Love One Another and the Cross

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

you already know the questions--the ones you skipped all around and wouldn't give a straight answer to before. How does an OP determine if someone is saved?

I asked you to start afresh. You ran around in so many nonsensical circles that I am not taking the time to wade through your wasted words to find them,because I quote posts when I respond. You've made this a dozen-ring circus.

Also, as I proceed, do you promise to answer all my questions and scriptures?

How do we determine how someone is saved? We can only go so far. We can only see their outward. We do not know their hearts. So all we can do is ask them if they have obeyed what Jesus and the Apostles told people to do to be saved.


In short we ask what Paul asked:

Act 19:1-5 KJV And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.


Did Paul do something wrong?

[mfblume]

Back again this evening. Work calls.

[shazeep]

How do we determine how someone is saved? We can only go so far. We can only see their outward. We do not know their hearts. So all we can do is ask them if they have obeyed what Jesus and the Apostles told people to do to be saved.

Makes sense to me. Nothing wrong with that. Paul did nothing wrong. But i will suggest that when you come to know someone, you learn their heart pretty quickly. So there is more that one can do than ask someone if they have obeyed Paul, which after all anyone can say they have obeyed Paul. And it just so happens that we have passages from Christ that explain this, and in fact go so far as to say that many will say that they have done what Paul said--in fact, many will "Cry" this, adamantly, refusing to accept any other explanations for what saving faith really is. And the very real intimation, by Christ, is to run from them.

So really, using your own words, it is the difference in truly "seeing their outward" vs "asking them" whatever. And being as how "seeing their outward" is effectively reduced to "i saw him go to the altar, and pray" by us now, even this definition can be corrupted.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

How do we determine how someone is saved? We can only go so far. We can only see their outward. We do not know their hearts. So all we can do is ask them if they have obeyed what Jesus and the Apostles told people to do to be saved.

Makes sense to me. Nothing wrong with that. Paul did nothing wrong. But i will suggest that when you come to know someone, you learn their heart pretty quickly. So there is more that one can do than ask someone if they have obeyed Paul, which after all anyone can say they have obeyed Paul.

The greater point is that it really doesn't matter what we think about people being lost or saved. It matters what God thinks. And if someone tells me they're saved and obeyed what the apostles and Jesus commanded, then it makes little difference to me if they really did or not. If they didn't they still know what the truth demands, and I have no purpose than to relate the message.

And it just so happens that we have passages from Christ that explain this, and in fact go so far as to say that many will say that they have done what Paul said--in fact, many will "Cry" this, adamantly, refusing to accept any other explanations for what saving faith really is. And the very real intimation, by Christ, is to run from them.

Obeying Acts 2:38 is much more than simply calling Jesus "Lord." But I also agree people can bey Acts 2:38 and the the ones who cry Lord Lord and be rejected in the end, IF in TIME they bear no fruit and do not carry through with all Christ said.

So really, using your own words, it is the difference in truly "seeing their outward" vs "asking them" whatever. And being as how "seeing their outward" is effectively reduced to "i saw him go to the altar, and pray" by us now, even this definition can be corrupted.

I agree. But it really does not matter anyway. It matters what God sees. What we see or hear them say is not concrete for us. It's only what God sees that is concrete. But when a people blatantly deny His Sonship we know for sure in those cases.

[shazeep]

And with all due respect, this point has been sufficiently made now, i think. It is ultimately for each person to define. I have no desire to keep sniping at each other, and i only persisted because i remember when i thought everyone else was lost, and i had no sin. I was on top of the world; and those were my darkest days. If that sentence describes you, and you are proud of your knowledge about Christ, then you are in a bad way.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

And with all due respect, this point has been sufficiently made now, i think. It is ultimately for each person to define. I have no desire to keep sniping at each other, and i only persisted because i remember when i thought everyone else was lost, and i had no sin. I was on top of the world; and those were my darkest days. If that sentence describes you, and you are proud of your knowledge about Christ, then you are in a bad way.

I in no manner feel proud of who I think is lost while I am saved. That is nothing to do with my point, and I have made that known throughout these discussions. You just rejected my explanation about that.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I in no manner feel proud of who I think is lost while I am saved. That is nothing to do with my point, and I have made that known throughout these discussions. You just rejected my explanation about that.

well, i'm lobbing grenades at it, yes. To me, it reeks of lack of humility, and/or self-servitude, and/or false superiority. "While i am saved?" Who lied to you, and told you that you were saved? You are not saved, and i can prove this with Scripture. Definitively. I would not describe myself as saved, either, although there were multiple decades when i would have.

I'm also having issues with "who i think is lost," for more or less the same reason; you believe you somehow have got a bead on who is saved or lost, and this is a dangerous, self serving position. None of these people has "held out to the end." I can make a case for many who you would surely term saved having not even begun holding out at all yet--they don't even know what holding out means, perhaps.

