Is repentance needed for salvation?

[Carry_Your_Name]

Remember, Matthew 25:1-13 offers an analogy, not a literal event. Is the Church, are all the members of it, actually female? There aren't any males waiting with lamps for the bridegroom's appearance, after all... Is every Christian to go about carrying a first-century lamp full of oil? Will Jesus reject any who don't have one full of oil? Who is the seller of oil? Where do we find him?

You serious, sir? Don't trolling with me, you're better than that. Later in the same chapter Jesus talked about the judgement of nations based on their treatment of "my brethrens" (25:40), where's the female in that one? At least this "analogy" teaches us one lesson, that we ought to seek Jesus continously, otherwise there won't be enough oil to maintain the flame, and if you realize that and rush to buy oil when he's about to return, that would be too late. It's not just this "analogy", the same warning is given to the loveless church in Revelation as well:

Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place. (Rev. 2:5)

I'm not sure what you're point is in quoting this passage. Are you offering it in contradiction to the ones I cited?

When did Jesus speak the things in the passage above? Before or after Calvary?

In what covenantal context did he speak about the "Law and the prophets"? Old or New?

To whom was he speaking? Jews under the Old Testament Covenant, or born-again believers?

Did Jesus perfectly fulfill God's Law? Yes, he did. What did this mean for Jews under the Old Covenant whose ancestors had demonstrated for millennia that they could not properly keep the Mosaic Law?

I don't know which receiving end you put yourself in, but as an objective fact, last time I checked, neither heaven nor earth has passed away.

??? This hardly establishes what I asserted - correctly - was absent from Scripture. Again, nowhere does any writer of the NT speak of "the seven deadly sins." None of the writers ever categorize sins in this way. That you've managed to squeeze commands of God into this "deadly sins" framework doesn't at all oblige anyone else to do the same. And, again, no sin is more deadly than any other, in God's economy of things. Every sin, "big" or "small," required a blood sacrifice. Every sin is worthy of eternal hell.

The Scripture is of both OT and NT, you can't understand the NT without first reading the OT. I've told you that the "seven deadly sins" are merely a substitute for the law to expose sins and the nature of sins. It seems that you're just like every other pastor with a low opinion on the OT laws in the Torah, that Jesus's fulfilment of the law means rendering the law obsolete instead of perfect demonstration of abiding the law.

Again, this is not me focusing on sins instead of Christ, this is just a friendly reminder from one brother in Christ to another, that these days same word could bear very different meanings to different people, you have to make sure you and your listener are on the same page, that you're really preaching to them and not yourself.

??? I don't think this at all. No centralized human institution, governed by fallible men, prone to terrible corruption, as the R. C. church has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be, can be invested by God with His supreme authority, standing above His word, even. As the apostle Paul wrote, the Bible is entirely sufficient to guide believers in all matters of Christian doctrine and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Hebrews 4:12; Psalms 119; 1 Peter 2:2).

It's not just the Roman Catholic church, decentralized protestant churches are not doing any better. If you had really confronted those apostate leaders, you wouldn't play dumb and mock me with these irritating triple question marks, you know what I mean. I don't condemn them as "human institutions governed by fallible men, prone to terrible corruption," I feel sad about their fall from grace, I feel betrayed when I hear woke propaganda from the pulpit in the house of worship, it breaks my heart.

Not so. The earliest Christian believers had access to the Tanakh and very early on the letters of the apostles were distributed among the first Christian churches, which we read about in Acts. In fact, there was likely quite a forest of such letters passed around among the churches, copied and copied again, slowly, over time, coalescing into a select few letters that the earliest believers settled upon as the canon of the NT.

Did every one of them have access to those scrolls? Was every one of them able to read and copy? Faith comes by hearing (Rom. 10:17), not just reading.

??? You've debated with the members of the Early Church? Interesting...

No, I've debated with Catholics who lectured on me about the origin of the bible.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Those who have "put on Christ" (Romans 13:14; Galatians 3:26-29) and are thus clothed in his perfect righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Corinthians 1:30), have a righteousness that far, far, far exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees. These are the "born-again" (John 3:3-8), who have become "new creatures in Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:17), the righteousness of Christ imputed to them (Romans 4:21-23) and have thus become acceptable to God (Ephesians 1:6) in a way no Pharisee ever was.

Again, WHICH Christ? Put on WHICH Christ? In WHOSE perfect righteousness? In fact, the scribes and pharisees sought Christ, they sought diligently, but they sought a false Christ, they sought a military general and a political leader to liberate them from the Romans, they didn't read Is. 53, they didn't understand the TWO comings, and even Jesus's own disciples didn't understand it, they'd been educated by the pharisees since they were kids, they didn't get it until they were baptized in the Holy Spirit. There's nothing new under the sun, I've seen the same misconception being repeated today.

No, the answer is a real, heart-level transformation worked by the Holy Spirit in the repentant sinner. No worldview can serve as surrogate for the Spirit's life and work in the born-again person.

This answer doesn't explain WHO we are, What is wrong, and WHY we need this transformation.

With the Divine Guide, who is the Holy Spirit, there is no getting lost in God's word.

Yes there is. If you really mean it, then read from Gen. 1:1, follow the Holy Spirit to wherever it leads, receive sound teaching and instructions from whatever sources presented to you, including seemingly "secular" ones.

Just to be clear: I'm not thinking of you in an adversarial way. Rather, I'm just offering thoughts in response to your comments, throwing God's truth into the "pot" of conversation and letting the results be what they are. I haven't any particular agenda I'm pursuing in our back-and-forth, nor any interest in "winning" a debate, so I hope you won't feel assailed by my posts.

I have no interest at winning any piss contest either, I'm just truthfully and honestly reporting to you some real challenges we're facing today, ignoring them doesn't make them go away. And believe it or not, I'm not here at this forum to preach my own theologies, I'm here to chat with you guys for a better and deeper understanding.

