussion with the rich young ruler. He said that the RYR needed to sell all he had. He didn't say, "you need to beleive I'm going to die and raise. He said that he needed to sell all he had. Did you? If you are going to quote Matt 25, why not Matt 19? Why risk it? Sell all you have and give to the poor. Otherwise, by your standard, you can not know you are saved. There is no hope, only doubt and confusion. Be freed of that.

St. Mon. You are relying on religion, not faith. RCC, baptist, orthodox are all saved the same way. There is no special formula religion has to offer.

[neo-x]

well the obvious difference is, that u believe that purposefully ignoring the gospel is apostasy. well i beg to differ.

The interpretation to matt 25 is subjective. U can look at it the way u would like to. I see it differently.

There are works who people do while being christians. Such works do no save u but they surely can condemn u.

It has nothing to do with double speak. I made a slight distinction, to me salvation is given but it can be lost. u believe the opposite so we can not agree.

My idea is consistent with my frame of interpetation, so if ur looking from the outside, it would seem inconsistent. Of course i can say the same for ur view as well. My view makes sense to me. As urs make sense to u.

Hebrew 6:6 talks about apostasy, not what u r saying. As for the better definition, well u can keep that claim. I'm not gonna dive into who understands scripture best.

Contrary to what u believe, it is really a subjective issue, who jesus was speaking to. while im sure not the whole n.t is written to me. It is rather presumptious of u to think that i wud believe as such just because i do not share the same commentary of a certain passage.

And my view does not confuse me at all. It is not as extreme as u have presumed to think of. My trust is not in religion at all. And i dont think monica would agree with ur analysis of her stance as well. god's grace is the only thing which can save us. A christian walk of faith can not be done by lips alone, it must be carried out in actions. Failing of which will have conseuences.

I simply think that u r quite concrete in ur view, in which case i dont think u can understand it from my side. If u had, then obviously u would have seen the points i made but since u can not, i think we can agree to disagree. My interpretation of works through faith, as written in james, stands for me.

And i do appreciate ur concern, j. I just think we can not agree on this.

And dont mind the poor wriiten english, im writing this on my phone.

[RickD]

And dont mind the poor wriiten english, im writing this on my phone.

Newb.

[jlay]

There are works who people do while being christians. Such works do no save u but they surely can condemn u.

Please list these and provide scripture references.

The interpretation to matt 25 is subjective. U can look at it the way u would like to. I see it differently.

Really, is that it. Look at it the way you like? Please explain which Hermanuetic you are using? That is essentially saying there is no truth. No correct way to read the scripture. Ridiculous.

Contrary to what u believe, it is really a subjective issue, who jesus was speaking to

No, it's not subjective at all. Theology matters. Exegesis matters. Saying that it is subjective as to these things is false. Again, if that is your approach, then why not Matt 19? Why haven't you sold all you have? Your salavation is at stake here.

My interpretation of works through faith, as written in james, stands for me.

Where does it say it James, that faith without works equals one losing salvation?
Look at the first line of James. 1 James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad:

OK, which of the twelve tribes are you a part of?

[neo-x]

lol rick.

[neo-x]

what is really amazes me is that u can not grasp the fact that we have total opposite positions here. Explaining how u got here, to me, is fruitless and may be u shud see that. This is perhaps the forth time we are engaging in this particular topic and i can assure u it will end up like the previous times.

What gud is that.

Ur error however is the wrong traanslation of my view, which u say means, i have to sell something to gain salvation. It was not wealth but obedience. Perhaps u failed to understand that, j. Obedience to me is not works, it is simply, required, call it whatever u want, doublespeak, work based salvation, to me it makes sense.

If ur so keen about this, please show me a reference which says that u can bypass obedience on ur faith. If ur not obedient and still think ur a christian then u r deciving urself.

And btw if what ur saying is true, then i have nothing to worry, unless i turn apostate, im saved, no matter what i do. This is the extreme of ur position and when i persue it, it doesn't add up j.

