Not all born-again Christians make it through the sanctification process!

[Deborah13]

Scripture doesn't say this either. The simple fact that he was a Pharisee, doesn't mean he, personally, was a "put on". Nicodemus even said: "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him." Sounds like Nicodemus was a FOLLOWER of Jesus to me.

He says like a follower without knowledge of who Jesus really was. Jesus was preparing him to know, so that he could be saved. post #34.

Really? Have you ever debated with an atheist? If one says...I don't know...that the Bible is a fantasy, will the story of Nicodemus bring him around? Shouldn't we, as LOGICAL Christians, answer their points instead of preach to them?

In my opinion we should give them the "gospel of Christ, Died on the cross for their sins, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven".
It is not us that will convince the unbeliever, it is the power of God's Word, the Gospel of His Son.

"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."

satan has done his job so well, he is very clever. Only God can change the heart of a unbeliever.

 

[dadof10]

Scripture doesn't say this either. The simple fact that he was a Pharisee, doesn't mean he, personally, was a "put on". Nicodemus even said: "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him." Sounds like Nicodemus was a FOLLOWER of Jesus to me.

He says like a follower without knowledge of who Jesus really was. Jesus was preparing him to know, so that he could be saved. post #34.

I agree. I just don't think Nicodemus was a fake. I think he was actually searching for the Truth...and he found It

Really? Have you ever debated with an atheist? If one says...I don't know...that the Bible is a fantasy, will the story of Nicodemus bring him around? Shouldn't we, as LOGICAL Christians, answer their points instead of preach to them?

In my opinion we should give them the "gospel of Christ, Died on the cross for their sins, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven".
It is not us that will convince the unbeliever, it is the power of God's Word, the Gospel of His Son.

"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."

satan has done his job so well, he is very clever. Only God can change the heart of a unbeliever.

I agree that only God can change his heart, but we must answer the atheist's questions with logic and common sense, not just preaching. I think most of the questions a well meaning atheist has are quite valid. I had some of the same questions myself, and through study, resolved the seeming "contradictions". Logic also has a place within Christianity.

 

[John Zain]

If we have received the gift of grace brought forth from Christ on the cross, then there in nothing that must be added to that for our salvation. We can not contribute to the price paid by Christ in order to enter Heaven. We were bought by His blood. Christ plus anything equals nothing.

Because of His grace, Jesus is not offended by your boo-boo ...
How about ...
Christ plus anything still equals Christ.

 

[Deborah13]

I think he was actually searching for the Truth...and he found It

I agree, I think he did want to know. I think the Jews were so steeped in tradition by this time that the grace that was always available to them had been lost. I think maybe Nicodemus saw Jesus and realized something was missing.

Logic also has a place within Christianity.

I agree with this as well. Depending on the area they are using for what they see as logical. As Atonement said, sometimes we should involve someone else to help. I know if someone were to ask me and their arguments were made with science, I would not be able to debate them in that area. I would have to call in helppp....

 

[By Grace]

I don't think you are understanding the parallel. Here is Pascals Wager in a nutshell: "God is, or He is not" A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions. You must wager. (It's not optional.) Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. Here is the parallel I'm drawing:
1) Good deeds either effect salvation, or they do not.
2) A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3) According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4) You must wager. (It's not optional.)
5) Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that good deeds effect salvation. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6) Wager, then, without hesitation that good deeds effect salvation. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
I can't see how anyone would disagree that "working as if it all depends on you" is the wisest course.

Sorry, dadof10, but you are using three logical fallacies here, and any one invalidates your proposition.
1) the assumption of an equality among unequals
2) removal of the wager from the context (proof of the existence of God) and applying it to something that it is not intended, salvation.
3) adding works as a qualification for salvation which was neither in the wager, nor in the "cause" of salvation.

Again, what have you got to lose? So why not simply apply Paschal's Wager to the faith/works debate and just agree, for a change? *Disclaimer* As I do really believe what I just wrote, it in no way will effect my future arguments.I will continue to rail against the "faith alone" position until my last dying breath because....well...I like to argue....

Take it easy, BG. It was a joke. That's why the smiley waving guy.

OK, my bad on that, as I saw the smiley guy just waving "hello". I would have used another, different smiley, but it does not matter now.