 

[Tenchi]

You serious, sir? Don't trolling with me, you're better than that. Later in the same chapter Jesus talked about the judgement of nations based on their treatment of "my brethrens" (25:40), where's the female in that one? At least this "analogy" teaches us one lesson, that we ought to seek Jesus continously, otherwise there won't be enough oil to maintain the flame, and if you realize that and rush to buy oil when he's about to return, that would be too late.

No, I'm not trolling you; I'm pointing out how easy it is to over-extend the analogy, making it address things which it was never intended to address. Jesus's sole point in the analogy of the Ten Virgins was, as he said, to warn of the sudden coming of the Bridegroom and to urge constant preparedness for his arrival.

I don't know which receiving end you put yourself in, but as an objective fact, last time I checked, neither heaven nor earth has passed away.

This entirely misses my point. On purpose, maybe?

The Scripture is of both OT and NT, you can't understand the NT without first reading the OT. I've told you that the "seven deadly sins" are merely a substitute for the law to expose sins and the nature of sins. It seems that you're just like every other pastor with a low opinion on the OT laws in the Torah, that Jesus's fulfilment of the law means rendering the law obsolete instead of perfect demonstration of abiding the law.

I don't what any of this means...

Yes, the OT and NT work in tandem, the former foreshadowing/prefiguring the latter.

The "seven deadly sins" stuff doesn't help clarify the matter of sin, as far as I'm concerned. Instead, it appears to create a false, unbiblical hierarchy among sins.

As far as the OT laws of separation and ceremony are concerned, I already referred you in an earlier post to several passages in the NT that explain the effect New Covenant, established in and through Christ, upon our observance of them.

See: Hebrews 9-10:21, Galatians 3, Romans 7:4-6.

Again, this is not me focusing on sins instead of Christ, this is just a friendly reminder from one brother in Christ to another, that these days same word could bear very different meanings to different people, you have to make sure you and your listener are on the same page, that you're really preaching to them and not yourself.

??? I think you might want to heed your own advice, here...

It's not just the Roman Catholic church, decentralized protestant churches are not doing any better.

This is the "tu quoque" fallacy. "You do it, too" is not a good argument in defense of bad behavior.

If you had really confronted those apostate leaders, you wouldn't play dumb and mock me with these irritating triple question marks, you know what I mean.

Oh, I've confronted wayward brethren in leadership all right.

??? Why do triple question marks irritate you?

I don't condemn them as "human institutions governed by fallible men, prone to terrible corruption," I feel sad about their fall from grace, I feel betrayed when I hear woke propaganda from the pulpit in the house of worship, it breaks my heart.

Uh huh.

Did every one of them have access to those scrolls? Was every one of them able to read and copy?

Many of them did. As I said, you can read about their distribution in Acts.

Again, WHICH Christ? Put on WHICH Christ? In WHOSE perfect righteousness?

??? There is only one Christ - the one revealed to us in the Bible.

This answer doesn't explain WHO we are, What is wrong, and WHY we need this transformation.

Did I say it did?

Yes there is.

No, there isn't. There is no understanding Scripture properly without the Holy Spirit's illumination. See my last post.

I have no interest at winning any piss contest either, I'm just truthfully and honestly reporting to you some real challenges we're facing today, ignoring them doesn't make them go away. And believe it or not, I'm not here at this forum to preach my own theologies, I'm here to chat with you guys for a better and deeper understanding.

You seem a bit too defensive to "chat."

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No, I'm not trolling you; I'm pointing out how easy it is to over-extend the analogy, making it address things which it was never intended to address. Jesus's sole point in the analogy of the Ten Virgins was, as he said, to warn of the sudden coming of the Bridegroom and to urge constant preparedness for his arrival.

If you understand that there needs a sense of urgency, preparedness should be constant, then why did you question about the oil - or lack thereof? All ten virgins had oil at beginning, it’s not like half of them were pagan infiltrators, alright? But apparently, only half of them were “constantly prepared”.

This entirely misses my point. On purpose, maybe?

You didn’t seem to have a point. You just threw a bunch of random verses at me.

The "seven deadly sins" stuff doesn't help clarify the matter of sin, as far as I'm concerned. Instead, it appears to create a false, unbiblical hierarchy among sins.

Then enlighten me, what was Lucifer’s sin? Why was he thrown out of heaven? What’s wrong with “you shall be like God”?

As far as the OT laws of separation and ceremony are concerned, I already referred you in an earlier post to several passages in the NT that explain the effect New Covenant, established in and through Christ, upon our observance of them.

Then tell me what’s wrong with the “hyper grace” teaching? That we can do anything we want, behave like the world behaves, just pray and give thanks to God, all will be forgiven? What’s wrong with moralistic therapeutic deism?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

??? I think you might want to heed your own advice, here...

No, this advice is for you. I'm keenly aware of those misconceptions, I know what people feel and what they have in mind when they hear about sin, salvation, sanctification, etc, I know how often and how easily those could be twisted into something else more acceptable and familiar to them, you don't.

Oh, I've confronted wayward brethren in leadership all right.

??? Why do triple question marks irritate you?

This is the "tu quoque" fallacy. "You do it, too" is not a good argument in defense of bad behavior.

But it's true, isn't it. I didn't make it up. Either you've really confronted those apostate leaders as they are "not doing any better", or you're bearing false witness.

Uh huh.

You think my judgment is being clouded by my emotions, don't you. Tell that to Lord Jesus who drove the merchants out of the temple, who wept over the religious leaders' rejection of him, who sweated bullets of blood when he prayed alone in the garden. Why didn't he just dismiss them as "human institutions governed by fallible men, prone to terrible corruption"? Why did he spend so much time to confront them, educate them and debate with them? How did he feel when he was betrayed by those he came to save and deserted by his own disciples?

Many of them did. As I said, you can read about their distribution in Acts.

I don't think a few Bereans could represent "most of them".

??? There is only one Christ - the one revealed to us in the Bible.

Then why should we go to church and not forsake gathering? Why should we partake in the Lord's holy communion? Why are we told to "taste and see that the Lord is good?" Why not just listen and read? You know, during the pandemic, most churches were shut down and streaming online, that left many parishoners with the impression of "solo christianity", that "me and my bible are enough", I don't need fellowship with anybody, all I need is fellowship with the Lord revealed to me in nothing else but the bible. How did that turn out?