And oh, what great way to look at james. It is the same way revelation was written, unless u think it was not written to u, kindly let me know, which of the seven churches u belong to?

[jlay]

neo, I grasp the fact that our positions are opposite. Do you? So you grasp that two things can not contradict and both be true?

Ur error however is the wrong traanslation of my view, which u say means, i have to sell something to gain salvation.

No sir. You listed Matt. 25 as a 'proof.' I am asking you why not Matt. 19?

If ur not obedient and still think ur a christian then u r deciving urself.

I take it to mean that you are claiming you are? Last I checked I fail in a number of areas. Do you? Are you saying you are totally obedient in every area of word thought and deed? Yes or no. Let's go with your interpretation and follow it through to its logical conclusions. How much obedience? 10%, 50%, 100%? Did Jesus not tell the RYR that if he wanted to see eternal life he had to sell all he had and give to the poor. You and I would be considered in top 5% of wealth in the history of the world. Shouldn't you sell all you have? Why risk it? I am asking you why you are glossing over Matt 19, yet claiming Matt 25 as the standard for yourself.

Revelation, in the dispensational theology, is very much understood as written in the Israel economy. Paul is the apostle to the gentiles. Hand picked by Christ for such work.
James and Rev are nothing the 'same way', BTW. Either you read the book of James in the CONTEXT James sets, or you ignore it. And you think that is a 'great way' to look at it?

And btw if what ur saying is true, then i have nothing to worry, unless i turn apostate, im saved, no matter what i do.

That is pretty weak. Theology matters, doctrine matters, exegesis matters. God is a God of truth, and truth matters. So actually that depends. IMO, based on everything I've read from you, you are believing in a different gospel than myself. Yours relies on religious performance.

[neo-x]

let me ask u simply, j....why shud theology matter, jesus is the truth, i beleive that, if so. I am saved. As u have been claiming all along. Now Ur saying god's grace is weaker then ur theology and exegesis? That if i beleive in jesus but dont agree with ur stand on it, then my salvation in christ is weak???

Wow, Many denominations dont share ur exact theology, r they all blind? This would be inconsistent with what u have been saying, j. Double speak :ewink.

What u call religous performance, i call it obedience. U r ofcourse looking in the wrong context.

James and rev are indeed different, it was however written in the same context, when jotted down the authors certainly didn't know about u and me and they didn't address us. And im afraid so was the rest of the bible and specially n.t. Why do u beleive in romans and what it says, as it was written to romans, and unless u belong to that particular age and church congregation, the letter is not for u. i just showed u the flaw ur statement carried, if ur going to follow james so litterally, please follow the rest as well, including paul.


Obedience was not about wealth but ready to do what god asks. and ur very wrong in assuming such but obedience is based on grace, when we fail we ask god for help. If i miss something i ask for forgiveness. The holy spirit aks god for us as well, including what i have done wrong about and may not be aware, so there u have it. Obedience is obedience, regardless of how much we do it, in the end, our faith and intent would reflect our heart and sincerity and how much we did what we were called to do. To me all of it matters, not just beleif alone, neither obedience alone. To me it all meshes togather.

Hope u can see that bro.

[jlay]

let me ask u simply, j....why shud theology matter, jesus is the truth, i beleive that, if so. I am saved. As u have been claiming all along. Now Ur saying god's grace is weaker then ur theology and exegesis? That if i beleive in jesus but dont agree with ur stand on it, then my salvation in christ is weak???

Neo, if you have to ask why theology matters in the same statement as Jesus is the truth, then you are a package of contradictions. If you are trusting Chirst then you are saved. If you are trusting your own pull yourself up by the bootstraps, then you are wrong. That doesn't mean you aren't saved, per se, just led astray. Even the elect can be lead astray and confused. I don't know your testimony, though you are welcome to share.
I've said nothing to impune the grace of God, and i don't appreciate the implication that i am doing such. There's surely is a reason you won't answer the questions I've asked. You know where it leads.

