Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

If You Commit Suicide, Can You Go To Heaven ?

thessalonian said:
So we can sin some sins and be alright, but we have to subscribe to someone's notion of what sins those are that Jesus died for that doesn't require confession, and what sins Jesus did not die for that are not confessed such as suicide.

You pose questions without understanding the many things I have told you along the way. Or do you simply ignore what I have said. No sin is alright and all sin is forgiven by the grace of Christ. No, it is not someone's notion of what is sin. You think they cause me conundrums when they do not. Are you ever going to answer the conundrums that are obvios in your framework that I have asked?

A well formed conscience guided by the Holy Spirit convicts a man of his sins, for God's laws are written on his heart. As I have said, partaking in the Eucharist, which IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST AND IS DIRECTLY TIED TO HIS DEATH ON THE CROSS FOR THE FORIGENESS OF SINS forgives venial sin (i.e. stealing a cookie). Sins of a grave and willful nature need to be confessed.

I didn't really think that you would answer the scripture verses. Thanks anyway.

The Eucharist is one of the reasons why RCs do not understand the grace of God in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, a one time, once for all, it is finished act of grace. The RC transubstantiation is a myth to hold you all in the guise of crucifying Jesus Christ again, and again, and again.
 
I beleive I answered above about how one can break the seal of the Holy Spirit through his free will. God is not a rapist and does not overpower us with grace such that we cannot choose to go against him. Noone else can break the seal but we can reject God. That is exactly what the passages I have quoted above clearly indicate. We can neglect our salvation as Paul proclaims. He also says in 1 Cor 15:2 that we will be "saved IFFFFFF" (dang conditional) we hold fast to the word, unless we have believed in vien. Conditionals mean it is not guaranteed. That it takes effort on our part and obedience. Of course you will accuse me of saying that we have a part in our salvation again. To which I counter with one of my favorite verses quoted above, eph 3:20-21. A verse you don't seem to think much about it seems.
 
The RC transubstantiation is a myth to hold you all in the guise of crucifying Jesus Christ again, and again, and again.

More lies and distortions of the Catholic faith. Do you types ever tire of bearing false witness and making up your own brand of Catholicism so that you can knock straw men over. The Eucharist is the grace of Christ brought forward and applied to our lives. He died to earn that grace but the salve must be placed on the wound. Your rending once again contradicts your theology in which you say you are born again at some instant in your life. Why were you not born again 2000 years ago if "it is finished" means what you say it does? The answer is simply. You don't really hold true to your own theology and know inside that the grace must be brought forward to that day of redemption when a man repents and puts his trust in the Lord walking the path of salvation, which includes obedience to Christ's command. "if you love me keep my commands". "Not everyone who says Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but those who DO the will of my Father". This is the path of salvation and it can only happen when grace is applied to our lives daily.

With regard to the verses I posted again. And as for 1 Cor 5 you totally twist the meaning of that one. The man was fallen from grace and Paul wished him to be restored. It is you that does not answer verses it seems. But you point the finger at me of course. I have most certainly answered more than you.
 
hmm, I just thought of this, It might be on page 3 or 4 but i didnt see it.

What if you commit suicide to better humanity?

You have to test a vaccine that may be deadly, to help stop aids?

You can either dive and push the man with the bomb off the cliff, takign yourself over too, or you can stand with the children and get blasted.

after all, Did Jesus not commit Suicide? He knew what he was doing was against the Roman law, and that he would be killed for it, yet he did it anyways.
 
peace4all said:
hmm, I just thought of this, It might be on page 3 or 4 but i didnt see it.

What if you commit suicide to better humanity?

You have to test a vaccine that may be deadly, to help stop aids?

You can either dive and push the man with the bomb off the cliff, takign yourself over too, or you can stand with the children and get blasted.

after all, Did Jesus not commit Suicide? He knew what he was doing was against the Roman law, and that he would be killed for it, yet he did it anyways.

What roman law did Jesus break? My recollection is that this was a false accusation of the Jews.
 