Did I say it did?

Then why didn't? Believe it or not, people seek answers of those three big questions from the pulpit.

No, there isn't. There is no understanding Scripture properly without the Holy Spirit's illumination. See my last post.

Real illumination would answer those three big questions. "Heart-level transformation" doesn't sell without clarification of transformation from WHAT to WHAT. Some may get the wrong ideas and assume that you're endorsing transgender. Jesus didn't just preach "heart-level transformation" with empty words, he transformed people from sick to healthy, from simple to wise, from death to life. None of these is in your last post.

You seem a bit too defensive to "chat."

And you seem a bit too "preachy" and stuck.

 

[Tenchi]

If you understand that there needs a sense of urgency, preparedness should be constant, then why did you question about the oil - or lack thereof? All ten virgins had oil at beginning, it’s not like half of them were pagan infiltrators, alright? But apparently, only half of them were “constantly prepared”.

My only point about the parable was that Jesus explained very plainly what the purpose of it was:

Matthew 25:13
13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.

We ought not to make more of the parable than Jesus did. The lamps filled with oil, then, are simply figurative of being ready for the Bridegrooms return, nothing more.

You didn’t seem to have a point. You just threw a bunch of random verses at me.

I see. You've lost the context of our exchange. If you want to take it up again, just read back through our exchange.

Then enlighten me, what was Lucifer’s sin? Why was he thrown out of heaven? What’s wrong with “you shall be like God”?

Does God shape for us in His word a hierarchy of sin according to the Seven Deadly Sins framework? No. A proud look is as much a hateful abomination to Him as murder (Proverbs 6:16-19). Break any single link in the chain of God's commands and you break the entire chain (James 2:10). So, then, it creates an artificial strata of sins in peoples' minds, a strata not present in Scripture, to speak of Seven Deadly Sins. The impression given to me, at least, is that these seven sins are deadlier than all others, which they aren't. All sin is worthy of God's wrath and eternal punishment.

The pride of Satan was/is reflective of the selfishness that stands at the heart of all sin. In fact, every act of evil we perform is, at bottom, just an expression of self-centeredness. There is, then, no real hierarchy of sin, just the varied expression of the same thing.

Then tell me what’s wrong with the “hyper grace” teaching? That we can do anything we want, behave like the world behaves, just pray and give thanks to God, all will be forgiven? What’s wrong with moralistic therapeutic deism?

Antinomianism is nowhere taught in Scripture. Neither is MTD. And not only do they not appear in God's word, they actually contradict it. This is what is wrong with these things. Why do you ask?

No, this advice is for you. I'm keenly aware of those misconceptions, I know what people feel and what they have in mind when they hear about sin, salvation, sanctification, etc, I know how often and how easily those could be twisted into something else more acceptable and familiar to them, you don't.

None of this appears to be true in your remarks to me... You don't seem to have any idea, really, what I feel or have in mind in my comments to you. Instead, you seem prone to jumping to conclusions about what I'm thinking and writing.

But it's true, isn't it. I didn't make it up. Either you've really confronted those apostate leaders as they are "not doing any better", or you're bearing false witness.

What's true? That the "tu quoque" fallacy is a fallacy? Yes, it is.

You think my judgment is being clouded by my emotions, don't you.

I think you're a bit...defensive and, yes, also rather "emotional." Are your emotions clouding your judgment? Maybe. They can certainly do so, if one isn't careful.

Tell that to Lord Jesus who drove the merchants out of the temple, who wept over the religious leaders' rejection of him, who sweated bullets of blood when he prayed alone in the garden. Why didn't he just dismiss them as "human institutions governed by fallible men, prone to terrible corruption"? Why did he spend so much time to confront them, educate them and debate with them? How did he feel when he was betrayed by those he came to save and deserted by his own disciples?

None of this dissolves the fact that you can't become like Christ by focusing on sin. Yes, confront sin, call it what it is, but don't fixate on it, making it a sort of topical "hobby-horse" that you frequently ride. See Hebrews 12:1-2, Philippians 4:8 and 2 Corinthians 3:18.

I don't think a few Bereans could represent "most of them".

I wasn't thinking only of the Bereans...

Then why should we go to church and not forsake gathering? Why should we partake in the Lord's holy communion? Why are we told to "taste and see that the Lord is good?" Why not just listen and read?

Because what we read in God's word directs us into community with one another.

Then why didn't? Believe it or not, people seek answers of those three big questions from the pulpit.

Uh huh.

Real illumination would answer those three big questions. "Heart-level transformation" doesn't sell without clarification of transformation from WHAT to WHAT. Some may get the wrong ideas and assume that you're endorsing transgender. Jesus didn't just preach "heart-level transformation" with empty words, he transformed people from sick to healthy, from simple to wise, from death to life. None of these is in your last post.

??? I was speaking to the necessity of the Spirit's illumination, not to those things about which he enlightens our understanding...

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

My only point about the parable was that Jesus explained very plainly what the purpose of it was:

Matthew 25:13
13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.

We ought not to make more of the parable than Jesus did. The lamps filled with oil, then, are simply figurative of being ready for the Bridegrooms return, nothing more.

That's a limiting belief like a horse blinder that blocks you from digging deeper. The bible is a well of infinite wisdom too deep to fathom, your understanding ought to be evolving, everytime you read it you discover something new, that's why it's timeless. If there's "nothing more", than it wouldn't be God's words.

I see. You've lost the context of our exchange. If you want to take it up again, just read back through our exchange.

You're the one took my words out of context by spliting my post into small sentences so you can pick easy targets.

Does God shape for us in His word a hierarchy of sin according to the Seven Deadly Sins framework? No. A proud look is as much a hateful abomination to Him as murder (Proverbs 6:16-19). Break any single link in the chain of God's commands and you break the entire chain (James 2:10). So, then, it creates an artificial strata of sins in peoples' minds, a strata not present in Scripture, to speak of Seven Deadly Sins. The impression given to me, at least, is that these seven sins are deadlier than all others, which they aren't. All sin is worthy of God's wrath and eternal punishment.