Wow, Many denominations dont share ur exact theology, r they all blind? This would be inconsistent with what u have been saying, j. Double speak :ewink.

There are essentials and non-essentials. It is more than a little skewed to make it sound as if the denominations vary wildly in the essentials as you imply. I know I have been wrong in the past, and had to humble myself and repent of one way of thinking to embrace a new. FWIW, nearly all agree that the book of Matthew is written to address, specifically, Israel. (The Jew) That doesn't mean there aren't universal applications in Matthew. It doesn't mean that Matt. doesn't teach, or instruct us. But proper division is the key. It's actually a good question. Why is there so much confusion, and disagreement? That is a question I asked a few years back, and began to examine for myself. Are Paul and James in conflict? Is salvation by grace, or is it dependent on my performance? Is there a way to handle the Word that eliminates such confusion?

What u call religous performance, i call it obedience. U r ofcourse looking in the wrong context.

I asked you questions on obedience. You refuse to answer. Being totally candid, I don't believe your claim of obedience. I believe you think you are obedient. But, why aren't you obedient to Matt 19? If you claim that failing in obedience will lose salvation , then you shouldn't mind laying out your own. Are you faithfully obedient in word, thought and deed?

Why do u beleive in romans and what it says, as it was written to romans, and unless u belong to that particular age and church congregation, the letter is not for u.

NOt to sound like a smart a--, but, I can read. Paul wrote Romans through Philemon. Do you understand that Paul was called as the apostle to the GENTILES. I am positive that I am a Gentile, as are you.
" when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles" (Galatians 2:7,8).

Obedience was not about wealth but ready to do what god asks. and ur very wrong in assuming such but obedience is based on grace, when we fail we ask god for help. If i miss something i ask for forgiveness. The holy spirit aks god for us as well, including what i have done wrong about and may not be aware, so there u have it. Obedience is obedience, regardless of how much we do it, in the end, our faith and intent would reflect our heart and sincerity and how much we did what we were called to do. To me all of it matters, not just beleif alone, neither obedience alone. To me it all meshes togather.

Neo, that only sounds like a cop-out. Obedience matters, but........
And, you've yet to answer the questions posed. I want you to understand that I do believe that people of faith, who act in faith, will produce works. Faith is a response of obedience. They should produce works. I've seen that in my life. But you are taking this to mean that works are required for salvation, or else it is lost. There is a BIG difference.

Also, do you understand literal, historical grammatical hermanuetics?
http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/ ... /25/25.htm

[neo-x]

If you are trusting Chirst then you are saved. If you are trusting your own pull yourself up by the bootstraps, then you are wrong

This is where you're wrong J, I trust Christ fully. I just don't see how trust in Christ absolves obedience.

I asked you questions on obedience. You refuse to answer.

I believe I did, if you had read it actually and not ask me useless straw men, which even lack the proper context.

Obedience was not about wealth but ready to do what god asks. and ur very wrong in assuming such but obedience is based on grace, when we fail we ask god for help. If i miss something i ask for forgiveness. The holy spirit aks god for us as well, including what i have done wrong about and may not be aware, so there u have it. Obedience is obedience, regardless of how much we do it, in the end, our faith and intent would reflect our heart and sincerity and how much we did what we were called to do. To me all of it matters, not just beleif alone, neither obedience alone. To me it all meshes togather.

That doesn't mean you aren't saved, per se, just led astray

But I am saved, right? so I'll just be back on the track somehow.

I've said nothing to impune the grace of God, and I don't appreciate the implication that i am doing such.

That's just one implication compared to your several that you freely took the liberty to make, although I tend not to complain

It is more than a little skewed to make it sound as if the denominations vary wildly in the essentials as you imply

The denominations do vary wildly, sure, most believe Jesus is the only truth, son of God, member of trinity, as long as that is a given, I don't see how your definition of saved is breached. So it shouldn't even be a problem.

FWIW, nearly all agree that the book of Matthew is written to address, specifically, Israel

I don't know any such people that specifically think the same way, and I know a lot of them. well can't help it,the worlds full of them. So it wouldn't be a surprise to me that you believe in a group of people who like to think so.