I am trying to imagine the case where "I, who am saved, humbly feel for those who don't believe as i do, and are lost" would not be accompanied by crocodile tears; and i can't. I can remember experiencing this perception, and of course "pride" is not how any Christian would describe it, once they know that "pride" is a code-word to be avoided, but that is pretty much full blown lack of humility regardless. Of course it is all Scripturally, factually justified; "proven," if you will. By ignoring some other Scripture--lots of other Scripture.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, i'm lobbing grenades at it, yes. To me, it reeks of lack of humility, and/or self-servitude, and/or false superiority. "While i am saved?" Who lied to you, and told you that you were saved? You are not saved, and i can prove this with Scripture. Definitively. I would not describe myself as saved, either, although there were multiple decades when i would have.

You also believe no one can know for sure they're saved, anyway. So much for your opinion on that issue.

To you what lacks of humility is just the problem. TO YOU. Maybe you were so self righteous in your Acts 2:38 days that you think no one can espouse Acts 2:38 without being full of pride. But it's downright ignorant to accuse someone of lacking humility just because they read John says denial of the son is antichrist, then read the koran deny the son's existence left, right and centre, and say anyone who agrees with the koran is antichrist and therefore lost.

Everything is "TO ME."

I'm also having issues with "who i think is lost," for more or less the same reason; you believe you somehow have got a bead on who is saved or lost,

Lol. No. I said a child could understand that. Those who deny the son are antichrist. Koran teaches God has no son in multiple places. A child could understand that. No "bead" needed.

and this is a dangerous, self serving position.

It's solid bible teaching. Nothing to do with self-serving, though I'm sure some use it for that reason.

None of these people has "held out to the end." I can make a case for many who you would surely term saved having not even begun holding out at all yet--they don't even know what holding out means, perhaps.

NO, of course I don't. Anything you say. You know, "TO ME" and all.

I am trying to imagine the case where "I, who am saved, humbly feel for those who don't believe as i do, and are lost" would not be accompanied by crocodile tears; and i can't.

That's the problem. Its'a all "TO ME."

I can remember experiencing this perception, and of course "pride" is not how any Christian would describe it, once they know that "pride" is a code-word to be avoided,

Exactly. "TO ME." You judge everyone but what you did. You cannot imagine another intention apart from the one to do with "TO ME."

but that is pretty much full blown lack of humility regardless. Of course it is all Scripturally, factually justified; "proven," if you will. By ignoring some other Scripture--lots of other Scripture.

Ignoring none. And I asked you to present them then you say you're not interested after pounding that mantra over and over.

Well, heres "TO YOU."

[shazeep]

The greater point is that it really doesn't matter what we think about people being lost or saved. It matters what God thinks. And if someone tells me they're saved and obeyed what the apostles and Jesus commanded, then it makes little difference to me if they really did or not. If they didn't they still know what the truth demands, and I have no purpose than to relate the message.This is still disingenuous, and does not fairly address the statement "the overwhelming majority of churchianity accept bona fides as de facto evidence of salvation." Also, you say what God thinks is what matters, but you also say that All Muslims are lost because they lack your dogma and bona fides, and the two are not compatible. They are hypocrisy.

Obeying Acts 2:38 is much more than simply calling Jesus "Lord." But I also agree people can bey Acts 2:38 and the the ones who cry Lord Lord and be rejected in the end, IF in TIME they bear no fruit and do not carry through with all Christ said.

then you are halfway home!
by the same logic--which btw will never get one to God; logic--if one is rejected for non-bearing, they are accepted for bearing. Good fruit comes from good trees. Yes, it is a seemingly blasphemous leap; i'm still not quite sure i believe it myself. The position that one is presented with the GS merely as an example to follow has some merit, on its own; but for me, at least, taken with all of the other supporting Scripture, 9/10ths of the law, what you are insisting upon amounts to some words.

So in all conscience i am forced to look for a Scriptural situation in which the words might expressly be "no, i am not interested in your Christ, tyvm," that still end up being considered doing his father's will. And viola, the First Son. Now, you might have valid arguments against that, but i have not heard them. And that does not mean you are wrong; you do not have to believe what i believe.

I agree. But it really does not matter anyway. It matters what God sees. What we see or hear them say is not concrete for us. It's only what God sees that is concrete. But when a people blatantly deny His Sonship we know for sure in those cases.
well, it's either what God sees, or what you have defined as denying the Son, but not proven that God holds your definition; not necessarily both. Sounds good, i will admit; but frankly it is your surety that gives me pause. It is patently obvious how that can be made to be self-serving.