There're no "others", all sins can be put into these seven intertwined categories, it's not an "an artificial strata" in people's minds. You know what's in people's minds? The society is evil, human institutions are corrupt, people around me are full of sins that are "ever pining", and there's no fix; if I could just escape from them, I'll build a new civilization from the scratch in the wilderness, then there will be no more sin. That was an early social experiment of communism. To their surprise, sins still existed, more aggregeious than they were in the "evil society" they left behind, that's where the seven deadly sins were identified and pinpointed. And don't put this on me, sir, I'm telling you real history, I didn't make this up.

The pride of Satan was/is reflective of the selfishness that stands at the heart of all sin. In fact, every act of evil we perform is, at bottom, just an expression of self-centeredness. There is, then, no real hierarchy of sin, just the varied expression of the same thing.

All sins stem from the sin of pride - "you shall be like God", that is THE original sin, there's no other sins before this one. It's not just "an expression of self-centeredness", it's the defining character of Satan, who "has sinned from the beginning" (1 Jn. 3:7).

Antinomianism is nowhere taught in Scripture. Neither is MTD. And not only do they not appear in God's word, they actually contradict it. This is what is wrong with these things. Why do you ask?

"Antinomianism" is a widespread heresy among protestant churches, and it is not me but apostel Paul who taught in Rom. 7:7 that law is NOT sin, without the law we wouldn't have known the biblical defition of sin.

None of this appears to be true in your remarks to me... You don't seem to have any idea, really, what I feel or have in mind in my comments to you. Instead, you seem prone to jumping to conclusions about what I'm thinking and writing.

No I don't, because it seems you're only preaching and lecturing, you're not being responsive to any real problem I'm informing you.

What's true? That the "tu quoque" fallacy is a fallacy? Yes, it is.

I ask you again, did you really confront any apostate leaders? If they are really doing better than the Roman Catholics, then you'd be bearing false witness about their disobedience to God; if they are not, then this is not a "tu quoque" fallacy because I was telling the truth.

None of this dissolves the fact that you can't become like Christ by focusing on sin. Yes, confront sin, call it what it is, but don't fixate on it, making it a sort of topical "hobby-horse" that you frequently ride. See Hebrews 12:1-2, Philippians 4:8 and 2 Corinthians 3:18.

You think I like focusing on sin? You think I enjoy it? I've tried blocking all the sins of the world from my mind, just studying the bible, listening to sermons and praying to God, especially during the lockdown period in 2020. That is called escapism, not Christianity. I can leave the devil alone, the devil doesn't leave me alone, I learnt that in the hard way.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I wasn't thinking only of the Bereans...

Then who else was reading and copying the Scripture in Acts? The Ethiopian eunuch?

Because what we read in God's word directs us into community with one another.

You're thinking about networking, those who go to church with the sole purpose to meet other people, including finding potential partner to date, while they read no or little of God's word and pay no or little attention to the sermon.

I think you're a bit...defensive and, yes, also rather "emotional." Are your emotions clouding your judgment? Maybe. They can certainly do so, if one isn't careful.

And I think you're a bit dogmatic. Jesus once asked the disciples, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” and He asked Peter, "Who do you say that I am?" You know, Jesus could've asked like you did, "what did God's Word say?" But he didn't, he asked about reports and opinions, why is that? Why did he ask Peter to identify him based on Peter's own opinion instead of lecturing on him like you did regarding the reports from his disciples, "this is nowhere taught in the Scripture", "that is nowhere taught in the Scripture", "nowhere in the Tanakh says the messiah is a reincarnation of John the Baptist, or Elijah, or Jeremiah or another prophet”?

??? I was speaking to the necessity of the Spirit's illumination, not to those things about which he enlightens our understanding...

Then illuminate on those three big questions, please. Don't regurgitate on your own talking point.

 

[Tenchi]

That's a limiting belief like a horse blinder that blocks you from digging deeper.

No, it's respecting God's word, being careful not to add to it my own fallible, human, sin-corrupted ideas.

The bible is a well of infinite wisdom too deep to fathom, your understanding ought to be evolving, everytime you read it you discover something new, that's why it's timeless. If there's "nothing more", than it wouldn't be God's words.

The entirety of God's word is a depthless well of Truth, yes, but this doesn't dissolve what Jesus said was the point of his parable about the Ten Virgins. If he didn't make anything of the lamps and oil of the virgins, drawing attention to some symbolic purpose they served, I shouldn't, either. When people start stuffing their own ideas into Scripture, they are doing what is called eisegesis, which is always a short road to false doctrine.

There're no "others", all sins can be put into these seven intertwined categories, it's not an "an artificial strata" in people's minds.

It's artificial insofar as it doesn't appear in Scripture, taught nowhere in the entire Bible by any contributor to the text of God's word. If folks want to use this system of categorization, they can, of course. It's not one I would use, though, for the reasons I already explained.

And don't put this on me, sir, I'm telling you real history, I didn't make this up.

??? I've never indicated that I thought the Seven Deadly Sins thing began with you. I'm well aware that it didn't.

All sins stem from the sin of pride - "you shall be like God", that is THE original sin, there's no other sins before this one.

No, pride is just an expression of self-centeredness, of selfishness, as all sin is, at bottom. The devil thought much of himself, he was fixated on himself, his powers, his beauty, etc. and he wanted more for himself than was his lot. In other words, he was self-centered, selfish. And this self-preoccupation manifested in pride, as it always does for the selfish person. So, no, pride is just a symptom of Self, of self-interest, of self-centeredness, just as all sin is at its core.

No I don't, because it seems you're only preaching and lecturing, you're not being responsive to any real problem I'm informing you.

??? See? You're doing exactly what I said you were doing: making assumptions about what I think and what motivates me and then jumping to unwarranted conclusions about me. So, no you don't "know what people feel and what's in their minds" - not in my case, anyway.