That doesn't mean there aren't universal applications in Matthew.

Now, thats a cop-out J, I could say the same for James.

Are Paul and James in conflict?

To me they are two sides of the coin. they show you that faith without action is incomplete and action without faith is dead.

But proper division is the key.

I agree, the question is, are you doing it right? by what standard do you know, you're right? is there an alternative standard? does it uses the same approach, only from a different direction? what makes you right and the other wrong when both are supported by scriptures although interpreted differently?

Why is there so much confusion, and disagreement? That is a question I asked a few years back, and began to examine for myself. Are Paul and James in conflict? Is salvation by grace, or is it dependent on my performance? Is there a way to handle the Word that eliminates such confusion?

Is obedience your performance, J? if you think I imply that, then you are using a very liberal form of works to try and assume my position. what is obedience to you? what if you disobey? what if you will fully disobey? ah! you turn apostate, that is your answer? you were never saved to begin with. That is the biggest dent in your secure salvation theory. How does one know he is not saved, even when he does not know it or is aware of it. well we have been down that path heavily before, lets not get into it.

At the heart of the matter J, I believe people can walk away from God, lose salvation. you think such a thing is impossible. Our whole theories are based on different perspectives. That is why I said earlier that as always we will disagree on the topic. My explanations are worthless to you because you are not opent o even consider what I think is right, to begin with. How can you then ask me to keep explaining when you already know you don't agree with my basic premise. You have to take disagreements sometime, J

why aren't you obedient to Matt 19?

J, if God asked you to give all you have to the poor and follow him, will you do it?

If you claim that failing in obedience will lose salvation , then you shouldn't mind laying out your own. Are you faithfully obedient in word, thought and deed?

well J, can you obviously tell me, why Jesus even asked the man to do so? Hell, by what you are saying, it shouldn't even be a requirement at all. So why did Christ ask him to do that to have eternal life? That was his question, right? I am clearly not saying that wealth is an issue here, but it really begs the question here. If not work based, if not obedience, then what?
My take is of course, it has nothing to do with wealth, just obedience.

NOt to sound like a smart a--, but, I can read. Paul wrote Romans through Philemon. Do you understand that Paul was called as the apostle to the GENTILES. I am positive that I am a Gentile, as are you.
" when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles" (Galatians 2:7,8).

You can be smart, J. I have no doubt about that. But I think the gospel is the same, to the Jew and gentile alike. Peter and Paul were different because of Peter's reservations and sprawling Christianity. Not that the gospel is two different versions. No sir, I don't believe that and you better have something to back this up. Paul being a apostle to the gentiles has no bearing on the gospel itself. Peter was the one who was at Cornelius' house not paul. Was the message any different?

And please pray tell, why would you go with a literal following of James but not Romans, sure it was written to Gentiles, like you and me BUT NOT to you and me. They were written to people in Rome. My only point in saying so was, be consistent, don't cherry pick.

James was not writing to Jews but Christians converts from Jews. So he was not talking to Jews but Christians, I think this makes all the difference here.

Neo, that only sounds like a cop-out. Obedience matters, but........

Not at all J, obedience always matters.

And, you've yet to answer the questions posed. I want you to understand that I do believe that people of faith, who act in faith, will produce works. Faith is a response of obedience. They should produce works. I've seen that in my life. But you are taking this to mean that works are required for salvation, or else it is lost. There is a BIG difference.

[/quote]
J, what if you don't obey, does that mean you also have no faith, and if so, what of your salvation? do you get it even without faith? In your theory what does the lack of action on such faith as you wrote above, results in?

I believe I have answered your questions, just not in the way you expected me to. Don't get me wrong, I am willing to understand your point J but I think you should also do the same. If you think you are, then I appreciate it.

[jlay]

This is where you're wrong J, I trust Christ fully. I just don't see how trust in Christ absolves obedience.