What does matter to me is that you are including works, and you did post this:

As I do really believe what I just wrote, it in no way will effect my future arguments.I

Please be specific so that I will not get it wrong, but what exactly is your position?

 

[Danus]

And here we are again. faith or works? When you don't have faith, you can not know faith. Anyone with faith knows this because they started out with none, like everyone else. Those without faith who seek God rely on works. It's all they have, and others without faith don't even care. Same old song. Same old dance. But, I do believe that the efforts can lead to faith. I think it did for Luther and many others. Psalm 103:8(NIV)8 The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love.



What I do know of my Christian life is that it is not of some effort on my part. I can't really share that. I can say it, but it's useless to try and convince anyone of it, so I can't care if anyone accepts it or not. For me God is a driving force of my conscious. Nothing I ever imagined or even asked for. All I ever did was give up trying, surrendered my will. That's it.



Am I perfect? No. I am a sinner, but It's not about me. My Life is not about me. I could care less about me. It's about Christ. That's it. I am saved because of Christ, not because of me. What's truly nasty in the minds of some who hear this, is that they think I just live as I want in sin, but what they don't understand is that, that is not possible. I do not exist in that sense. There is no "I".



So, for those of you searching and knocking for Christ, he does answer, but He is not impressed with you. He's not impressed with the rituals you go through, or the things you think you do in His name. Following Christ is free, but it will cost you your life. Some people are not willing to pay that, because it's too expensive for them. Instead they want to make a deal with Christ; they keep their life and their own will to live in exchange for their ability to do right. They don't get that they are sinners and it's impossible for them to do right. Maybe they will in their attempts. Luther did.

 

[berk60]

Because of His grace, Jesus is not offended by your boo-boo ... How about ... Christ plus anything still equals Christ.

What I'm trying to convey is that if we believe that we must add something to the equation of in Christ alone then we are mistaken. I'll give you an example, I have family members that believe you cannot be saved by merely accepting Jesus as you Lord and Savior. They believe that this is only one of many steps that you must fulfill in order to be saved. Almost like Christ opened the door to grace by His death but now it must be dispersed by man-made practices to gain the grace to be applied in order to be saved.

That's what I mean Christ plus other things necessary for salvation equals not truly being saved in the first place.

 

[John Zain]

Okay, let's move forward some more ...

In the OT, God gave His chosen people EVERY advantage to be successful.

But, the problem was ...
He also gave them THE LAW, which as it turned out, was impossible for them to follow!
They had NO Holy Spirit to help them (He's called "the Helper" in the NJKV).

Note: all of this was done to PROVE to everyone that man is UNABLE to satisfy God,
i.e. without the Holy Spirit inside.

HEADS UP NOW ...

Even though God knew 'twas impossible for them to follow THE LAW,
He gave it to them, and they DISOBEYED it ...
... and they were left scattered all over the desert floor. Sorry to be so graphic!

Now Paul comes along in Hebrews 3 & 4, WARNING US to not end up like these Israelites.

And then he hits us up with this ... concerning born-again Christians ...
Hebrews 10:
28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy
on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy
who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant
by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know Him who said,“Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.
And again, “The LORD will judge His people.”
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

 

[Free]

I don't think you are understanding the parallel. Here is Pascals Wager in a nutshell: "God is, or He is not" A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions. You must wager. (It's not optional.) Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. Here is the parallel I'm drawing:
1) Good deeds either effect salvation, or they do not.
2) A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3) According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4) You must wager. (It's not optional.)
5) Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that good deeds effect salvation. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6) Wager, then, without hesitation that good deeds effect salvation. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
I can't see how anyone would disagree that "working as if it all depends on you" is the wisest course.

Sorry, dadof10, but you are using three logical fallacies here, and any one invalidates your proposition.
1) the assumption of an equality among unequals
2) removal of the wager from the context (proof of the existence of God) and applying it to something that it is not intended, salvation.
3) adding works as a qualification for salvation which was neither in the wager, nor in the "cause" of salvation.

Numbers 2 and 3 are not actual logical fallacies and number 1 is one I have not heard of before. Do you have a formal name for that fallacy?

 

[By Grace]

What I'm trying to convey is that if we believe that we must add something to the equation of in Christ alone then we are mistaken.

You have the gospel in a nutshell! Good post

Three virtual reputation points to you.