Do you know what projection is, psychologically? You're doing it here in your description of me.

I ask you again, did you really confront any apostate leaders?

Why ask again? If you won't believe what I've already explained about this, why would repeating myself about it convince you?

If they are really doing better than the Roman Catholics, then you'd be bearing false witness about their disobedience to God; if they are not, then this is not a "tu quoque" fallacy because I was telling the truth.

You don't seem to understand what the "tu quoque" fallacy is...

You think I like focusing on sin? You think I enjoy it?

I don't know. Do you?

I've tried blocking all the sins of the world from my mind, just studying the bible, listening to sermons and praying to God, especially during the lockdown period in 2020. That is called escapism, not Christianity. I can leave the devil alone, the devil doesn't leave me alone, I learnt that in the hard way.

Uh huh. God's way of living before Him is centered upon constant fellowship with Him. When you're enjoying such fellowship daily, sin and the devil stop being the central focus of living.

You're thinking about networking, those who go to church with the sole purpose to meet other people, including finding potential partner to date, while they read no or little of God's word and pay no or little attention to the sermon.

See? Here's another one of the many assumptions you like to make. In fact, what I was thinking about was Ephesians 4:11-16, and 1 Corinthians 12, and Romans 12:6-10.

And I think you're a bit dogmatic.

I certainly have confidence in what I know of God's word. I don't know everything there is to know about it, of course, but what I do know, I know very well and this is communicated in a directness and confidence in my remarks about Scripture that those who don't know God's word well find disturbing. I have been studying God's word for many decades now, so it should be no surprise that I sound dogmatic about its Truth.

"Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” and He asked Peter, "Who do you say that I am?" You know, Jesus could've asked like you did, "what did God's Word say?" But he didn't, he asked about reports and opinions, why is that?

Because the NT had not yet been written.

Why did he ask Peter to identify him based on Peter's own opinion instead of lecturing on him like you did regarding the reports from his disciples, "this is nowhere taught in the Scripture", "that is nowhere taught in the Scripture", "nowhere in the Tanakh says the messiah is a reincarnation of John the Baptist, or Elijah, or Jeremiah or another prophet”?

Because the NT had not yet been written.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Because the NT had not yet been written.

Because the NT had not yet been written.

But OT was written, sir. Torah, the first five books, are the foundation of the entire bible.

I certainly have confidence in what I know of God's word. I don't know everything there is to know about it, of course, but what I do know, I know very well and this is communicated in a directness and confidence in my remarks about Scripture that those who don't know God's word well find disturbing. I have been studying God's word for many decades now, so it should be no surprise that I sound dogmatic about its Truth.

I don't find anything you said disturbing except the question marks, but keep in mind, sir, more is caught than taught, more is shown than known.

See? Here's another one of the many assumptions you like to make. In fact, what I was thinking about was Ephesians 4:11-16, and 1 Corinthians 12, and Romans 12:6-10.

You said God's word directs us into community, but what do you think people go to community for?

I don't know. Do you?

Uh huh. God's way of living before Him is centered upon constant fellowship with Him. When you're enjoying such fellowship daily, sin and the devil stop being the central focus of living.

Trust me, sir, I'm already at peace with God, I'm content with everything I have, sometimes I'm tempted by the devil, but he never bothers me, I've been living like a monk for over a decade. If I could live to your age, my fate would be entirely resting in the hands of God, 'cause there's no other choice.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No, it's respecting God's word, being careful not to add to it my own fallible, human, sin-corrupted ideas.

The entirety of God's word is a depthless well of Truth, yes, but this doesn't dissolve what Jesus said was the point of his parable about the Ten Virgins. If he didn't make anything of the lamps and oil of the virgins, drawing attention to some symbolic purpose they served, I shouldn't, either. When people start stuffing their own ideas into Scripture, they are doing what is called eisegesis, which is always a short road to false doctrine.

You made this statement "New Covenant Christian is constantly and permanently indwelt by the Holy Spirit", but that goes against the message from the parable of the ten virgin and the loveless Ephesian church. Throughout the hole bible, oil and its flame are always a symbol of the Holy Spirit, lack of oil is lack of the Holy Spirit, that's not eisegesis. Maybe he didn't make anything of the lamps and oil here, but what about not hiding a lamp under a basket (Matt. 5:14-16)? What about the waning of losing your lampstand (Rev. 2:5)? If you truly believe in exegesis, then let the Scripture intepret itself.

It's artificial insofar as it doesn't appear in Scripture, taught nowhere in the entire Bible by any contributor to the text of God's word. If folks want to use this system of categorization, they can, of course. It's not one I would use, though, for the reasons I already explained.

??? I've never indicated that I thought the Seven Deadly Sins thing began with you. I'm well aware that it didn't.

And I've already given you examples of where they appear in Scripture. You don't use, fine, suit yourself and may God bless you.

No, pride is just an expression of self-centeredness, of selfishness, as all sin is, at bottom. The devil thought much of himself, he was fixated on himself, his powers, his beauty, etc. and he wanted more for himself than was his lot. In other words, he was self-centered, selfish. And this self-preoccupation manifested in pride, as it always does for the selfish person. So, no, pride is just a symptom of Self, of self-interest, of self-centeredness, just as all sin is at its core.

And that core is against the first commandment - you shall have no other god before me. There's no other god but YHWH.

??? See? You're doing exactly what I said you were doing: making assumptions about what I think and what motivates me and then jumping to unwarranted conclusions about me. So, no you don't "know what people feel and what's in their minds" - not in my case, anyway.

Do you know what projection is, psychologically? You're doing it here in your description of me.

But I'm not wrong about your preaching and lecturing, and on top of that, being disrespectful and sarcastic. If you truly believe in God's word, you should've known that God's word in a modern English bible is NOT the mediator between you and God, Jesus Christ is, and His body is the church, the congregation of God's people. There's no fellowship without partaking in the body of Christ. If the body is corrupt, you can't circumvent it and connect with God by studying the bible all by yourself, and in your case, studying the Pauline epistles all by yourself.