This is a bit of a loaded statement. Faith is a form of obedience. God ask us to trust Christ. If we refuse, we are not obeying. However, this is clearly something different then what you are talking about. A believer should obey, His conscience and the Word which applies to Him. However, as we know, we so often fall short of this. Probably not even realizing how often we come up short. Some peoples shortcomings are more obvious than others.

I believe I did, if you had read it actually and not ask me useless straw men, which even lack the proper context.

No sire, you haven't answered my questions. Are you

But I am saved, right? so I'll just be back on the track somehow

If you are trusting Christ then I would conclude that you are saved. If you trusted that works saved you, then you'll have to be more specific and provide your personal testimony.

That's just one implication compared to your several that you freely took the liberty to make, although I tend not to complain

Whatever, I'm got no time for such nonsense.

The denominations do vary wildly, sure, most believe Jesus is the only truth, son of God, member of trinity, as long as that is a given, I don't see how your definition of saved is breached. So it shouldn't even be a problem.

Again, essentials. People can get saved in spite of poor doctrine. That isn't an excuse for poor doctrine. Most protestant churches agree on the essentials.

I don't know any such people that specifically think the same way, and I know a lot of them. well can't help it,the worlds full of them. So it wouldn't be a surprise to me that you believe in a group of people who like to think so

You are attempting to dumb down roughly 2,000 years of scholarship.

Now, thats a cop-out J, I could say the same for James.

HOw is that a cop out. The book covers Jesus birth, life and resurrection. All history which is universally applicable. In the book Jesus address the economy of the covenant people Israel. The book starts with the geneology of the nation. It's not a cop out at all. You are way off base.

To me they are two sides of the coin. they show you that faith without action is incomplete and action without faith, does not pleases God.

That is just a vague statement, and doesn't answer the deeper questions.

Is obedience your performance, J? if you think I imply that, then you are using a very liberal form of works to try and assume my position. what is obedience to you? what if you disobey? what if you will fully disobey? ah! you turn apostate, that is your answer? you were never saved to begin with. That is the biggest dent in your secure salvation theory. How does one know he is not saved, even when he does not know it or is aware of it. well we have been down that path heavily before, lets not get into it.

Your position? i've asked you repeatedly to provide your evidenc of obedience and works, and some scripture support. Now all you are doing is misrepresenting my position. I'm certianly not the only one here that has come to the conclusion on your position with which you take acception.

J, if God asked you to give all you have to the poor and follow him, will you do it?

Oh, so now context and audience matters. Good, you are starting to get it. Now apply it consistently.

J, what if you don't obey, does that mean you also have no faith, and if so, what of your salvation? do you get it even without faith? In your theory what does the lack of action on such faith as you wrote above, results in?

Not really sure what you are asking, but faith is a non-negotiable. I'd hope we all agree on that.

Did you even bother with the link?

[neo-x]

A believer should obey, His conscience and the Word which applies to Him. However, as we know, we so often fall short of this. Probably not even realizing how often we come up short. Some peoples shortcomings are more obvious than others.

Willful disobeying, J, that is what I have been saying from the start and that is seriously not apostasy.We know the word and we break it.

Faith is a form of obedience. God ask us to trust Christ. If we refuse, we are not obeying. However, this is clearly something different then what you are talking about.

No, this is exactly what I have been talking about. What happens when you don't obey?

I believe I did, if you had read it actually and not ask me useless straw men, which even lack the proper context.

No sire, you haven't answered my questions.

if you're talking about those ill worded and ill conceived - percentage of sin questions, then of course why would I even answer them, they do not even address my position. The logical ones, I have answered, though.

But I am saved, right? so I'll just be back on the track somehow

If you are trusting Christ then I would conclude that you are saved. If you trusted that works saved you, then you'll have to be more specific and provide your personal testimony.

Quote me, where I said, I trusted my works, don't ask me something I have never claimed.

That's just one implication compared to your several that you freely took the liberty to make, although I tend not to complain
Whatever, I'm got no time for such nonsense.

