Posted on 05/04/2003 12:10:50 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
Do you sin when you have a bacon cheeseburger? Would you consider eating a bacon cheeseburger a sin? If not, why not?
Yes, he does!
Believers can do whatever they please. They cannot lose their salvation.
According to the article:
it is true that no matter what a person does after he is saved that person is still saved.
For the "saved" person, there are no eternal consequences to sin. Our salvation is guaranteed, regardless of our acts. We are saved because of our belief in Jesus. 'Nuff said.
Granted. As I pointed out in post #30, there is a LOT that hasn't been fulfilled yet.
Check it out again:
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them,I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
WHO do you think Jesus was speaking of in verse 22? WHO do you think does all that stuff in HIS name?
Also: The word "iniquity" comes from the Greek word "anomia". Thayer's Greek lexicon defines it this way:
BDB/Thayers # 458 anomia {an-om-ee'-ah} from 459; TDNT - 4:1085,646; n f AV - iniquity 12, unrighteousness 1, transgress the law + 4060 1, transgression of the law 1; 15 1) the condition of without law 1a) because ignorant of it 1b) because of violating it 2) contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness And Strong's Lexicon defines it: "illegality (i.e. violation of the law)
Iniquity = sin = turning away from God's LAW.
Wai Ming: For the "saved" person, there are no eternal consequences to sin.
Salvation is not a license to sin. It is merely a pardon from the sin. There is a huge difference. In order to get a pardon you must recognize that you have done wrong and plead for mercy. If you have a license to sin, then you need not ever ask for mercy. You need not ever ask for forgiveness. But the requirement for the Believer is that we must ask forgiveness. We must be contrite. We can't sin without conscience. If we do, then there is a signifcant question as to whether or not you are really a believer in Jesus. After all if you believe in Jesus, you will do what he asks.
You are wrong that there are no eternal consequences to the Christian's sin. There are eternal consequences to every sin. Lest you forget, Jesus died for that sin. Jesus suffered on the cross for that sin. Thus if you take pleasure in sin, then you take pleasure in Jesus suffering. If you take pleasure in Jesus suffering, then I don't think you can claim to be saved. Each time you deliberately commit a sin you crucify Jesus afresh as that is one more sin that Jesus had to suffer and die for. Does that make you feel good? Do you feel comfortable sinning knowing that Jesus had to suffer specifically for that sin?
If that doesn't bother you, if you feel free to sin without conscience, and without guilt, then it certainly won't bother Jesus to say to you at the Judgement, "Depart from me... I never knew you."
Just as you can take legalism too far, you certainly can also take "easy believism" too far. Something to think about.
Something to think about indeed.
From the Article:
Amazingly, when a person is saved, he is saved forever and cannot be lost...If one person were ever lost that was ever saved, then Jesus Christ would be a liar (John 6:39).
Therefore, it is true that no matter what a person does after he is saved that person is still saved
Once saved, always saved!
From Post 50:
You do good works because you love Jesus and the Holy Spirit leads you in that direction. You don't do them because you have to in order to be saved.
Good works are irrelevant to our salvation.
From Post 112:
You are wrong that there are no eternal consequences to the Christian's sin. There are eternal consequences to every sin.
And what might those "eternal consequences" be? If the above is correct, I cannot lose my salvation. Neither "sin" nor "good works" will have any lasting effect on one who is "saved." Logically, a saved person can sin with impugnity. (I'm not saying that I recommend it.) Christ has taken care of all our sins. We only have to believe in Him.
The real question is "what does 'believe in Him' mean?
From Post 1:
Ok, so you guys who don't like Easy Believism, what must a man do to be saved if not simply believe?
You seem to be implying here that "simply believing" is enough for salvation.
How many conditions other than belief are there?
How many? Let's see:
From Post 112:
But the requirement for the Believer is that we must ask forgiveness. We must be contrite.
From Post 50:
...repentance is an essential element,...it is a necessary element to our belief. Christ called us to repent. So if we are to be saved we must repent as we cannot believe unless we repent.
Hmmmm. Asking forgiveness, being contrite, repenting.... Seems a lot more than "simple" belief.