You might say he commited mass murder too though. Put to death the old man and created a new creature through His ressurection unto Eternal Life.
Suicide?
Didn't He know He would be resurrected? Of course. He knew no sin. He fulfilled the Law.
So, is it suicide if you know you'll be resurrected?
 
thess..

I have found this site to be particularly helpful in this situation

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mjesuskill.html

It gives a good bit of insight in the thought behind the books, and how and why each account is slightly diffrent.

and from a diffrent site

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... qanda.html

QUESTION 5: Why was Jesus arrested?
ANSWER: It is quite clear Jesus was arrested for something he did at the Temple in Jerusalem during the Passover festival. Scholars' guesses as to the something Jesus did at the Temple have included participating in an armed rebellion, engaging in a symbolic protest of commercialism, predicting the end of the Temple, teaching revolutionary ideas, and proclaiming himself to be the Messiah.

The gospel accounts of the Bible describe Jesus attacking money-changers and pigeon-sellers on the Temple grounds in an apparent protest of the commercialism that had come to surround Temple worship. Matthew reports Jesus complaining, "My house shall be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a den of robbers." Scholars have raised questions about this account. Bart Ehrman, for example, points out that Jesus never criticized the institution's sacrificial practices and that animal-selling and money-changing would be necessary to support the practices. Jews often made very long trips--from Egypt and elsewhere--to the Temple and could hardly be expected to "load a lamb on his shoulders and start walking, especially since the sacrificial animals had to be completely free from injury and blemish." Animals clearly needed to be provided in the vicinity of the Temple. Moreover, the money-changing was to allow the conversion of coins bearing images of the emperor into Tyrian silver coins, the only form of coin acceptable for donations. Jesus, contends Ehrman, would surely find this "all to the good." Also, any large-scale disturbance of the sort reported in the gospel accounts would almost certainly have brought an immediate response from--and probable arrest by--armed Temple police.

Ehrman offers the interesting theory that Jesus "as a country fellow from rural Galilee who preached against wealth and power" may have found the opulence of the Temple** so upsetting that "the place made his blood boil on principle." The peasant revolutionary may have responded with some sort of a small-scale symbolic protest and a prediction amount the ultimate downfall of the Temple. If anyone were to speak out--especially in the Temple during the Passover festival-- against the corruption and opulence of the Temple, and begin to draw a crowd of supporters, it certainly would have caught the attention of religious authorities. Caiaphas, the high priest of the Temple, might well have been expected to respond with an order to Temple police to track down and arrest the troublemaker.

**The Temple was one of the grandest buildings of its time. It covered an area the size twenty-five football fields, was as high as a ten-story building. According to one source, it took 200 men just to close the Temple's immense gates each evening. The Temple was constructed of the best materials available. Major portions of it were overlaid with gold. The Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 C.E.

I have never really been a fan of the "jews did it!" blame game, because it seemed that it was always just a way to place blame, where blame was not needed to be placed. Everyone loves a scapegoat, and it is a great way to get peopel on your side.
 
Sorry. Not much help. I was hoping for some scripture that said that he violated a roman law. You have none. Only speculations of those who obvuscate the scriptures. I'm not in to the blame game either. But that does not force me to deny them as you have. Jesus violated no law. He was an innocent man who suffered for all humanity. We all put him there by our sins. The Jewish leaders had Jesus put to death. The Roman leaders and army of the time had their part in it, but so does all of mankind. That's just the facts, no matter how you want to deny that the Jews and Romans or YOU YOURSELF had any part in it.
 
thessalonian said:
jgredline said:
thessalonian said:
In the RCC or CC they don't hold this view and its ok.

Hold what view?

Thess
If I am not mistaken and I could be, Does not the CC teach that if you commit Scuicide the person goes to hell because there was no time to repent?

The Catholic Church teaches that if one committs suicide willfully and knowingly and dies immediately, having not even an instant to repent, they are in the fires of hell. This is not the same as what you have said. We do not know if they had no time to repent. We do not know if they had full knowledge of the seriousness of their actions or if it was a full act of will and so we make no final judgement on the matter. It is very grave but Christ alone knows the eternal outcome. We hope and pray that he was merciful and gave the grace to eternal salvation. My first post in this thread on pg. 1 I believe, gives further details.

