Beloved57 are you sure you’re chosen?

Arial

Active member
We are not "in Him" until we are water baptized into Him.
Rom 6:3..."Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?"

Repentance from sin comes first.
Acts 2:38..."Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
Repentance, baptism, and then the gift of the Holy Ghost.

That is indeed a true "turn from" sin.
2 Cor 7:10..."For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death."

If you don't "repent/turn from" all sin at once, your repentance is a lie to God.
You can't quit lying and still commit adultery, then say you are doing God's will.
Rom 2:3..."And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?"
How can you help anyone else come to God if you are showing disdain for Him?

You won't find that second part in the bible.

John 9:31..."Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth."
1 Peter 3:12..."For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil."
Men in sin are not heard by God.

1 Cor 10:13..."There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."
Don't doubt for a second that God is not "faithful" to this scripture.
The escapes from temptation are there, every time.
James 4:7..."Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."

Matt 6:24..."No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
John 8:34..."Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin."
Pick who you will serve, and thereby pick who you will hate.

Acts 2:38..."Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
The sealing of the Holy Ghost can come only after the turn from sin and washing away of past sins. (In every example but Cornelius'.)
God will not reside in an unclean temple.

Then there shouldn't be any more sin...right?

Don't accommodate more sin.
Be single minded.
James 1:8..."A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."

Don't fool yourself.
Only sinners commit sin.

God doesn't leave people in their addictions, or in their sin.
Gal 5:24..."And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."
That crucifixion happens at our baptism into Christ and into His death and burial.
Rom 6:2-4..."God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
The old man must die before a new creature can be raised with Christ to walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:6-7..."Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin."
2 Cor 5:17..."Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
All things!
I hope that makes things clearer for you.
1 John 8-10 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have no sinned we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

1 Thess 5:23 May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through.
 

Arial

Active member
Do you as a Catholic still believe their ancient heresy that the RCC is the one true and real church and only Catholics get into heaven, and that not through Jesus but through the Church (RCC)?
You continue to deride me, you and your bully buddies (this place is nothing but bullies and vipers so I'll leave you all to it), for not responding with a yes or no, true or false , I don't remember which. And yet every time you do it you act like I never asked you the following questions or made the following statements about you religion. My Reformed beliefes, btw are doctrine. The RCC is a whole other religion. You said I deeply misunderstood the Catholic religion in what I said----yet cannot tell me what is mistaken about it. SHow me something that proves what asked in this question is true or false.
that religion stinks of idolatry (you name yourself well), worshiping idols and saints.
Is this true or false and a yes no answer is not acceptable since you have shown yourself to be a liar (bad morals). You will need to explain why many catholic drive around with statues of Jesus or Mary on their dashboards. Why they pray to Mary and saints etc.
Calling a mortal man Holy Father!! Inventing purgatory and Mary, a perpetual virgin even though she had several children, the intercessor between us and Jesus
I know these things are true. Show me how they are not if you can.
Reeking of works righteousness
Defend or reject this statement.
Where's the trap Arial?
The trap doofus is not in the words "the elect". The trap is in giving a T or F response it distorts the teaching in exactly the way you do. You have placed it as a weapon. Your statements are dealing with something that should never be asserted without explanation and understanding given.
that doesn't prevent you from answering them, but it makes you not want to answer them, because you know how it makes your Calvinism look, so your not answering me is actually rhetorical, you're accusing me of what you are in fact doing.
It is true that I don't want to answer them. I never said otherwise. And you are right also that to do so would make Calvinism look like SOMETHING IT IS NOT. Which is exactly your evil intent. (Morals again, found wanting.)
I never misstated anything about Calvinism, I'm apparently just more analytical than you are.
Everything you said about Calvinism was a misstatement. But I did not simply make that assertion, I showed you what was wrong about what you said by telling you what was right. Your hate is so precious to you it forbids you to accept what I say and insist that you know more about it that I do.
 

ttruscott

Well-known member
That's all I was sayin. That's Calvinism.
I agree, it is Calvinism and I also agree with this doctrine...BUT Calvinism also says that by nothing found in ourselves, in those elected to be saved or in those not elected to be saved, caused their election or reprobation... a cause for dismay or derision at a God who would do this because it seems arbitrary and without reason.

But, to offset the disdain this claim causes, modern Calvinism now claims that there is a compelling and righteous reason but it is found only within HIMself not in any creature.

I consider this bit of theo-babble to be a slight of thought because IF HE had a reason to damn folk before their creation then HE also had a reason to save some in that they did not fit the reason he had for the damnation of the others. OR, if HE had a reason for the salvation of some, HE did not apply that reason to others because they did not fit into the reason HE had for saving them. IF everyone fit exactly into the same reason then all would be damned or all would be saved as HE is NOT arbitrary, nor unintellectual, ie HE is a reasonable GOD.

