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?
Threaded Mode