Thess
What you said above is what I thought the CC or RC church taught and I believe it to be faulty teaching. It goes against Scripture. What the RC or CC church is teaching that if anybody commits any sin and does not have a chance to repent they will burn in hell. A sin is a sin afterall. I don't often disagree with your points of view but on this one I will debate to the end of time. When Christ said it was finished, he meant it was finished. Not I am almost finished or I have done my part now you do yours. No it was finished.

Hebrews 9:11 to Hebrews 10:18 (This is one of those cases where the chapter break was placed in the wrong spot.)
11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come,2 then through the greater and more perfect tent (inot made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13 For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with othe blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies3 for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works uto serve the living God.
15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that wthose who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.†21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 or was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared monce for all nat the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

Christ’s Sacrifice Once for All

For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sin? 3 But yin these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,
“ Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body have you prepared for me;
6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’ â€Â
8 When he said above, “You have neither desired or taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings†(these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.†He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. 10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest stands hdaily at his service, ioffering repeatedly the same sacrifices, jwhich can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ2 had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he ksat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time luntil his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering mhe has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
16 “ This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,â€Â
17 then he adds,
“ I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.â€Â
18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Heb 9:11-10:18). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.


This part of scripture is pretty self explanitory.

When Christ went to the Cross he was a suffeciant Sacrifice once and for all and he remembers our sins no more.
There is only one sin thats unforgivable and virtually impossible to commit.
That sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I should be at work / working right now but I can't let this go. Here will break it down a little more.

The above scripture was taken using the ESV for a litteral easy to read translation and the commentary below I used the NKJV to get a better feel for what the writer of Hebrews was saying.

9:12 Unlike the sacrifice of the high priest, who repeatedly entered the Most Holy Place with blood once a year, Jesus’ sacrifice was complete and did not need to be repeated. The work of atonement is done; it cannot be undone.

9:14 The blood of Christ is clearly the price involved in the atonement. The atonement of Christ is one of the themes of the Book of Hebrews and the pivotal doctrine of the entire Bible. The sacrifices of the O.T. were forerunners of this work of Christ. The incarnation of Jesus was for the purpose of His suffering death in behalf of mankind. Atonement is a multifaceted concept which includes reconciliationâ€â€the restoration of man to fellowship with God (Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:19,); propitiationâ€â€the satisfying of the just demands of God’s holiness for the punishment of sin (Rom. 3:25,); and redemptionâ€â€the purchasing of the enslaved sinner to make him free (Col. 1:13, 14). The atonement of Christ made it possible for God to justify men and to be just in so doing (Rom. 3:26). No passage could be any more lucid than Lev. 17:11, which declares that “the life of the flesh is in the blood.†This life poured out in substitutionary sacrifice makes atonement for the soul. Nor is there any other possible approach to God. “Without shedding of blood there is no remission†(9:22). Christ’s death on Golgotha was substitutionary (in our place). It is the act of Christ which makes possible man’s forgiveness in that it satisfies the just and holy wrath of God.

9:15 The “Mediator†is the One who stands between men and God to bring them together.

9:16 Here the more restricted sense of “testament†as a “will†or a “covenant†is required. The testator had to die before the benefits of this covenant could be fully realized by those for whom they were intended. Again the objective necessity of the Lord’s death is affirmed.

9:19 “Goats†are not specifically mentioned in Ex. 24, but they could be used for burnt offerings (Lev. 1:10; 4:23). Neither is the phrase “water, scarlet wool, and hyssop†found in Exodus, but those items are used in the ceremony of the red heifer (Num. 19:6, 7, where the word “scarlet†appears without the word “woolâ€Â), which has already been mentioned in v. 13. Exodus does not tell about the sprinkling of the book itself, but it is implied.

9:21 Exodus 40:9 speaks of the anointing of the tabernacle, and everything in it, with oil but does not mention blood. Numbers 7:1 indicates, however, that Moses “anointed it and consecrated itâ€Â; this sanctification of the tabernacle would involve the sprinkling of blood.