We know from scripture that HE did not want any to die (be damned) nor took any pleasure in their death (damnation) so any reason HE had had to be very compelling and just being a secret reason does not separate it from HIS creation...it just makes this doctrine seem hidden, ie, unknowable so it sounds compelling and plausible rather than accept Calvin got UNconditional election wrong, perhaps by mixing it up with the unconditional salvation of any sinner outside of HIS election of them.
 
Last edited:

ttruscott

Well-known member
No. That is not osmosis. It is by a decree of God, His design.
I cannot accept this. There is not one good thing about this system of creating sinners for no reason, some to die and some to be saved. HE did not even create Satan this way yet after seeing the horrors of a free will choosing sin, both in the Satanic war in heaven and Eve's idolatry of the serpent in the garden, HE then supposedly sets up a design of creation that creates all the rest of humankind as sinners??? The mind boggles at the foolishness of this idea.

Adam the federal head of all mankind. As he goes, so go we all.
Federal headship is not a reason for anything, but is only a bad explanation for a bad doctrine based upon a misunderstanding of our creation and our fall.

And the nature to sin is never described (that I can recall) as inherited in the biological sense.
Hmmm, I think I remember both JWs and SDA folk arguing just this pov of a biological spread of Adamc sinfulness.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
1 John 8-10 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have no sinned we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.
Amen, to both the scriptures that are addressed to those walking in the light and to those addressed to those who walk in darkness.
In 1 John 1, verses 5, 7, and 9 are for the folks walking in the light...which is God. (v5)
But verses 6, 8, and 10 address those walking in darkness...sin. (Pro 4:19)
Those walking in God can only say they have no sin, as there is no sin in God.
1 Thess 5:23 May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through.
Amen !
And thank God for answering Paul's prayer in the affirmative.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
You continue to deride me, you and your bully buddies (this place is nothing but bullies and vipers so I'll leave you all to it)
I don't bully I challenge you in whatever way you're leaving as an option. This is a persuasion website, we're all here trying to persuade. When you cut yourself off from normal means of communicating by being nonresponsive then you are the one deciding how we will have to deal with you.
, for not responding with a yes or no, true or false , I don't remember which.
You just didn't touch them.
And yet every time you do it you act like I never asked you the following questions or made the following statements about you religion. My Reformed beliefes, btw are doctrine. The RCC is a whole other religion. You said I deeply misunderstood the Catholic religion in what I said----yet cannot tell me what is mistaken about it. SHow me something that proves what asked in this question is true or false.

Is this true or false and a yes no answer is not acceptable since you have shown yourself to be a liar (bad morals).
Censored Arial for such false judgment of me.
You will need to explain why many catholic drive around with statues of Jesus or Mary on their dashboards. Why they pray to Mary and saints etc.

I know these things are true. Show me how they are not if you can.

Defend or reject this statement.
I pray to Mary and to other Saints. What do you want to know? It's unclear what your question is.

(Incidentally this is an example of how it would be nice if you would answer my question to you, about those two conditional sentences, whether or not you agree that they accurately express what Calvinism is 'layin down'.)
The trap doofus is not in the words "the elect". The trap is in giving a T or F response it distorts the teaching in exactly the way you do.
No, as I explained it is your rhetoric that is damaged by admitting that they are both considered true statements to Calvinists with the Calvinist understanding of "elect", which I know that the special guest of this thread @beloved57 would agree to (because even if we disagree, he's honorable, he's not afraid to admit all the logical implications of what his doctrine is). Both statements are considered true according to canonical Calvinism (the Westminster canons), just admit it. I'm not misstating or misunderstanding Calvinism, I was a Calvinist when I began participating on TOL in 1999, full-fledged, even attending a true Calvinist church at the time (it wasn't just mental assent in other words, it was applicable to my real life and I applied it).

I know Calvinism from the inside.
You have placed it as a weapon.
lol. It's Calvinism itself, and you regard it as a "weapon" against Calvinism!

Know what? Nevermind. You don't have to respond to my question anymore, you've answered it. You do know and acknowledge that they are both considered true according to canonical Calvinism, and you hate that because now you don't have a leg to stand on, and you're fighting to convince everybody that your legs are still there but you've been de-legged. And it wasn't by me; Calvinism itself has 'done you in'. See above, re: "weapon".
Your statements are dealing with something that should never be asserted without explanation and understanding given.
Rhetoric.
It is true that I don't want to answer them. I never said otherwise. And you are right also that to do so would make Calvinism look like SOMETHING IT IS NOT.
It's actually precisely what Calvinism is. It's ethically and morally empty. There is no eternal reason to do good and to avoid sin, in Calvinism.