Well I have always time for your's.

I don't know any such people that specifically think the same way, and I know a lot of them. well can't help it,the worlds full of them. So it wouldn't be a surprise to me that you believe in a group of people who like to think so
You are attempting to dumb down roughly 2,000 years of scholarship.

Not at all, but I seriously don't think that all of it is that much unified as you claim.

Now, thats a cop-out J, I could say the same for James.

HOw is that a cop out. The book covers Jesus birth, life and resurrection. All history which is universally applicable. In the book Jesus address the economy of the covenant people Israel. The book starts with the geneology of the nation. It's not a cop out at all. You are way off base

Perhaps you are, J. What does, Matthew was written for Israel, has to do with its message, right? isn't that what meant, that Matthew has universal appeal at places. Then why does it matter J, to who it was written, if it has universal appeal, it has that. And as I wrote in my previous post, James was not writing to Jews, but Christians converts from Jews. So if Matthew is written specifically to Israel and you still find it universal in some messages, then how come James just got dropped off your list? that is the cop-out Jilay, which you are refusing to accept.

To me they are two sides of the coin. they show you that faith without action is incomplete and action without faith, does not pleases God.

That is just a vague statement, and doesn't answer the deeper questions.

Your response is actually vague, J, which questions are the "deeper ones" that it fails to address?
Anyhow , it does make perfect sense to me. I can't help it if you see it vague, it is a fulfilment not a contradiction.

Your position? i've asked you repeatedly to provide your evidenc of obedience and works, and some scripture support. Now all you are doing is misrepresenting my position. I'm certianly not the only one here that has come to the conclusion on your position with which you take acception.

I quoted you James, didn't I? I quoted Matthew 25, in both cases you just refuse to see my point, in which case I think it is rather futile to give you more evidence since you will discredit it for being different then your analysis which is hardly a difficult thing to do. You are the one who hasn't given your position on this. I have now given it to you, twice, explaining what I believe.

J, if God asked you to give all you have to the poor and follow him, will you do it?
Oh, so now context and audience matters. Good, you are starting to get it. Now apply it consistently.

What? your hesitating to give a straight -yes, no answer here?

J, what if you don't obey, does that mean you also have no faith, and if so, what of your salvation? do you get it even without faith? In your theory what does the lack of action on such faith as you wrote above, results in?

Not really sure what you are asking, but faith is a non-negotiable. I'd hope we all agree on that.

How much simpler words do you want me to use, J? what does lack of action of faith result in? you said faith is a result of actions and you have seen that in your life. I just asked you, in disobeying what will be the result? you replied with nothing, just, "not really sure what you're asking here". That is simply avoiding the question, J. Or you could have simply said, it doesn't matter, your still saved, even when you don't obey in faith and fail to act. Isn't that the answer? Cuz you sure say, salvation is sealed, You're in. What if you disobey? doesn't matter, right?

I tend to look at it differently though

Did you even bother with the link?

I did. but not in detail, will see it in the morning when I have the chance to read it carefully.

[jlay]

What? your hesitating to give a straight -yes, no answer here?

Of course not Neo, because you are attempting to ascribe something to me I do not believe. I am not throwing up my understanding of the RYR. You are saying, in the encounter with the RYR, context and audience matter. I agree. And so we shouldn't apply this requirement to our lives. I agree. I am simply asking you to be consistent with the rest of Matthew.

Willful disobeying, J, that is what I have been saying from the start and that is seriously not apostasy.We know the word and we break it.

We need to define the terms. The term willful disobedience only occurs once in the NT that I am aware of. In Hebrews I believe. How are you defining willful disobedience. I didn't say willful disobedience was apostasy. In fact, I defined it. So define apostasy, and willful disobedience, so we can make sure we are using the terms the same.

No, this is exactly what I have been talking about. What happens when you don't obey

Uh no, Neo, it isn't unless you changed your position. You weren't talking about faith. You were talking about works in terms of obedience.

if you're talking about those ill worded and ill conceived - percentage of sin questions, then of course why would I even answer them, they do not even address my position. The logical ones, I have answered, though.