9:26–28 Christ’s atonement conquered sin. Only one such atonement was necessary. The continuing significance of that one act of God in Christ may be observed in v. 28, in which the atonement is linked to the return of Christ, to consummating the salvation which was purchased on the cross.

10:2 The meaning is not that those under the Law had no forgiveness of any kind ( Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35) but rather that final cleansing was not possible. The consciousness of guilt was not removed. Only Christ provides that.

10:5–7 Psalm 40:6–8 is understood to be typological, referring to Christ’s incarnation. Part of the psalm (i.e., v. 12) would not apply to Christ because it speaks of the psalmist’s sins.

10:5 Instead of “a body You have prepared for Me,†the Hebrew text of Ps. 40:6 reads “My ears You have opened.†The LXX reads “a body You prepared for Me,†which paraphrases the Hebrew. God forms the ears of the psalmist for the purpose of hearing and responding. The LXX understands that the body is fashioned to hear and to do the will of God.

10:12 “Forever†in the Greek text could be understood as either one sacrifice for sins forever (vv. 10, 14; 7:27; 9:12, 25–28) or that He forever sat down, His “sitting†being contrasted with the “standing†of the Levitical priests (v. 11), thus indicating the completion of the atonement.

10:18 The blood of sacrificial animals effected a temporary atonement, but the sacrificial system in itself could not take away sin and its consequent debt (which required forgiveness), slavery (which called for redemption), or alienation (which demanded reconciliation). Christ through His death made the perfect atonement with everlasting efficacy. The key contrast is between “remission†(aphesis, Gk.) and “offering†(prosphora, Gk.). The O.T. sacrifices were merely an “offering,†a divinely appointed temporary means to bring man to God; Christ’s redemptive work, “remission,†was the perfect completion of atonement.

If Jesus who is GOD is your lord and saviour then your sins have been dealt with. A universalist believes that all roads lead to heaven. There is only one way and as Jesus said. I am the way the truth and the life.

I have just spent one and a half hour on this when I should be working but I could not sit back while people try and steal Jesus Gloria by saying his work on the cross was not sufficiant. I suggest that if you feel this way you need to get an understanding of the cross and grace. I thank God all mighty Jesus Christ that I was born on this side of the cross under Grace and not under the Law.

Further more to say that unless you ask for forgiveness of sin before you die means your doomed for all eternity is simply bad theology.
Suppose Billy Grahm was hit by a BUS and he said oh s_ _ _ and died instantly, would this mean Billy Grahm went to hell? Lets be real people.
I have great respect for most of the RCC or CC but this theology very much sounds like them and its flat wrong. I don't want to offend my CC brothers and sisters but Jesus who is GOD , his glory is more important to me than offending some people.


When Jesus went to the Cross he said '' it is finished''

Jg
 
Jgred,

Thess
What you said above is what I thought the CC or RC church taught and I believe it to be faulty teaching. It goes against Scripture. What the RC or CC church is teaching that if anybody commits any sin and does not have a chance to repent they will burn in hell. A sin is a sin afterall. I don't often disagree with your points of view but on this one I will debate to the end of time. When Christ said it was finished, he meant it was finished. Not I am almost finished or I have done my part now you do yours. No it was finished.


You are guilty of mixing your theology with mine (a sin is a sin) and then saying that what I believe is faulty and goes against scripture. John tells us in his letters that some sins are mortal. Stealing a cookie or a penny is not the same as robbing a bank or going on a shooting spree in a shopping mall. This should be obvious.

As I asked solo before and he failed to answer. Does the born again Christian who goes on a shooting spree still go to heaven? Oh, you say a born again Christian would never committ such a heinous act. Well then if sin is sin do born again Christians steal cookies. Do you say "oh a born again Christian would never committ such a heinous act?". No you don't. "Oh *** t" for Billy Graham is no big deal it seems. In all of this you implicitly show that you do not deep down agree that sin is sin, ie. all sins are equal.

If it is finished then why doesn't everyone get saved. The action of getting "born again" is just as problematic for your definition. At some point in the "born again" christians life they become "born again". Many evangelicals even remember the date they say they were "born again". That is the date they got saved. Now why did they have to get "born again"? Wasn't it finished 2000 years ago?
 