But not in the Bible.

That's why I couldn't be a Calvinist, because it conflicts with Scripture in a very 'broad stroke'. Calvinism makes the New Testament's moral teachings seem basically unnecessary at best, and at worst as if the New Testament writers (ultimately the Holy Spirit Himself) are mostly all being a little too overly concerned with our morals.
Which is exactly your evil intent. (Morals again, found wanting.)
Hold your tongue in judging my morals, since I don't agree with your morals anyway, let alone with my motives.
Everything you said about Calvinism was a misstatement. But I did not simply make that assertion, I showed you what was wrong about what you said by telling you what was right.
All you did was regurgitate Calvinist rhetoric. I'm extremely familiar with Calvinist rhetoric, I just analyzed it more thoroughly than you have.
Your hate is so precious to you it forbids you to accept what I say and insist that you know more about it that I do.
2nd Corinthians 10:3 " . . . we do not war after the flesh: 4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;"

I don't hate anybody Arial. But if we're here to persuade, then I do hate "imaginations" and "every thought" that tells lies about my Lord Jesus Christ and His Church.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
1 John 8-10 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have no sinned we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

1 Thess 5:23 May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through.
This is what happens when you mix law and grace. Talk about nonsense.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
John is law (prophecy) and Thess. is grace (mystery).
So, Paul didn't prophesy?
I can't believe that, as he wrote on exactly what it was in 1 Cor 14:3-4..."But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church."
(BTW, Paul said what the "mystery" was in Col 1:27..."To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:")

And which Law are you referring to in 1 John 1, where John delineates between those who walk in darkness/sin and those who walk in light/God?
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
So, Paul didn't prophesy?
I can't believe that, as he wrote on exactly what it was in 1 Cor 14:3-4..."But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church."
(BTW, Paul said what the "mystery" was in Col 1:27..."To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:")

And which Law are you referring to in 1 John 1, where John delineates between those who walk in darkness/sin and those who walk in light/God?
Prophecy refers to the prophecies from the Prophets in the Old Testament.
Paul is using that term in the mystery way.....which speaks of edifying the body of believers.

Christ in you is just one of the mysteries Paul gives us.

The Law of Moses
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Can you elaborate?
And does your comment include both the 1 John 1 and the 1 Thes. 5 verses?
Glorydaz does not need my help but I thought I'd throw in my two cents. This is done more for my own benefit than anyone else's. I just feel the need to move through this material and put into my own words....

Both John's message and his audience was different than Paul's. There are huge amounts of overlap between the two but in regards to salvation and sanctification, the two are quite different indeed.

There are lots of doctrinal issues that Christians disagree about. Many are not content with mere disagreement either. Many, if not most all the divisions within the church revolves around issues that have to do with what is required of us to either get saved, stay saved and or live the Christian life. Whether water baptism is required is probably the biggest one of them all. There's just crazy amounts of division and even real anger and hatred generated over a religious ritual that takes up a very few minutes of a person's life.

That isn't the only such issue though. There are disagreements about....

  • which day of the week should we have church on (i.e. should we keep the Sabbath)
  • will the rapture happen and if so when
  • should a believer avoid eating various foods
  • is it a problem to be or to get circumcised
  • should believers expect to see or experience physical miracles
  • is doing good works required of the believer to either get or stay saved
  • can believers lose their salvation
All of these issues, and several others as well, are more directly related than they might seem and they are all properly resolved in the same way.

Usually when people study to get an answer to any of these issues, they look at them one at a time and go through the bible, collect all the biblical material that seems pertinent and go from there. There will be some passages that seem to teach one side of the issue and other passages that teach the other. Depending on which side of the issue you're on, one of these two sets of scripture will be proof texts and the other will be problem texts. Regardless of which side you're on, you'll have to decide how to deal with the problem texts. Some try to explain how they don't mean what they seem to mean, others simply ignore the problem texts altogether. There are thousands of books that have been written based on this exact formula with just as many on one side as there are on the other of any of these topics. That's great for the book selling industry but I'm not so sure is all that good for anyone else.

Well, what if there was a way to resolve all of these issues and others like it where you didn't have any problem texts? Where you could read Romans 4:5 and James 2:24, take them BOTH to mean precisely what they seem to be saying, yet without conflict, without any need to make one say the same thing as the other?

There is such a way!