What if, say, i am a guy raised by two hypocritical Lord crying Bible-thumpers, and i'm now psychologically unable to follow anything that includes the terminology they used, but i have a good heart? What if i am the First Son, iow?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

This is still disingenuous, and does not fairly address the statement "the overwhelming majority of churchianity accept bona fides as de facto evidence of salvation." Also, you say what God thinks is what matters, but you also say that All Muslims are lost because they lack your dogma and bona fides, and the two are not compatible. They are hypocrisy.

You have a unique way of thinking. lol

God says denial of son is antichrist. Not me. God. And Koran denies the son's existence , let alone his words. A child could understand it.

You count heads, bag me in with the head-counters, and when I say the issue is what God sees, and who cares what the majority thinks, you say I am being disingenuous. Okaaaay.

then you are halfway home!

Oh why thank you! "TO ME" has spoken!

by the same logic--which btw will never get one to God; logic--if one is rejected for non-bearing, they are accepted for bearing.

Howso?

Yes, it is a seemingly blasphemous leap; i'm still not quite sure i believe it myself. The position that one is presented with the GS merely as an example to follow has some merit, on its own; but for me, at least, taken with all of the other supporting Scripture, 9/10ths of the law, what you are insisting upon amounts to some words.

You actually cannot grasp the issue of the NT explanation of how the law said successful compliance with Law of works causes one to have eternal life, but that route is impossible to keep, so grace brought the same life through the means of faith instead. And you cannot actually grasp the point that, yes, we all need to be like the good samaritan, nothing against that at all. BUT AFTER we're made righteous by faith not works. I've seen people in church for decades who never realized that, so don't think you actually do when it is apparent you do not, especially after thinking you abandoned that faith years ago when in reality I doubt you ever knew it.

[quot]
So in all conscience i am forced to look for a Scriptural situation in which the words might expressly be "no, i am not interested in your Christ, tyvm," that still end up being considered doing his father's will. And viola, the First Son. Now, you might have valid arguments against that, but i have not heard them. And that does not mean you are wrong; you do not have to believe what i believe.[/quote]

You are classically throwing out the baby with the bathwater due to some "TO ME" experiences in the past that paste everyone with the same tar.

2Pe 2:2 KJV And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

well, it's either what God sees, or what you have defined as denying the Son,

I'm not even listening to that nonsense any more. A child can see the point of denial of the Son.

but not proven that God holds your definition; not necessarily both. Sounds good, i will admit; but frankly it is your surety that gives me pause. It is patently obvious how that can be made to be self-serving.

You're too pessimistic to see what a child could plainly see, and how blinding must that be?

What if, say, i am a guy raised by two hypocritical Lord crying Bible-thumpers, and i'm now psychologically unable to follow anything that includes the terminology they used, but i have a good heart? What if i am the First Son, iow?

A twisted heart from hypocritical parents is far from a good one.

But this is the best evidence yet for the reason as to why you claim muslims cannot be said to be lost even though they flatly deny the Son of God. It does not matter what the WORD SAYS and if people deny the WORD. You are so stuck on the heart that you think God will overlook their fundamental hatred of what He claims is salvation, so long as their deception does not affect how kind they are to people at the same time. THAT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING! Wow.

That's the same sort of thinking that says, "Well if the Bible says Acts 2:38 is the plan of salvation, and there's a vast majority of christianity who don't obey it, then there must be something wrong with the way we read Acts 2:38. After all, counting heads is more reliable than plain reading." Forget the fact that only eight souls were saved in Noah's day.

That explains everything Shazeep! You THINK SO MUCH about whether someone is honest and sincere to themselves in your "TO ME" universe, and that you have no concept that someone can be sincerely wrong, but God does not judge by His word but buy the degree of sincerity no matter how wrong a person might be.

So, in your TO ME universe the word is arbitrary. TO ME the word says one thing but TO YOU it says another, because both of us are sincere. No, wait a minute. If TO ME the word means a group is lost then that cannot be good variance, although variance is acceptable to muslims if TO THEM it says something else because they never said muslims are lost.

Shazeep, do you think muslims as a whole think all christians are lost?

Your TO ME doctrine that gauges salvation by sincerity, except when it violates your conditions by stating a group is lost wholesale if they deny what the bible plainly says is antichrist due to such denial, has no room in its universe for the concept of deception. Deception is when someone is certainly wrong, but they think they're right. It's what Jesus referred to when he said if the darkness in a person is considered light, then how great must that darkness be. There's no existence of deception in your universe except for those who disagree with your TO ME philosophical conditions. As long as a Muslim is loving and sincere, surely there's a misinterpretation of the statement that denial of son is antichrist's in God's word. You're deceived by the "no deception exists" concept, except where you declare it to exist.

The twelve-ring circus continues! No word. Just philosophical contradictions.