Why ask again? If you won't believe what I've already explained about this, why would repeating myself about it convince you?

I don't believe you because you don't seem to have comformed to the image of lord Jesus - who never weaponzied the word of God, his own words against any of his listeners to make a point. In that particular example I mentioned, he asked not what God's word says but what Peter says, and you failed to explain why. "NT had not yet been written" is not a legitimate answer, they had the OT canon.

Also, please be noted that I'm not your enemy, I'm on your side, antagonists like Riven and Uncle J are the tares among the wheat.

 

[Tenchi]

You said God's word directs us into community, but what do you think people go to community for?

There are several primary reasons people enter into community with others: significance, identity, acceptance, fellowship, etc.. God in His word, though, described pretty thoroughly why Christians ought to adhere to one another as spiritual siblings, "members one of another" in the Body of Believers. God's description on this head appears in the passages I cited in my last post to you: Ephesians 4:11-16, Romans 12:4-8; 1 Corinthians 12.

Trust me, sir, I'm already at peace with God, I'm content with everything I have, sometimes I'm tempted by the devil, but he never bothers me, I've been living like a monk for over a decade. If I could live to your age, my fate would be entirely resting in the hands of God, 'cause there's no other choice.

Hmmm..."peace with God" overlaps with contentment but it isn't mainly contentment. Christ, for example, was at peace with God as he endured the suffering of the cross, doing the will of the Father to perfection in his suffering, but Jesus was not content with the brutality and agony of his crucifixion. He even asked the Father to take the cup of the suffering of the Atonement from him, he was so disturbed by it. Anyway, "peace with God" isn't necessarily reflected in one's contentment with one's circumstance.

Why are you "living like a monk"?

At my age, it is increasingly clear to me that my life has always been entirely in God's hands and that it's length has never been mine to choose. These facts are actually peace-giving since I know the love, faithfulness and goodness of God will always be reflected in how He deals with me.

You made this statement "New Covenant Christian is constantly and permanently indwelt by the Holy Spirit", but that goes against the message from the parable of the ten virgin and the loveless Ephesian church.

The message of the Ten Virgins was what Jesus indicated:

Matthew 25:13
13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.

When Jesus spoke this parable, he was speaking prior to his atoning work on the cross to Jewish people still under the Old Covenant. And so, he mentioned nothing of the Gospel in the parable; he never pointed to himself as their Savior from their sin (2 Corinthians 5:21); he never told them of salvation by faith in himself and of his redeeming work for them on the cross (Romans 5:6-11); he never described the permanent spiritual regeneration of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5; Romans 8:9-16; Hebrews 13:5). Instead, there was only a curious warning about the sudden return of the Bridegroom at midnight. I don't see, then, how the parable can be construed as making a comment about the Holy Spirit...

As for the church at Ephesus, I'm not clear on why you think the constant indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the "second birth" is challenged by the church. The Ephesian church had "lost its first love" and was in danger of its "lampstand" being removed (Revelation 2:2-7), but I don't see anything about the Holy Spirit's coming or going from a born-again believer in the passage from John's Revelation. It is the church as a corporate entity that is in jeopardy, not the salvation of the individual believer's in the church, accomplished through the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Throughout the hole bible, oil and its flame are always a symbol of the Holy Spirit, lack of oil is lack of the Holy Spirit, that's not eisegesis.

??? I don't think you can say that oil and flame are always symbolic of the Holy Spirit in the text of Scripture. Here are a few quick examples:

Job 18:5
5 "Indeed, the light of the wicked goes out, And the flame of his fire gives no light.

Psalm 83:14
14 Like fire that burns the forest And like a flame that sets the mountains on fire,

Daniel 3:21-22
21 Then these men were tied up in their trousers, their coats, their caps and their other clothes, and were cast into the midst of the furnace of blazing fire.
22 For this reason, because the king's command was urgent and the furnace had been made extremely hot, the flame of the fire slew those men who carried up Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego.

Exodus 22:6
6 "If a fire breaks out and spreads to thorn bushes, so that stacked grain or the standing grain or the field itself is consumed, he who started the fire shall surely make restitution.

And so on. It's immediate context that establishes what "flame" may symbolize in any given verse, or passage; it's not a given that always flame refers to the Holy Spirit.

Continued below.

 

[Tenchi]

What about oil? Is it always referring to the Holy Spirit in Scripture?

Deuteronomy 7:13
13 "He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your new wine and your oil, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock, in the land which He swore to your forefathers to give you.

Deuteronomy 8:7-8
7 "For the LORD your God is bringing you into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and springs, flowing forth in valleys and hills;
8 a land of wheat and barley, of vines and fig trees and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey;
Here, oil is symbolic of the fertility and abundance of the land, not of the Holy Spirit.

2 Kings 4:2
2 And Elisha said unto her, What shall I do for you? Tell me, what do you have in the house? And she said, Your handmaid has not any thing in the house, save a pot of oil.
The oil in this case is the meager foodstuff of an impoverished woman.

2 Chronicles 11:11
11 He also strengthened the fortresses and put officers in them and stores of food, oil and wine.
In this instance, the oil is part of the supplies stocked in a fortress.

Nehemiah 10:37
37 We will also bring the first of our dough, our contributions, the fruit of every tree, the new wine and the oil to the priests at the chambers of the house of our God, and the tithe of our ground to the Levites, for the Levites are they who receive the tithes in all the rural towns.

Here, the oil is a food-tithe to God. And so on.

Maybe he didn't make anything of the lamps and oil here, but what about not hiding a lamp under a basket (Matt. 5:14-16)? What about the waning of losing your lampstand (Rev. 2:5)? If you truly believe in exegesis, then let the Scripture intepret itself.

??? But I'm the one doing exegesis - and carefully - in regards to the parable of the Ten Virgins. You were the one eisegeting the parable, which has led to this discussion of oil and flame and the Holy Spirit, etc. What's this "if you truly believe in exegesis" stuff, then?

