Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is 'once saved always saved correct? | John 6:37 | kalos | 31440 | ||
Hank: What is the origin of this SSLR-SSLR-SSLR vicious cycle? Once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away, on the planet Earth in a village called Vanity Fair there dwelt a community made up of sinners, saints and saint wannabes. The saints let their light shine for their Lord in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation. Yet under the shelter of God's wings, all was well until a look-alike professor of religion took into his head the strangest fantasy ever known. He imagined that his brethren were inferior to him in his great understanding of the Word of the Lord. He decided that he alone, among the saints, was right and everyone else was wrong. In his dementia was born the idea that all he needed was his Bible and no outside help. He reasoned since (other) men were fallible, yet he himself was not, that he would ignore the teachers that his Savior had given to the church. He knew the Scriptures taught that the Spirit had given gifts to men and that his Lord had given those gifted men, including pastors and teachers, to the church. But since the idea did not seem reasonable to him, he thought it best to ignore that Scripture and devise some scheme to explain away what it clearly said and meant. How thrilled was he with his new freedom and power (as he thought) derived from being so close to God that he had a special insight, a direct line from God, that no one else had. But soon he became dissatisfied. He wondered what good did it do him to possess this new truth, if he was the only man who knew about it. He began travelling far and wide, preaching his new revelation. Soon he drew a small following. Having started on the path of solo Scriptura (me and my Bible), he was now unstoppable. He decided to bestow upon himself a license to forget or twist any and all Scripture that he in his wisdom did not understand, agree with or find reasonable. After disassociating himself from more than 1,000 years of church history -- indeed pretending there was no such thing -- he decided that one need not interpet the Bible in light of what the rest of Scripture had to say about a subject. He deemed it sufficient to base an entire teaching on a few select verses taken out of context. He was delighted to discover that the parables of his Lord contained figurative language upon which he could superimpose any interpretation that came into his head. Soon, he reasoned that Eternal Life by definition could just as easily be temporary as not. Further, he found it convenient to take all the literal language of the Bible as figurative and to interpet all the figurative language as literal. Having an unteachable spirit he lacked the ability to discern between figurative and literal (plain) passages. He soon found that nothing is impossible to him who does NOT believe. Eventually, he came across an idea that appealed to his wicked pride -- the idea that although God may be the one to do the saving, He (God) wasn't able to keep a person saved without that person's help. That if he manipulated the Scriptures enough, for example, adding the words "But you can separate yourself from God" to the ending of Romans 8 and adding the words "But you can take yourself out of God's hand" to the inspired words of John 10, then he could deny God's righteousness and go about to set up his own righteousness. Then he would have something to be proud of -- the work of his own hands, not unlike the idol makers and worshippers of past centuries. Though he had never heard it said, he instinctively knew that if a lie is repeated enough times, some people will eventually believe it. Soon he was defining the following words to suit himself: grace, faith, works, eternal and other key words of the Bible. In short, he rejected the light that had already been given him, and his Creator and Redeemer gave him over to a reprobate mind to do those things which were not fitting. And that is how the SSLR, revolving-door, roller coaster, works-oriented doctrine of Eternal Insecurity was born into the world. Since then many professing Christians have chosen to reject, disbelieve, and ignore God's Word and replace it with their own fevered fantasy. The moral of the story: we know what the Bible means by what it says. If you twist it long enough and hard enough you can falsely get it to mean whatever you want it to. Until God does to false prophets what they have done to His word. Just as they have taken away from the words of His Book, so He will swiftly take them away to destruction. |
||||||
2 | Is 'once saved always saved correct? | John 6:37 | Brian.g | 31447 | ||
Kalos I wish to congratulate you for an excellent post. At first glance, it sounds as if you agree with the old Catholic Church guidelines that people should not read the Bible because it would cause to much confusion. I realize that's not what you mean. But, to me, it reinforces the need for a teaching authority within each denomination that formally states - this is what something means by our denominations standards - period - trust us, we have diligently researched the topic in question and this is what our denomination interprets that topic to mean. For us Catholics, we have the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. And its role is just that - to teach Catholics what the catholic faith believes. I think every denomination can benefit by such a teaching authority. Brian |
||||||
3 | Is 'once saved always saved correct? | John 6:37 | Hank | 31461 | ||
Brian, I tend to agree with you about a 'teaching authority.' (Do you feel uncomfortable when a Southern Baptist agrees with a Roman Catholic? :-) Back to the teaching authority: I've taught church school classes, led seminars, presided over discussion groups and the like for many years, and you have my word for it: church members, many if not most of them, have no more idea than a goose in Wonderland what the church they claim to belong to believes, or what they believe, or even what they are "supposed" to believe or are "required" to believe. Church pews are filled with theological dunces and it's a shameful and disgraceful situation. People appear on this forum who claim to be Christian church-goers and don't know Adam from Zerubbabel. Whatever became of education? And I'm not talking about in the public schools. I'm talking about in the church. --Hank | ||||||
4 | Is 'once saved always saved correct? | John 6:37 | LampLight | 31471 | ||
Hank: I don't know how to say this, so I will come right out and say it. You are being very rude and missing the whole point here. God Loves Dunces TOO!! There is only one Great Teacher and that was Christ himself. I don't care how many seimars you have taught, etc, etc, if you don't have it in your heart, you don't have it at all......I am not intending to offend anyone here, but you have offended me twice now and I am new to this forum, please refrain at least from me. | ||||||
5 | Is 'once saved always saved correct? | John 6:37 | Hank | 31505 | ||
Dear LampLight: You say that I have offended you twice. On one post you made the statement that the Bible is not literal. I challenged your statement. Did that offend you? On another post, you said that Jesus descended into heaven and I reponded that the Bible says he ascended (went up). Did that offend you? You said that I was being rude and missing the point (whatever it was) when I posted a note in response to someone other than you that there are professing Christians sitting in pews who are theological dunces. You say (without scriptural foundation) that God loves dunces. God says this: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth." (2 Tim. 2:15). .... And also: "...always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you..." (1 Pet.3:15). I ask you, is it rude to point out that a person who professes to be a Christian and yet has so little regard for the word of God that he doesn't bother to read and study it and remains a "theological dunce" -- is this being rude, or is it being honest in calling a spade a spade? Or do we need more people who are willing to gloss over the fact that many of our churches are filled with people who know precious little about Scripture? One final comment: I have taught for years. I taught in the wake of the death of a son. I taught after two heart attacks. And yet you tell me that if I don't have it in my heart, I don't have it at all. Are you being a bit judgmental or am I just being presumptive? --Hank | ||||||