Sure buddy. Whatever.

Quote me, where I said, I trusted my works, don't ask me something I have never claimed.

1st, I asked to be more specific. YOu obviously ignored this. 2nd, the fact that you are trusting works to 'keep' you saved, and thus save you, is written all into this line of thinking. I'm failrly certain that Rick and Danny would both agree with this assesment.

Not at all, but I seriously don't think that all of it is that much unified as you claim.

Me thinks you use your thinks to determine truth. "To me..."
What are the essentials and where is the disagreement?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession ... Methodist)
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=ca ... 3yd4F8HXgw

http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#i

Perhaps you are, J. What does, Matthew was written for Israel, has to do with its message, right? isn't that what meant, that Matthew has universal appeal at places. Then why does it matter J, to who it was written, if it has universal appeal, it has that. And as I wrote in my previous post, James was not writing to Jews, but Christians converts from Jews. So if Matthew is written specifically to Israel and you still find it universal in some messages, then how come James just got dropped off your list? that is the cop-out Jilay, which you are refusing to accept.

Excuse me. YOu are attempting to muddy what is not muddy. James was writing to believing Jews. If you want to understand, I suggest you read the link, and stop making such assertions.

[neo-x]

Of course not Neo, because you are attempting to ascribe something to me I do not believe

That's the same reason I didn't answer your sin percentage questions.

I didn't say willful disobedience was apostasy. In fact, I defined it.

I believe this is your statement which I implied,

The deliberate disregard for the Gospel is called apostasy. I would suggest that you distinquish the two for discussion. There is a difference in someone sinning and someone rejecting the Gospel.

when we sin, knowingly,to me is also disregarding the gospel. Don't get me wrong, I am not talking about the times when one, fights sin and can not overcome, or is breaking a certain bad habit. I mean when we actually compromise with a sin in our life and let it stay in us, because some part of us, now, likes it.

We need to define the terms...

Finally...ok

wilful disobedience = you know lusting is wrong yet you lust, etc etc
apostasy = you denounce Christ as son of God, lord and saviour.
faith = believe in God + doing what the Lord commanded
salvation = given to us for free through grace when we came to Christ. Can be lost if we turn apostate or continue to walk in sin with choice and not change our life.

No, this is exactly what I have been talking about. What happens when you don't obey

Uh no, Neo, it isn't unless you changed your position. You weren't talking about faith. You were talking about works in terms of obedience.

And obedience is a requirement of faith to me. I think I said it numerously in earlier posts.

Quote me, where I said, I trusted my works, don't ask me something I have never claimed.
1st, I asked to be more specific. YOu obviously ignored this. 2nd, the fact that you are trusting works to 'keep' you saved, and thus save you, is written all into this line of thinking. I'm failrly certain that Rick and Danny would both agree with this assesment.

You asked me questions on points which I don't even hold, how can I be then more specific? It would only be a waste of time, J. It could only be when you stop misrepresenting what I said.

The links you gave, in nearly all the things as essentials, I agree with you. but there are some major differences
"

Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,(1) and may have some common
operations of the Spirit,(2) yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:(3) much less
can men, not professing the Christian religion be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent
to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess;(4) and, to
assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.(5)
.....
God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified;(1) and, although they can never fall from the
state of justification,(2) yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure, and not have the light
of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and
renew their faith and repentance.(3)
.....

Chapter XVII - Of The Perseverance of the Saints.
i.
They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither
totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be
eternally saved.

ii.

This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree
of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father;(1) upon the efficacy of the merit
and intercession of Jesus Christ;(2) the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them;(3) and the
nature of the covenant of grace:(4) from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.(5)
...Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption
remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins;(1) and, for a time,
continue therein:(2) whereby they incur God's displeasure,(3) and grieve His Holy Spirit,(4) come to be
deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts;(5) have their hearts hardened,(6) and their consciences
wounded;(7) hurt and scandalize others,(8) and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.(9)

"
To me this all ties up somewhere in the original idea, we shared. those who are saved will be saved, nonetheless. While a five point TULIP is not the agenda here, there are quite strong emphasis on a few things, which I don't hold to.