And what of these other parables? What have they to do with what Jesus clearly indicated about the parable of the Ten Virgins?

And that core is against the first commandment - you shall have no other god before me. There's no other god but YHWH.

Right.

But I'm not wrong about your preaching and lecturing, and on top of that, being disrespectful and sarcastic.

This is an entirely subjective opinion - and an ad hominem attack, to boot. In reality none of the things you charge me with here are actually the case. Your characterization of me above is actually, I think, more reflective of you, of your insecurities, and sensitivities, and personality.

If you truly believe in God's word, you should've known that God's word in a modern English bible is NOT the mediator between you and God, Jesus Christ is, and His body is the church, the congregation of God's people.

??? Where in this thread do I ever assert that Jesus is not the Mediator between God and Man?

There's no fellowship without partaking in the body of Christ. If the body is corrupt, you can't circumvent it and connect with God by studying the bible all by yourself, and in your case, studying the Pauline epistles all by yourself.

??? Where in this thread do say anything like what you've written here? Where have I recommended abandoning the Body and studying the Bible all by oneself?

I don't believe you because you don't seem to have comformed to the image of lord Jesus

Well, thankfully, I don't have to meet your subjective version of what being conformed to Christ's image is. And, really, there is no way for you to obtain any good, clear idea of who and how I am from this dialogue in this thread - especially when you've been so quick to make assumptions, and misrepresent my remarks, and to call me a liar.

who never weaponzied the word of God, his own words against any of his listeners to make a point.

I've not "weaponized" God's word; I've simply pointed out that you could handle it better than you do. And since you clearly want to teach others about God's truth, how better to handle it should be of great interest to you.

In that particular example I mentioned, he asked not what God's word says but what Peter says, and you failed to explain why. "NT had not yet been written" is not a legitimate answer, they had the OT canon.

But Jesus was only represented in a very veiled, figurative way in the OT - so much so that the Jews generally had misunderstood who the Messiah would be and so did not recognize him in Christ. From the OT scriptures, they had expected a conquering King, not a suffering, dying servant. As well, Jesus didn't ask Peter for his opinion, but for a deductive answer based on Peter's firsthand experience of Christ's teaching, miraculous deeds, and daily living. So, in light of these things, my response to you was, I think, entirely appropriate.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

There are several primary reasons people enter into community with others: significance, identity, acceptance, fellowship, etc.. God in His word, though, described pretty thoroughly why Christians ought to adhere to one another as spiritual siblings, "members one of another" in the Body of Believers. God's description on this head appears in the passages I cited in my last post to you: Ephesians 4:11-16, Romans 12:4-8; 1 Corinthians 12.

This is why you're being dogmatic and idealistic. I've met those people and listened to them and talked with them, most of them came to church for reasons I described above in #188.

Why are you "living like a monk"?

Because I don't see any other way to be in this world and not of this world. I'd be led astray by the cares of this world.

" I want you to be without [b]care. He who is unmarried [c]cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife." (1 Cor. 7:32-33)

As for the church at Ephesus, I'm not clear on why you think the constant indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the "second birth" is challenged by the church. The Ephesian church had "lost its first love" and was in danger of its "lampstand" being removed (Revelation 2:2-7), but I don't see anything about the Holy Spirit's coming or going from a born-again believer in the passage from John's Revelation. It is the church as a corporate entity that is in jeopardy, not the salvation of the individual believer's in the church, accomplished through the indwelling Holy Spirit.

This is a "not in my backyard" attitude, you just dismiss it as a corporate judgement for everybody else but not you. Jesus ended all seven letters with a call for attention: "he who has an ear, let him hear!" Any individual believer who doesn't hear, their lampstand will be removed from them.

And so on. It's immediate context that establishes what "flame" may symbolize in any given verse, or passage; it's not a given that always flame refers to the Holy Spirit.

Flame may not be, but oil usually is, the title "messiah" means the annointed one with oil. In my last post I didn't just say "flame", I said oil and ITS flame.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Here, the oil is a food-tithe to God. And so on.

When oil is used for annointment, that's a symbol of the Holy Spirit and the annointment thereof. Everything else could be blessings for the annointed, that doesn't contradict its primary purpose of annointment and lighting.

??? But I'm the one doing exegesis - and carefully - in regards to the parable of the Ten Virgins. You were the one eisegeting the parable, which has led to this discussion of oil and flame and the Holy Spirit, etc. What's this "if you truly believe in exegesis" stuff, then?

This discussion is necessary to understand the symbolism of oil, which is not clearly explained in that parable, that's why you need other contents from the bible as a reference, that's exegesis, letting the bible interpret itself.

And what of these other parables? What have they to do with what Jesus clearly indicated about the parable of the Ten Virgins?

Which others?

I don't see, then, how the parable can be construed as making a comment about the Holy Spirit...

Because you're too blind to see that those who don't replenish the Holy Spirit in their lamps will NOT "watch therefore".

This is an entirely subjective opinion - and an ad hominem attack, to boot. In reality none of the things you charge me with here are actually the case. Your characterization of me above is actually, I think, more reflective of you, of your insecurities, and sensitivities, and personality.

I've told you that I'm not your enemy, there're antagonists who call God a cosmic dictator and us haters of LGBTQ, you know whom I'm talking about, you've had lengthy debate with them.

??? Where in this thread do I ever assert that Jesus is not the Mediator between God and Man?

??? Where in this thread do say anything like what you've written here? Where have I recommended abandoning the Body and studying the Bible all by oneself?

Where you condemned the Body of Christ as "human institutions governed by fallible men, prone to terrible corruption".

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Well, thankfully, I don't have to meet your subjective version of what being conformed to Christ's image is. And, really, there is no way for you to obtain any good, clear idea of who and how I am from this dialogue in this thread - especially when you've been so quick to make assumptions, and misrepresent my remarks, and to call me a liar.

Where did I call you a liar? That's a strong word, I don't throw it around lightly.

But Jesus was only represented in a very veiled, figurative way in the OT - so much so that the Jews generally had misunderstood who the Messiah would be and so did not recognize him in Christ. From the OT scriptures, they had expected a conquering King, not a suffering, dying servant.