If you care to notice, all of the issues I've listed and several others as well, all revolve around the Apostle Paul. There are people, for example, who believe you can lose your salvation and other who do not. The proof texts for one group will be in every book of the bible other than those written by Paul and the proof texts for the other group will virtually all be in the books written by Paul. Same goes for the issue of water baptism requirements. Same goes for the timing of the rapture. Same goes for water baptism. Etc. One set of proof texts were written by Paul, the other set by everyone else who wrote a book of the bible. (There are minor exceptions to this but it is generally the case to an extent that mere coincidence cannot account for.)

To be clear, I am not suggesting that the divide between one side or the other on these issues has to do with one group or the other having some sort of personal preference for or against Paul. It isn't some sort of self fulfilling prophesy where there is some sort of pre-existing bias that is creating this distinction. The distinction happens because there is an actual difference between what Paul seems to be teaching and what everyone else in the bible seems to be teaching.

Regardless of why or how this distinction happens, the fact is that it does happen and does so mostly without anyone noticing it. What most people do is focus almost entirely on their proof texts and if they look at their problem texts at all, their efforts are spent trying to understand them in a manner that agrees with their proof texts. It doesn't matter which set of passages are the proof texts and which are the problem texts. Both sides do effectively the same thing just in reverse of each other. If you're a Southern Baptist then the book you write about whether you can lose your salvation is going to spend 85% of the pages focused on passages written by Paul and the rest of the time explaining how any passage that seems to teach that you can lose your salvation is being misunderstood. If, on the other hand, you're a Free Will Baptist then your book will do the exact same thing except the proof and problem texts will be reversed.

Again, this all happens mostly without anyone making any intentional distinction about Paul or not Paul. Most don't even notice that this is where the dividing line happens to land but, whether one is aware of it or not, whichever camp you end up in on any of these issues comes down to whether you interpret the bible in light of Paul's teachings or if you interpret Paul in light of the Peter, James and John (and Jesus by the way).

But what if both camps are wrong?

I mean, some of these issues are pretty much binary in nature, right. You can either lose your salvation or you cannot. There isn't a third option and so one of these camps is right and the other is wrong on that issue but what if the camp that lands on the right answer does so in spite of a faulty manner of reading and understand the Bible in general and the New Testament in particular? What if there was a way to read both sets of passages and take them all to mean precisely what it seems like they mean and not have any conflict between them whatsoever? As I asked earlier, what if there was a way to read Romans 4:5 and James 2:24, take them BOTH to mean precisely what they seem to be saying, yet without conflict, without any need to interpret one in light of the other? What if you could land on what you can be confident of being the right answer on any of these issues and have NO PROBLEM TEXTS whatsoever?

If there was such a way, do you suppose that God would have included such a teaching in His word?

I submit to you that there is such a way and that it is totally included in God's word, as plain as day. In fact, the entire idea can be boiled down to one single sentence and that sentence is in the New Testament! It is a sentence that you have no doubt read dozens of times and all it takes to be able to read the bible and have all the confusion evaporate like a mist in the late morning Sun is to take that single sentence to mean what it plainly states. No need for fancy dictionaries, no need to read the bible in Greek or Hebrew, no fancy translation tricks or other mumbo-jumbo. All you have to do is read it, take it to mean what it flatly states and then apply that when you read the rest of the Bible.

Care to know what that sentence is?

Clete
 
Last edited:

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
Prophecy refers to the prophecies from the Prophets in the Old Testament.
Paul is using that term in the mystery way.....which speaks of edifying the body of believers.

Christ in you is just one of the mysteries Paul gives us.

The Law of Moses
Are you ready to honestly say that those walking in darkness, now, are in the light?
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
Glorydaz does not need my help but I thought I'd throw in my two cents. This is done more for my own benefit than anyone else's. I just feel the need to move through this material and put into my own words....

Both John's message and his audience was different than Paul's. There are huge amounts of overlap between the two but in regards to salvation and sanctification, the two are quite different indeed.

There are lots of doctrinal issues that Christians disagree about. Many are not content with mere disagreement either. Many, if not most all the divisions within the church revolves around issues that have to do with what is required of us to either get saved, stay saved and or live the Christian life. Whether water baptism is required is probably the biggest one of them all. There's just crazy amounts of division and even real anger and hatred generated over a religious ritual that takes up a very few minutes of a person's life.

That isn't the only such issue though. There are disagreements about....

  • which day of the week should we have church on (i.e. should we keep the Sabbath)
  • will the rapture happen and if so when
  • should a believer avoid eating various foods
  • is it a problem to be or to get circumcised
  • should believers expect to see or experience physical miracles
  • is doing good works required of the believer to either get or stay saved
  • can believers lose their salvation
All of these issues, and several others as well, are more directly related than they might seem and they are all properly resolved in the same way.