From Post 1:
My challenge to you is that if you don't believe in what many call "Easy Believism" then perhaps YOU don't believe the Gospel at all!
And from Post 112:
Just as you can take legalism too far, you certainly can also take "easy believism" too far.
So which is it? Is there more to salvation than "Easy Believism" or not?
Will the real P-Marlowe please stand up?
That seems to be lost on you. Oh well.
Let us just say that if you can willfully sin without any conscience at all, that is evidence that you do not have an honest belief Christ. It would be evidence that you have a strong belief in sin.
You would think God would've planned this out a little better before he went looking for a virgin. I hope he gets his timing right next time around.
" Luke 17:21 21 nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." (NIV) "
The Kingdom has definitely been delayed in you.
God gave people 'free will'. Choice. It wasn't God's fault that the people of Israel didn't repent, it wasn't Jesus' fault either.
The kingdom is within you, because the the laws are written upon our hearts. It is within you because it is up to you, the choices that you will make. Whether you will show your love for God, but submitting to His will, or if you will disobey and willfully ignore the laws.
1 John 1:5
5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
Go back to Genesis, and the 2 creations. One a little more expansive than the other. Right off the bat there is light, to seperate the darkness. Meaning all was darkness at first. Since the sun and moon didn't come along til later... this 'light' and 'darkness' to me indicate 'good and evil' or 'right and wrong'. Duality.
Next thing that stands out is obedience. Or more precisely 'dis-obedience'. Adam and Eve are kicked out of the garden.
Now, this is just an observation, and one I noticed several years ago, and that is, that in the 1st creation all animals including and Adam and Eve were told to go forth and multiply. In the 2nd creation, these words are missing.
Now, I suppose one could look at things from different perspectives, but we don't have a whole lot of 'time' involed, to compare data, so it would only be a supposition to say, that had they not partaken of the tree of knowledge, they wouldn't have known of evil, or procreation.
The first creation being 'carnal/flesh/darkness'?, (be fruitful and multiply) and the second not. What we might consider 'spiritual/light'?
I also noticed something else, Adam and Eve's first born is Cain. Second born is Abel. Cain kills Abel. Just as the first creation was carnal/flesh, so too, was Adam and Eve's first creation, Cain 'carnal or bad/evil', committing the first murder, because of 'jealousy'.
Did Eve partake of the tree of knowledge because she wanted to be 'better' than what she was? 'Pride'? Is this where we get the saying, 'Pride goeth before a great fall'?
Then we get to Abram and Hagar. Hagar becomes prideful when she conceives, eventually giving birth to Ishmael. Later Abram, now called Abraham and Sarah give birth to Isaac. Ishmael's birth is 'carnal/of the flesh/darkness', while Isaac's birth was based on a Promise/spiritual/light from God.
God reinforced the separation of the child of 'flesh/darkness', from the Child of 'Promise/light', when Hagar and Ishmael were sent off to wander. Another separation of darkness from light.
This is an interesting verse, too:
John 10:38
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
This one makes it look like works come before faith and that works are more important. Though you believe not me... BELIEVE THE WORKS.
Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
I think not. Think about the following verses.
Matthew 26:
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
One of the Noahide laws, carried over into Mosaic, is the commandment to abstain from 'drinking blood'. Jesus was a devout Jew, righteous. Do you really think that Jesus would suggest something, say something like the above verses, knowing full well that it was against Torah????
More likely the drinking of blood was added later. Drinking of blood is pagan, and probably introduced by Paul, whose roots were pagan Tarsus.
To suggest 'eating his flesh', canibalism, too, I would think Jesus would have been horrified at the idea, much less say something so ungodly.
The catholic eucharist believes that the wine and wafer become the actual body and blood of Christ. Do you have any idea how many people were burned at the stake because they refused to accept this pagan idea??
In my opinion, Jesus would NEVER had said such a thing. So WHO inserted it?
Since Paul's writings are the oldest in the NT, it seems logical that the gospels were crafted to support Paul's gospel, of gnostic paganism. jmo
14:15 - If ye love me, keep my commandments.
14:21 - He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
Acts 15
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Acts 15
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
Genesis 9
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.