 

[By Grace]

Numbers 2 and 3 are not actual logical fallacies and number 1 is one I have not heard of before. Do you have a formal name for that fallacy?

1) the assumption of an equality among unequals is also called the masked man fallacy. the poster tried to make a parallel statement that is neither parallel nor congruent.

2) removal of the wager from the context (proof of the existence of God) and applying it to something that it is not intended, salvation. is also called a syllogistic fallacy. Pascal's wager was designed to prove the existence of God. In removing the protasis or first syllogism, and substituting another, different syllogism and continuing to make , the poster committed a logical error

3) adding works as a qualification for salvation which was neither in the wager, nor in the "cause" of salvation Most important is that it is not Scriptural. This is circular reasoning because the poster begins with he ends with

 

[Free]

Numbers 2 and 3 are not actual logical fallacies and number 1 is one I have not heard of before. Do you have a formal name for that fallacy?

1) the assumption of an equality among unequals is also called the masked man fallacy. the poster tried to make a parallel statement that is neither parallel nor congruent.

It doesn't look at all like that is the masked man fallacy.

2) removal of the wager from the context (proof of the existence of God) and applying it to something that it is not intended, salvation. is also called a syllogistic fallacy. Pascal's wager was designed to prove the existence of God. In removing the protasis or first syllogism, and substituting another, different syllogism and continuing to make , the poster committed a logical error

Well, Pascal's Wager isn't intended to "prove the existence of God." The gist of the Wager is that all things being equal, having examined the evidence and being at a stalemate as to whether or not God exists, it is far better to wager on the existence of God.

Regardless, I do not think that a syllogistic fallacy has occurred.

3) adding works as a qualification for salvation which was neither in the wager, nor in the "cause" of salvation Most important is that it is not Scriptural. This is circular reasoning because the poster begins with he ends with

You say it is not Scriptural, he says it is. It doesn't matter that "works salvation" is not in The Wager, if we use this wager for works, it doesn't end up being circular.

 

[francisdesales]

What I'm trying to convey is that if we believe that we must add something to the equation of in Christ alone then we are mistaken.

You have the gospel in a nutshell! Good post

That is NOT the Gospel of the NT or Paul. The Gospel is about Jesus being risen from the dead. VICTORY OVER DEATH. And OUR participation in the "career" of the Christ through baptism - we are buried with Him and a new "man" takes form in us. Prior to his conversion, Paul does not notice any "lacking" in the law that would require one to look for some other means of fulfilling the Law. He was quite satisfied with his following the Law, UNTIL he experienced the Risen Lord. NOT because Paul analyzed that he was falling woefully short of "perfect law keeping" and was in dire straits...

Paul hardly mentions "works v faith" (which is a faulty argument, anyway), except when he is talking about the discontinuance of the cultural markers of the Jews, which erected a fence between Jew and Gentile. Once Paul makes this argument, he drops it and moves onto the heart - HE IS RISEN - and WE can participate in that!

That is the concern of Paul, not "adding works to Christ". You are echoing Martin Luther, who sadly misunderstood Paul because of his own personal scrupulosity.

 

[Danus]

That is the concern of Paul, not "adding works to Christ". You are echoing Martin Luther, who sadly misunderstood Paul because of his own personal scrupulosity.

Seriously? Your going to diagnose Luther and blame his theology on a physiological condition? Are you serious? I guess millions of people must be suffering from the same guilt then; that it? Are we now going to say that protestants interpret the bible wrong because they have an emotional problem?

** This thread is reaching it's end ** So far it's become unproductive. Unless anyone has a point left to post that is relevant to salvation and "sanctification", or Justification, I think we can do without assumptions and high-fiving doctrines.

 

[Guest]

So far it's become unproductive. Unless anyone has a point left to post that is relevant to salvation and "sanctification", or Justification, I think we can do without assumptions and high-fiving doctrines.

I have a point. No matter how much religion has been spewed like vomit across this thread, I would like to say that if a born again christian drifts away from God's will, he will certainly find a way to bring you back to his heart. Ok, you can close thread.

 

[francisdesales]

That is the concern of Paul, not "adding works to Christ". You are echoing Martin Luther, who sadly misunderstood Paul because of his own personal scrupulosity.

