by UnDisfellowshipped 774 Replies latest watchtower bible
LT
Though not "essential", I find great comfort in the idea of eternal security (Perseverance of the Saints). The idea, that once we're adopted into the family of God we shall never be forsaken, seems to me to be the capstone of grace.
I'm not sure that is a nonessential. Tell me how you can consider someone a brother in Christ if he is working to keep his salvation. For me the legalism would be tough to overlook. D Dog
DD,
Sorry to interfere, but this time I just feel like it: would you regard the authors of the Gospel of Matthew or the Epistle of James as brothers in Christ?
DD:
I would consider one as a brother in Christ who had completely backslidden.
I'll go further - I wouldn't deny any as a brother, since there is no way to be sure that an individual isn't nor ever will be of the elect. Contrawise, unless a brother is on fire for Christ, by such means that your spirit resonates with his and gives you inner testimony, how can you be sure of any? By their fruits? And yet even the hypocrite can emulate outer works and, besides, that is exactly the thing you appear to show concern for.
Now you may immediately object, retorting that I'm being a Universalist, but that I would deny. I think scripture is clear that there is at least one "son of Perdition".
I would also attest that there are likely some Arminians who are far closer to the throne of grace than I'll ever be, for all my passion for Christ and acceptance of Calvinistic doctrine.
You are correct to say that legalism is hard to overlook, in fact it's outright galling, especially when it's rammed down your throat. However said legalism is just as prevalent in Calvinistic circles as it is Arminian ones. Therein is the greater love and grace required.
I find it ironic that sometimes it is easy to love our enemies, yet our brothers can be a more difficult affair - as the Apostles attested to in their exhortation!
Tell me, is it "doctrine" that saves, or grace?
Is it the written word, or the love of Christ?
Is it right religion, or a living relationship with the Divine?
Is it the works (or lack thereof - with right or wrong motive), or the spirit of God within, that constitutes a brother?
Btw, you've just hit on a subject that I am extremely passionate about!
If you can't feel that through my written words, then we ought to discuss it sometime
Didier:My dear friend you may "interfere" any time you wish.
Interchanges with you are always a pleasure!
Now you may immediately object, retorting that I'm being a Universalist, but that I would deny. I think scripture is clear that there is at least one "son of Perdition".
The last time I heard it, some 15 years ago, this argument came from the lips of my Calvinist professor of systematic theology, when I was defending my post-Barthian confession of faith... I told him how funny I found that only Judas stood between us.
I would then have argued: is Judas' perdition beyond the curse Jesus became (Galatians 3:13)?
Didier:
I know that some theologians now consider Judas' final lot to be an open book. I can't say I've got to that stage (...yet! - LOL).
Ironically, whilst my strongest ethical reason for "perdition" is Hitler, I have to confess that from a Christian-gracebound-theological perspective even he isn't guaranteed a poor lot.
One must never indulge in bloviating about a subject that is subject to revision-definition.
God is a premise. Any discussion about what god "does" or "doesn't do is to accept the premise of God. That means you automatically accept the definition of God. At that point you have been screwed. Why? You've bought the whole enchilada. God is what God is by the definition. It isn't debatable past that point. The only thing that can happen is wheel spinning efforts to revise the basic definition. Good luck with that prospect!
In my opinion, a topic heading which says "FREEDOM TO CHOOSE GOD" means you are free to choose the premise only. Beyond that it is a turnkey operation; no substitutions are acceptable. That is why there are so many different denominations.
Terry:
It may be the side-order of enchiladas, but I think you picked up (and swallowed) a secular dictionary instead of a theological one
Besides, your logic is subject to cascade failure...
It starts with the very root of your logical fallacy - God is only a premise if you've never met Him...
God is only a premise if you've never met Him...
Amen brother Toe!
edited to add; or is it elder Toe?
EW:
or is it elder Toe?
Naww, just another pleb...
some theologians now consider Judas' final lot to be an open book.
I was confronted with this by theological circles downunder and realised that i may have got preconceived ideas (or my dub past) on this issue.
I can't say I've got to that stage
But don't you find more and more that what we formerly believed as "Truth" doesn't bear up under close examination.
Theological students downunder are being led to examine what is written in the scriptures on the issue and when we do we have to be honest and admit that the text doesn't support the notion that Judas was eternally damned.