Perhaps you are, J. What does, Matthew was written for Israel, has to do with its message, right? isn't that what meant, that Matthew has universal appeal at places. Then why does it matter J, to who it was written, if it has universal appeal, it has that. And as I wrote in my previous post, James was not writing to Jews, but Christians converts from Jews. So if Matthew is written specifically to Israel and you still find it universal in some messages, then how come James just got dropped off your list? that is the cop-out Jilay, which you are refusing to accept.

Excuse me. YOu are attempting to muddy what is not muddy. James was writing to believing Jews. If you want to understand, I suggest you read the link, and stop making such assertions.

Yes, those believing Jews, were Christians.

stop making such assertions

I suggest you do the same.

[jlay]

Obviously we will not agree on the definition of faith. Nor do any Lexicons or scholarship agree on the word faith as you define it.

Neo, each time you say, "To me...," it implies that you are the standard of interpretation. It is a very common phrase of idolatry. To me... God is......(fill in the blank) People using their mind to imagine a God or a religion that is of their own liking. To me faith is........
Words have meaning.

wilful disobedience = you know lusting is wrong yet you lust, etc etc

We would definately not agree here as well. What you describe in your definition is KNOWing disobedience. The essence of sin is knowledge. We know it is wrong to lie. As the Bible says, where there is no law there is no transgression. (Rom 4:15) Knowing the Law, Israel was held to a higher level of accountability. Diet, Sabbath, etc. Sin is transgression of the Law. (1 John 3:4)

The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Ask a believer, do you want to sin? They will answer, no. Ask a believer, do you know when you sin, that it is wrong? They will say, yes. And so will you and anyone who is honest with themselves. I challenge that you can not live up to the definition you state. Are you saying that you never do anything that you know is wrong? Of course you do. If you say no, you are lying, and you know it is wrong to lie. Otherwise you are saying that you never sin, because sin by its nature means we KNOW that what we do is wrong.
Wilful, is where you do it because it is wrong, intentionally. You seek to do what is wrong, because it opposes your conscience or is contrary to truth. For example, a person hears the gospel, their heart is being drawn. Yet, they wilfully reject the truth to embrace a lie. They actually refuse to believe. You can ask many an atheist, "If Christianity were true would you become one?" And they will almost shout, "No!!!" I would contend that a true believer can not do this. The Lord disciplines those He loves.

when we sin, knowingly,to me is also disregarding the gospel. Don't get me wrong, I am not talking about the times when one, fights sin and can not overcome, or is breaking a certain bad habit. I mean when we actually compromise with a sin in our life and let it stay in us, because some part of us, now, likes it.

Every true beleiver fights sin. The only evidence in the scripture that we have of someone NOT being saved is if they are not disciplined. (Heb. 12:8) Some fight better than others. Some may even appear to be defeated.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, Heb. 10:26
Now, if we take the definition of wilfull as you wrote it, then everyone is doomed. There is no hope if you sin even once. Of course the audience and context of Hebrews matters, as it deals with Jews who were being told to committ apostasy. To wilfully reject Christ. So, you say that each time YOU sin, you commit apostasy. I would like to know how you live up to that definition.

At times, we all live contrary to the truth. And we know when we do it. My guess, is just like I used to, I didn't look at my own failings the same way I looked at the failings of others.

You metnioned earlier if I thought you were saved. But the real question, based on how you define these terms is, how can you know? I don't see how you can. According to you, You could lose it at any time, and perhaps already have. Of course you don't think you will, but that is simply arrogant. I would guess that if we really examined my life or your life, there is some area where we need to change, and we are not. maybe in charity, maybe in actions, maybe in thought. Just like you, I held these same positions. They are a dead end, with no hope. Trust that just as He will save you, He will keep you.