Seriously? Your going to diagnose Luther and blame his theology on a physiological condition? Are you serious? I guess millions of people must be suffering from the same guilt then; that it? Are we now going to say that protestants interpret the bible wrong because they have an emotional problem?

** This thread is reaching it's end ** So far it's become unproductive. Unless anyone has a point left to post that is relevant to salvation and "sanctification", or Justification, I think we can do without assumptions and high-fiving doctrines.

I apologize if I have offended you. I am not diagnosing him. The story is well known about Luther and his conversion to "the gospel" as he saw it, esp. when he read Romans and "the righteousnes of God". HE tells us that he was scrupulous. Mr. Luther did posit his own issues onto Paul, which included thinking that first century Judaism was similar to his idea of Roman Catholicism in the 16th century ("works" salvation...).

Now, Martin Luther's ideas still continue - however, I wonder if you have read anything from N.T. Wright or Dunn on "the new perspectives of Paul"? Both are Anglicans, and with new research available to them (for example, on the Jewish religion's practice beyond the polemics of Paul), they make a very convincing argument against classic Lutheranism - even Lutherans themselves are seeing this.

Now, putting that short explanation aside, do you disagree that the Gospel is about "Jesus has Risen" and has offered a share in the divine life? It seems to me that Paul and Jesus shared the same Gospel, and Jesus never mentions "works salvation", while He does teach about His resurrection and what it would mean to the believer...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

So far it's become unproductive. Unless anyone has a point left to post that is relevant to salvation and "sanctification", or Justification, I think we can do without assumptions and high-fiving doctrines.

I have a point. No matter how much religion has been spewed like vomit across this thread, I would like to say that if a born again christian drifts away from God's will, he will certainly find a way to bring you back to his heart. Ok, you can close thread.

Unless you refuse and reject Him... Hebrews 10 and 2 Peter 2 are very clear examples of this sort of thing.

Therefore let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall 1 Cor 10:12

Fear of God is the first step of wisdom, according to the OT. And it continues today:

But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, who, after being killed, has power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. Luke 12:5

I realize this is not all warm and fuzzy and gooie or politically correct, but it is something to consider as a reality. Psalms 1 points out the two ways. Choose...

Regards

 

[Danus]

I apologize if I have offended you. I am not diagnosing him. The story is well known about Luther and his conversion to "the gospel" as he saw it, esp. when he read Romans and "the righteousnes of God". HE tells us that he was scrupulous. Mr. Luther did posit his own issues onto Paul, which included thinking that first century Judaism was similar to his idea of Roman Catholicism in the 16th century ("works" salvation...).

No offense taken, I just expect better from francisdesales. I mean, usually you have a better take.

The OP, I thought, opened this thread very well in talking about the meaning of "faith", essentially. There where some good points used about definitions of belief.

If anything should be offensive, it's the title of the thread, but that's how someone who feels they are moving towards being saved would think, VS someone understanding their salvation in a moment at time and growing from there; which, despite what anyone wants to say about Luther, is what Luther, and many others, understood about their salvation.

We don't need to beat up on Luther the man, or call out anything that is too presumptuous on on our part, beyond what he's said publicaly. Everyone have the bible at hand and let's use that.

 

[Guest]

Unless you refuse and reject Him... Hebrews 10 and 2 Peter 2 are very clear examples of this sort of thing.

How does a born again christian that is indwelled with God's spirit refuse and reject him?

 

[Danus]

Unless you refuse and reject Him... Hebrews 10 and 2 Peter 2 are very clear examples of this sort of thing. Therefore let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall 1 Cor 10:12 Fear of God is the first step of wisdom, according to the OT. And it continues today: But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, who, after being killed, has power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. Luke 12:5

Good point. In light of the OP, the term Born Again, to those of us who identify with being such, are not rejecting God. The OP says not all born again believers will make it. That's the charge.

However, the OP brought up an excellent point. Perhaps not all "believers" actually believe. Personally I think this is very true. I'm not sure if the OP is providing a way for anyone who does not truly believe, or what that point was in relation to the born again, but it's out there.

So, what the OP is doing, is lumping non-believers in with believers who call themselves born again, So I guess the alternative to knowing we are saved, is to think we are not, so that we'll truly want it, and in this way just assume we are "working" (with God of course) towards salvation.....We Protestants reject this notion as ridiculous, non-biblical and meritorious. And pointless.