What the RC or CC church is teaching that if anybody commits any sin and does not have a chance to repent they will burn in hell.

By the way this is not what I said. For a sin to damn one to hell it must be a grave matter (i.e. on the level of one of the ten commandments, murder for instance), the sinner must know of the gravity of it, and he must willfully committ the sin. If any one of those three conditions is not met, it will not result in eternal hellfire. To help you further understand, one person may drink a class of clear fluid he thinks is water. It in reality is poison. He has committed a grave matter, i.e. the results are his death. He has no knowledge of the gravity however, and certainly has no will to die. He is not damned. Another may drink the poison with a gun to his head. He has committed a grave matter, he knows that it is grave, but he has no will to do it. The culpability may be mitigated and we leave the judgement to God. Or the person may be mentally ill and so we do not judge the matter. Finally of course there is the one who drinks the poison willingly and knowingly. These are of course damned. Sin is of the heart, which involves the action, knowledge, and will.
 
thessalonian said:
I beleive I answered above about how one can break the seal of the Holy Spirit through his free will. God is not a rapist and does not overpower us with grace such that we cannot choose to go against him. Noone else can break the seal but we can reject God. That is exactly what the passages I have quoted above clearly indicate. We can neglect our salvation as Paul proclaims. He also says in 1 Cor 15:2 that we will be "saved IFFFFFF" (dang conditional) we hold fast to the word, unless we have believed in vien. Conditionals mean it is not guaranteed. That it takes effort on our part and obedience. Of course you will accuse me of saying that we have a part in our salvation again. To which I counter with one of my favorite verses quoted above, eph 3:20-21. A verse you don't seem to think much about it seems.


Thess
Please don't take it like I am picking on you, because I am not. I am mearly challenging your interpretation of what paul was saying.
First lets take a look at the contex of this part of his letter.

This is the great resurrection chapter. Some false teachers had entered the church at Corinth, denying the possibility of bodily resurrection. They did not deny the fact of life after death, but probably suggested that we would simply be spirit beings and not have literal bodies. The apostle here gives his classic answer to these denials.

1 cor 15:1-2
15:1, 2 Paul reminds them of the good news which he had preached to them, which they had received, and in which they now stood. This was not a new doctrine for the Corinthians, but it was necessary that they should be reminded of it at this critical time. It was this gospel by which the Corinthians had been saved. Then Paul adds the words if you hold fast that word which I preached to youâ€â€unless you believed in vain. It was by the gospel of the resurrection that they had been savedâ€â€unless, of course, there was no such thing as resurrection, in which case they could not have been saved at all. The if in this passage does not express any doubt as to their salvation, nor does it teach that they were saved by holding fast. Rather, Paul is simply stating that if there is no such thing as resurrection, then they weren’t saved at all. In other words, those who denied bodily resurrection were launching a frontal attack on the whole truth of the gospel. To Paul, the resurrection was fundamental. Without it there was no Christianity. Thus this verse is a challenge to the Corinthians to hold fast the gospel which they had received in the face of the attacks which were currently being made against it. In other words the if is to non beleivers.


Eph 3:20-21 I too love Pauls Doxology
 
Thess
Please don't take it like I am picking on you, because I am not. I am mearly challenging your interpretation of what paul was saying.

Not at all. I enjoy a good debate when it is in a respectful manner.

More in a bit.
 
thessalonian said:
Jgred,

Thess
What you said above is what I thought the CC or RC church taught and I believe it to be faulty teaching. It goes against Scripture. What the RC or CC church is teaching that if anybody commits any sin and does not have a chance to repent they will burn in hell. A sin is a sin afterall. I don't often disagree with your points of view but on this one I will debate to the end of time. When Christ said it was finished, he meant it was finished. Not I am almost finished or I have done my part now you do yours. No it was finished.


[quote:d22f5]You are guilty of mixing your theology with mine (a sin is a sin) and then saying that what I believe is faulty and goes against scripture. John tells us in his letters that some sins are mortal. Stealing a cookie or a penny is not the same as robbing a bank or going on a shooting spree in a shopping mall. This should be obvious.