Actually, they did understand that there were two comings of the Messiah, first as the son of Jospeh the patriarch, second as the son of David the king. They knew his role as a suffering servant, they had Is. 53. Problem is that over time this teaching was lost, they saw the nation of Israel as a suffering servant under Roman occupation.

As well, Jesus didn't ask Peter for his opinion, but for a deductive answer based on Peter's firsthand experience of Christ's teaching, miraculous deeds, and daily living.

That WAS Peter's opinion. His firsthand experience validated Jesus's messiahship.

So, in light of these things, my response to you was, I think, entirely appropriate.

No, it's not. Jesus did ask "what did God's word say in a couple of occasions - to a lawyer: "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?" (Lk. 10:26) To the pharisees - "Have you not read that He made at the beginning male and female?" (Matt. 19:4) To the sadducees - "you are mistaken, not knowing the Scripture nor the power of God." (Matt. 22:29) However, he didn't test his disciples, he didn't lecture on his disciples of who he really is as he did to those religious elites, why is that?

Also, today we do have the NT canon, but the teaching of Lord's physical, bodily return from heaven is seriously challenged. As the Jews didn't believe their messiah as a suffering servant, many pastors and churches have gone the opposite direction, they don't believe Jesus would return as a conquering king, I've heard it from many that his second coming was already fulfilled "symbolically" at 70AD. Therefore "Because the NT had not yet been written" is not a legitimate answer. With the NT, most people still don't know him, and false christs are rising as the Lord warned.

Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. (Matt. 24:23-25)

 

[reddogs]

Thank you for the observation! While the analogy about a broken clock being right twice a day is commonly used to illustrate occasional correctness despite consistent malfunction, I'm here to provide accurate and reliable information as much as possible, not just occasionally. If you have any questions on my use of my AI assistance for the disabled, feel free to ask!

I would say, don't use it as it immediately taints its validity..

 

[reddogs]

??? I'm not.



I hope so. Hopeful and I have had several lengthy exchanges about the error of his "sinless perfection" belief. You can be sure, then, that I am not espousing such a view in my remarks to you.



While sinless perfection is impossible this side of eternity, a far greater degree of holiness is possible for the born-again person than is commonly believed. In fact, God's word gives us very good cause to think that sin should be increasingly the exception in the life of a spiritually-mature child of God rather than the rule. Any believer trying to pass him/herself off as spiritually-mature apart from a life that is largely sin-free is a charlatan, a hypocrite, and the opposite of what they claim to be.

The apostle Paul described a terrible struggle in Romans 7 but in both the chapter before and after Romans 7, he lays out the way to avoid this struggle entirely. The struggle of Romans 7 is not to be the normal, unchanging experience of the spiritually-mature Christian person.

Romans 6:1-2
1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?
2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

Romans 6:6-7
6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.
7 For one who has died has been set free from sin.

Romans 6:12-14
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions.
13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.
14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Romans 8:12-13
12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.
13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

Galatians 5:16
16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.

Galatians 5:24
24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

And so on.



??? I never wrote anything about the verse being a "magic spell," nor did I misquote the verse.

What difference does a sports team's erroneous practice of prayer make to the truth of what Paul wrote?

You seem very...touchy about spiritual matters. Are you okay?

Well you cannot go to heaven full of sin and iniquity, that is a given..

 

[Proxos]

No one can practice sin and go to heaven: 1 Peter 4:18. “And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?”

 

[Tenchi]

Well you cannot go to heaven full of sin and iniquity, that is a given..

Which is why Jesus is our Redeemer, Justifier and Sanctifier, not us.

1 Corinthians 1:2
2 To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

1 Corinthians 1:29-31
29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption,
31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

In Christ, we obtain perfect righteousness and are fully sanctified, and thus made acceptable to God. And only because of what Jesus has done for us does God accept us as His own.

Ephesians 1:3-14
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight
9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ
10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

In light of these things, Paul could say to the sinning Christians in Corinth that they were both carnal and in Christ; they were contentious and partisan and also God's "field," "building" and "temple"; they were guilty of selfishness and gross sexual sin and yet were brethren (1 Corinthians 3, 5, 6, 11).

The apostle John said to those with whom he identified as a fellow born-again child of God:

1 John 1:8-10
8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

And:

1 John 2:1
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

To the church at Ephesus, the Spirit of Christ said:

Revelation 2:2-5
2 “‘I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false.
3 I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name’s sake, and you have not grown weary.
4 But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.
5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

How could the church have gotten to such a state and yet not had its lampstand already removed? One could ask the same question about most of the other seven churches addressed in Revelation 2-3. Some Christians want to believe their sin can kick them out of God's kingdom, but to each of the churches of Asia Minor - some greatly overcome by sin - the Spirit of Christ says their "lampstands" have not yet been "removed" (whatever that means).

These passages make it very...awkward to say that a person's conduct is what keeps them saved (which is to say that they are, essentially, their own Savior).

I'm not at all advocating for "cheap grace," or the legalist's works-salvation boogey-man of licentiousness. I believe that when a person is truly indwelt by the Holy Spirit, he will transform them, increasingly conforming them to the Person of Jesus Christ (Romans 8:29; Galatians 5:22-23). But this is a process he performs in the believer, who may be plagued by ignorance, false teaching, besetting sins, and the deceptions of the World and the devil. Frightening believers - especially new ones - with lost salvation, then, is to make an appeal to the very thing that brings them into sin: Self. When the born-again person is obeying God out of fear, their eyes are upon themselves and upon protecting themselves from God's dangerous wrath, not upon Christ and his excellence (Hebrews 12:2-3; 2 Corinthians 3:18). And this self-centered concern for safety from God, from His terrible eternal punishment, inevitably puts the frightened believer in disobedience to God's First and Great Commandment (Matthew 22:36-38).

1 John 4:16-19
16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
17 By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world.
18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.
19 We love because he first loved us.

1 Corinthians 13:1-3
1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.