Usually when people study to get an answer to any of these issues, they look at them one at a time and go through the bible, collect all the biblical material that seems pertinent and go from there. There will be some passages that seem to teach one side of the issue and other passages that teach the other. Depending on which side of the issue you're on, one of these two sets of scripture will be proof texts and the other will be problem texts. Regardless of which side you're on, you'll have to decide how to deal with the problem texts. Some try to explain how they don't mean what they seem to mean, others simply ignore the problem texts altogether. There are thousands of books that have been written based on this exact formula with just as many on one side as there are on the other of any of these topics. That's great for the book selling industry but I'm not so sure is all that good for anyone else.

Well, what if there was a way to resolve all of these issues and others like it where you didn't have any problem texts? Where you could read Romans 4:5 and James 2:24, take them BOTH to mean precisely what they seem to be saying, yet without conflict, without any need to make one say the same thing as the other?

There is such a way!

If you care to notice, all of the issues I've listed and several others as well, all revolve around the Apostle Paul. There are people, for example, who believe you can lose your salvation and other who do not. The proof texts for one group will be in every book of the bible other than those written by Paul and the proof texts for the other group will virtually all be in the books written by Paul. Same goes for the issue of water baptism requirements. Same goes for the timing of the rapture. Same goes for water baptism. Etc. One set of proof texts were written by Paul, the other set by everyone else who wrote a book of the bible. (There are minor exceptions to this but it is generally the case to an extent that mere coincidence cannot account for.)

To be clear, I am not suggesting that the divide between one side or the other on these issues has to do with one group or the other having some sort of personal preference for or against Paul. It isn't some sort of self fulfilling prophesy where there is some sort of pre-existing bias that is creating this distinction. The distinction happens because there is an actual difference between what Paul seems to be teaching and what everyone else in the bible seems to be teaching.

Regardless of why or how this distinction happens, the fact is that it does happen and does so mostly without anyone noticing it. What most people do is focus almost entirely on their proof texts and if they look at their problem texts at all, their efforts are spent trying to understand them in a manner that agrees with their proof texts. It doesn't matter which set of passages are the proof texts and which are the problem texts. Both sides do effectively the same thing just in reverse of each other. If you're a Southern Baptist then the book you write about whether you can lose your salvation is going to spend 85% of the pages focused on passages written by Paul and the rest of the time explaining how any passage that seems to teach that you can lose your salvation is being misunderstood. If, on the other hand, you're a Free Will Baptist then your book will do the exact same thing except the proof and problem texts will be reversed.

Again, this all happens mostly without anyone making any intentional distinction about Paul or not Paul. Most don't even notice that this is where the dividing line happens to land but, whether one is aware of it or not, whichever camp you end up in on any of these issues comes down to whether you interpret the bible in light of Paul's teachings or if you interpret Paul in light of the Peter, James and John (and Jesus by the way).

But what if both camps are wrong?

I mean, some of these issues are pretty much binary in nature, right. You can either lose your salvation or you cannot. There isn't a third option and so one of these camps is right and the other is wrong on that issue but what if the camp that lands on the right answer does so in spite of a faulty manner of reading and understand the Bible in general and the New Testament in particular? What if there was a way to read both sets of passages and take them all to mean precisely what it seems like they mean and not have any conflict between them whatsoever? As I asked earlier, what if there was a way to read Romans 4:5 and James 2:24, take them BOTH to mean precisely what they seem to be saying, yet without conflict, without any need to interpret one in light of the other? What if you could land on what you can be confident of being the right answer on any of these issues and have NO PROBLEM TEXTS whatsoever?

If there was such a way, do you suppose that God would have included such a teaching in His word?

I submit to you that there is such a way and that it is totally included in God's word, as plain as day. In fact, the entire idea can be boiled down to one single sentence and that sentence is in the New Testament! It is a sentence that you have no doubt read dozens of times and all it takes to be able to read the bible and have all the confusion evaporate like a mist in the late morning Sun is to take that single sentence to mean what it plainly states. No need for fancy dictionaries, no need to read the bible in Greek or Hebrew, no fancy translation tricks or other mumbo-jumbo. All you have to do is read it, take it to mean what it flatly states and then apply that when you read the rest of the Bible.

Care to know what that sentence is?

Clete
I hear your POV, and the "sentence" is..."We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." (1 John 5:18)

I thought the next verse was also pertinent..."Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." (John 16:13)

I am truly interested in your choice of sentences.
 

Poly

Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Regarding my question, it wasn't an attempt to get Beloved57 to doubt his salvation. I have full confidence that he is saved.
 
Top