In Gods eyes a sin is a sin. Only the sin of blasphemy against the holy spirit is on a differant level because it can't be forgiven.
In our eyes diffrerant sins do carry differant consequences. If I kill someone I go to jail. If I still a fruit, I may get a slap in the hand. That is what John is refering too. In Gods eyes a sin is a sin. All you need to do is read and study Romans 1:18-32 I don't have time to break it down at this moment, but will be more than happy if you like.


As I asked solo before and he failed to answer. Does the born again Christian who goes on a shooting spree still go to heaven? Oh, you say a born again Christian would never committ such a heinous act. Well then if sin is sin do born again Christians steal cookies. Do you say "oh a born again Christian would never committ such a heinous act?". No you don't. "Oh sh_t" for Billy Graham is no big deal it seems. In all of this you implicitly show that you do not deep down agree that sin is sin, ie. all sins are equal.

Thess
If a born again Christian commits those Chrimes you spoke about, yes this person will go to heaven. If I were to go on a shooting spree and kill hunderds of people there is no dought in my mind I would go to heaven.
Now the question would need to be asked. First what was the cause of me going on this shooting spree. Lets say for example I got into a bad car accident and was on life support. I made but now had brain damage. My mind was not all there and one day I snapped and went and killed people. by your theology I lost my salvation. This would make God a hypocrite since he gave me a free gift and now he is taking it back. No I don't think so. Gods grace and the cross is something that none of us can begin to understand. In truth a born again christian in his right mind would not commit such a sin and really try to abstain from all sin.
Again I suggets a Study in Romans 1


If it is finished then why doesn't everyone get saved. The action of getting "born again" is just as problematic for your definition. At some point in the "born again" christians life they become "born again". Many evangelicals even remember the date they say they were "born again". That is the date they got saved. Now why did they have to get "born again"? Wasn't it finished 2000 years ago?
[/quote:d22f5]

With your last question we get into the whole predestination debate. Perhaps this would be a good thread to start. For now I will give you my short two cents worth.
The doctrine of election raises serious problems in the human mind, so we must consider more fully what the Bible does (and does not) teach on this subject.
First, it teaches that God does choose men to salvation (2 Thess. 2:13). It addresses believers as those who are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God†(1 Pet. 1:2). It teaches that people can know whether they are elect by their response to the gospel: those who hear and believe it are elect (1 Thess. 1:4–7).
On the other hand, the Bible never teaches that God chooses men to be lost. The fact that He chooses some to be saved does not imply that He arbitrarily condemns all the rest. He never condemns men who deserve to be saved (there are none), but He does save some who ought to be condemned. When Paul describes the elect, he speaks of them as “vessels of mercy which He had prepared beforehand for glory†(Rom. 9:23); but when he turns to the lost, he simply says, “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction†(Rom. 9:22). God prepares vessels of mercy to glory, but He does not prepare men for destruction: they do this for themselves by their own unbelief.
The doctrine of election lets God be God. He is sovereign, that is, He can do as He pleases, although He never pleases to do anything unjust. If left alone, all men would be lost. Does God have the right to show mercy to some?
But there is another side to the story. The same Bible that teaches sovereign election also teaches human responsibility. No one can use the doctrine of election as an excuse for not being saved. God makes a bona fide offer of salvation to all people everywhere (John 3:16; 3:36; 5:24; Rom. 10:9, 13). Anyone can be saved by repenting of his sins and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, if a person is lost, it is because he chooses to be lost, not because God desires it.
The fact is that the same Bible teaches election and free salvation to all who will receive it. Both doctrines are found in a single verse: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out†(John 6:37). The first half of the verse speaks of God’s sovereign choice; the last half extends the offer of mercy to all.
This poses a difficulty for the human mind. How can God choose some and yet offer salvation freely to all men? Frankly, this is a mystery. But the mystery is on our side, not on God’s. The best policy for us is to believe both doctrines because the Bible teaches both. The truth is not found somewhere between election and man’s free will, but in both extremes. I hope this
makes sense to you. I have looked at this for years and this is what work s for me. Please excuse the Type 'os as I am in a hurry and normally I do this in word. I look forward to your response. Jg


