Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped 774 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Deputy Dog

  OUCH! Please don't think that I'm judging anyone's works! LT

  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

  I would love to discuss it anytime.

  I would consider one as a brother in Christ who had completely backslidden.

  I don't have a problem with that.
  

  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.

  I would, because you have to decide if this person needs to hear the gospel. Or would you let him go on thinking that he is saved by his works? The "loving" thing to do, is not always to make peace at all cost. You are the one that asked about "essentials", certainly you know that doctrine only does its job, when it divides. Paul said it this way "...if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."(Gal 1:9) When you use the term "essential" you are talking about a test for orthodoxy, are you not?

  I would not consider a Mormon a brother in Christ, he believes in a "different Jesus" (see 2Corinthians 11:3-4) so he is not in Christ. He may indeed be chosen to come, and when he does come I will see him as a brother, until then I will witness to him, and love him as I would any other nonbeliever. So let me ask my question a different way. If someone is teaching that you need to work in order to keep your salvation, do you think that Paul's words apply here? Should they be cut off.

  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?

  You can't! You can only take them at their word.

  And yet even the hypocrite can emulate outer works and, besides, that is exactly the thing you appear to show concern for.

  I can't help, if someone lies to me. I'm speaking about doctrine here. If someone thinks he can maintain his salvation through works, I have to wonder if that person really understands Grace. This leads me to what I mean about considering them as a brother, If they don't understand, salvation by grace, would you baptize them, would you recommend they eat at the Lords table (communion) or would you see them in need of salvation and share the real gospel with them.

  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 don't know if you are a Universalist, or you want to believe the best about everyone. But, when Paul used the phrase "cut off" I don't think he was talking about privileges at the local watering hole.

  However said legalism is just as prevalent in Calvinistic circles as it is Arminian ones.

  You are right about that! It does seem to take different forms though. BTW Arminians are split on eternal security, are they not? Narkissos

  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?

  I don't believe that these or any other books of the bible teaches you can lose your salvation. D Dog
• 

  Narkissos

  DD,

  My reaction was not exactly about "losing one's salvation", but to your previous remark:

  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.

  Although those words, as expected, sound Pauline (Philippians 2:12), if you could read Matthew and James without reading Paul into them, you'd realize that in those texts no salvation is ever gained apart from perseverance in "works" -- so the very concept of "losing one's salvation" is irrelevant indeed.

  On this concept of "losing one's salvation" the most obvious contradiction would rather come from Hebrews (6:4ff; 10:26ff), as you are certainly aware.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Nark

  Mat 5:20

  For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

  Nock yourself out!

  D Dog
• 

  Leolaia

  I'm not sure why you mentioned Matthew 5:20 because it makes Narkissos' point. Read it in context.

  "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works (kala erga), and glorify your Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill them. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or strike shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others (e.g., for example, Paul), shall be called least (elakhistos) in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:16-20).

  Regarding the final verse, the International Critical Commentary on Matthew reads: "Jesus came to 'fulfill' the law, which must therefore be upheld by his followers. Moreover, because, as 5.21-48 leaves not in doubt, the Messiah's words are even more demanding than Moses' words, those who obey the Messiah will inevitably find that their 'righteousness' exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees" (p. 498). Note that in the previous verse (v. 19), the emphasis is on "doing" (poiésé) and "teaching" the commandments of the Law; one's place in the kingdom is dependent on what one DOES. Compare also 7:21: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does (poión) the will of my Father who is in heaven", and 5:22: "Whoever shall say 'You fool' shall be guilty enough to go into fiery Gehenna." In Matthew and Q2 (as in Jewish apocalypism), one does not finally attain salvation until one's deeds are judged in Judgment Day (Matthew 3:12, 10:15, 11:22-24, 12:36-42, 25:31-46).
• 

  LittleToe

  DD:
  No, sorry (sometimes I hate this medium's propensity for misunderstanding), I didn't think you were judging people's works at all.

  LT wrote: 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.

  I didn't mean by that that I view them as a brother in Christ, just that I couldn't deny they were if they claimed the same.

  Regarding Gal.1:9, what gospel was he claiming to have preached to them? Wasn't it simply "Christ and him crucified"?
  I'm sure you agree that his argument is against the Judaisers, but I would contest that his original gospel was much more than simply Christ. Otherwise there would have been little need to shore them up with more teaching against the detractors.

  When you use the term "essential" you are talking about a test for orthodoxy, are you not?

  No, I wasn't going that far. If I were to claim "orthodoxy" I'd also include the Trinity and the immortality of the soul, because those are mainstream doctrines in Christian churches. I wouldn't include hellfire, though, as a number mainstream churches dispute it. I can't in all honesty add the Trinity to my list of essentials, however, as there's not a developed form of it evident in scripture. NOr was it "essential" to my conversion, though I will say that I found myself coming to believe it through merely reading scripture, and an experimental faith, but that's another story...

  As for "a different Jesus", I agree with you. The Mormon missionaries that I've spoken to have either never met him or have met something more than a little different to me

  If someone is teaching that you need to work in order to keep your salvation, do you think that Paul's words apply here? Should they be cut off.

  I would think their doctrine is in error and I would discuss it with them, but I wouldn't cut them off.
  I'd be far more concerned that someone believed they had to "work" to get salvation in the first place.

  If someone thinks he can maintain his salvation through works, I have to wonder if that person really understands Grace.

  I agree, and yet I have to leave a degree of doubt. I'm not so bigotted as to believe that my doctrine is 100% foolproof. I certainly believe that I have been taught by the Holy Spirit, but Progressive Sanctification has a long way to go in this soul...

  This leads me to what I mean about considering them as a brother, If they don't understand, salvation by grace, would you baptize them, would you recommend they eat at the Lords table (communion) or would you see them in need of salvation and share the real gospel with them.

  If they have an earnest belief in Christ, how could I hold them back?
  I'm a firm believer that one comes to Christ well before such things are necessarily fully understood - lambs and babes spring to mind.
  Hence they may not need salvation at all, but rather some good teaching.
  Have you so soon forgotten those first faltering steps?

  BTW Arminians are split on eternal security, are they not?

  Of course they are, but then pick a single group category that isn't split on something.
  The joys of "Christian Liberty "

  I don't know if you are a Universalist, or you want to believe the best about everyone.

  Wasn't it Spurgeon who on being told to preach to the Elect declared "show me the Elect and I'll preach to them"?
  How I view and treat people is only one side of me. The other tends to be the discussion of (IMHO)sound doctrine.

  As for the loss of salvation (which is at the root of works-salvation and most Arminianism) if there weren't a way of interpreting the bible that way, do you think anyone would believe it?
  I personally find it dissatistfying, and that it often binds an individual to "religion", but I'm not everyone.

  On the subject of "cutting off", I choose to dumb down those portions of Pauls advice. But then I was raised in a cult that used it to an extreme, and have lost most of my family because of it. Hence I hope you'll forgive me my idiosyncrasy.