 
If I were to go on a shooting spree and kill hunderds of people there is no dought in my mind I would go to heaven


:smt107 :crazyeyes: :smt104 :o

Wow. That's all I have to say.
 
thessalonian said:
If I were to go on a shooting spree and kill hunderds of people there is no dought in my mind I would go to heaven


:smt107 :crazyeyes: :smt104 :o

Wow. That's all I have to say.

Thess
If your going to quote me, please don't take me out of contex. Place my entire quote with explantion. This is the mistake you make with 1 cor 15:2
You took that out of contex.
 
jgredline said:
thessalonian said:
If I were to go on a shooting spree and kill hunderds of people there is no dought in my mind I would go to heaven


:smt107 :crazyeyes: :smt104 :o

Wow. That's all I have to say.

Thess
If your going to quote me, please don't take me out of contex. Place my entire quote with explantion. This is the mistake you make with 1 cor 15:2
You took that out of contex.

Those who wish to see the full context can see your post above. I see no reason to quote the whole obsurdity. You force the context of 1 Cor 15:2 superimposing your OSAS theology over everything in the Bible without proving it to be true first. It is a tradition, a man made one, and a false one. It becomes the lense through which you look at the Bible and it gives you a distorted image. The prescription is not correct. That's a fact. I will say more later.
 
thessalonian said:
jgredline said:
thessalonian said:
If I were to go on a shooting spree and kill hunderds of people there is no dought in my mind I would go to heaven


:smt107 :crazyeyes: :smt104 :o

Wow. That's all I have to say.

Thess
If your going to quote me, please don't take me out of contex. Place my entire quote with explanation. This is the mistake you make with 1 cor 15:2
You took that out of contex.

Those who wish to see the full context can see your post above. I see no reason to quote the whole obsurdity. You force the context of 1 Cor 15:2 superimposing your OSAS theology over everything in the Bible without proving it to be true first. It is a tradition, a man made one, and a false one. It becomes the lense through which you look at the Bible and it gives you a distorted image. The prescription is not correct. That's a fact. I will say more later.

Thess
I guess your just simply not used to being challenged.
I don't know what you mean by OSAS theology but If its different than what you provide, its got to be better. You say I forced the contex of 1 cor 15:2. I suggest you study the contex of that Letter and not a single verse.
I had recommended the 1 chapter of Romans but in reading your responses you really need to read and study the entire book of Romans.
I suggest a class in hermeneutics. That would be a great help to your understanding of the scriptures. I started to read some of your other post and it seems you have been challenged allot and when you do you run or take it as your being attacked.
Until you come to understand what the Cross means and what radical Grace is your living in bondage. Unfortunately most of the CC and RC church doctrines are not of God but of man and you have fallen prey to them.

I thank God my mom had precense of mine to take me out of the cc when I was about 8 and send me to the church of the Nazarene. I thank God i did not get brain washed.

jg
 
Those who wish to see the full context can see your post above. I see no reason to quote the whole obsurdity.
Bravo!

We should make that a rule. Oh wait, it is a rule... sort of.

9 - Please keep posts down to a respectable length and provide source and/or links for your info.

8-)
 
thess, Using scripture as the only proof of jesus, and why he was killed, is only going to be the most favorable story to christianity.

Using other evidence, and annalysis of comparison of scripture, and the ways of that time, would give you an unbiased answer.

If fact goes against something the bible says, are you still to believe what the bible says, even if you can see it with your own eyes? Or will you choose to blind yourself, and blame satan?

In the eyes of the high council, Jesus broke the law by violating sabbath, and then proclaiming he was teh son of god, which since they did not see him as so, was a violation of the law. also (John 15:16-18)

I just, don't understand how you can use solely the bible to cooberate christianity. Its liek usign solely the constitution and declaration of independence, to give the entire history of the US..

It doesn't work when there are other things in play.
 
Back
Top