Same here, although it is nice to take a break from these conversations when they appear to do little but tread water.
It's funny that they would throw some of their own under the bus to justify their Christianity
The person I was conversing with was a conservative heterosexual man, who had some sympathy with certain "gay rights" claims. I do not know how representative he was of the GLBT views. He reduced what is wrong with homosexuality to one thing everyone agrees is profoundly wrong: a married man having a homosexual affair, and tried to convince me that that was the only thing St. Paul meant to condemn. What I see coming directly from the gay lobby is more of a generic kumbaya stuff.
If God gave me an indestructible motor, it would remain in tact no matter how many accidents it was in. The important point is that God would NOT tell me "Here is a car that runs forever". That would be very misleading since God could very well give me such a car. If only the motor was meant to be indestructible, then that's what He would say. I think it is the same with "eternal life". If He really meant "eternal life with a ton of strings and conditions attached" then He would have said so.
Same as with Honda's near supernatural hardware, the "motor" is given you so that you can exercize freedom driving around. It is impossible to give one a car which you yourself drive, and then protect you from driving it into a telephone pole. Jesus did say so much, -- moving on to John 6:54.
The verse by itself says that if you take Christ inside yourself, i.e. accept Him, that you will have life in you. It does not add a further condition that you will lose that life if you do not do a, b, and c
This is the verse 54, again: "Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you". The condition is right there: take the Eucharist, and the consequence of violating it is there, too: you shall not have life.
I know there are a few verses that "sound" like one can lose his salvation, but the whole weight of scripture is squarely on one side, IMO.
he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved (Mt 10:22, 24:13, similar Mark 13:!3)Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall. (1 Cor 10:12, also see the entire preceding discourse)
by good works you may make sure your calling and election. (2 Peter 1:10)
6 Who will render to every man according to his works. 7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: 8 But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. 9 Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. 10 But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 2)
The incense represents the prayers, but are not the prayers themselves
The text does not say anything about "represents" in either Chapter 5 or 8. Besides, what difference would that make anyway: obviously incense is not the prayer itself, but the reality described in Apocalypse 5 and 8 is still saints praying to God who knows of the prayer as He is judging us.
You are inserting a motive here for the giving of the motor. I could just as easily say that the giving of the motor was to ensure that it would take me all the way to Heaven, infallibly. If the car carrying it crashed, God would simply install it into another chassis, and I would be on my way again.
Why would you say it is impossible to protect me from driving into a telephone pole? We're talking God here. :) I could give a baby a certain toy and only let him play with it while I was sitting right in front of him and looking right at him. This would protect him from injuring himself. I think God watches us that closely all the time. He will certainly let us stick a block in our eye from time to time, but He would never let us choke on it.
This is the verse [John 6:] 54, again: "Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you". The condition is right there: take the Eucharist, and the consequence of violating it is there, too: you shall not have life.
Here you are only showing one condition and I am saying that you are really asserting two on this point. I know we honestly disagree on whether this verse is talking about the Eucharist or not, but that's not even what I'm talking about.
We started with your saying that God's promising "eternal life" is consistent with the possibility of losing it for failure to keep a condition. I am saying that your posit requires TWO conditions and not just one. First you are saying there is a requirement to (in your interpretation) take the Eucharist in order to get eternal life in the first place. Verse 54 DOES take us this far. But then, in order for eternal life to actually BE eternal, you impose a second condition, that of repeating the sacraments along with everything else one needs to do in order to keep eternal life. This second condition is not found in the verse, nor do I believe it is found anywhere in scripture. Eternal means forever.
FK: "I know there are a few verses that "sound" like one can lose his salvation, but the whole weight of scripture is squarely on one side, IMO."
You then list several verses presumably as examples of the possibility of losing one's salvation:
he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved (Mt 10:22, 24:13, similar Mark 13:!3)
Very true. POTS says that perseverance is guaranteed by God for the elect.
Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall. (1 Cor 10:12, also see the entire preceding discourse)
Right, we should never rest on our laurels. The plain meaning of OSAS is false. Earlier it says:
It wasn't the performance of ritual or task that was important. Paul says faith is what matters. Verse 12 follows this. We should not think we are "covered" because of our race or our deeds AS THE REASON for our salvation. We should also be constantly examining ourselves for potential correction.1 Cor 10:2-5 : 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.
by good works you may make sure your calling and election. (2 Peter 1:10)
YOU may make sure. By faith first, you knew it originally. That is different from it being sure in fact, it has to do with our knowing it continually. This is a perfect verse for showing that works are an evidence of an already held faith, and not an independent component of salvation.
On Romans 2:6-10, Paul was specifically talking about deeds, evil ones, and to drive his point home he focused on the back end of a higher truth. The whole chapter is about deeds, but elsewhere he puts them into context. Faith comes first, then deeds.
The text does not say anything about "represents" in either Chapter 5 or 8. Besides, what difference would that make anyway: obviously incense is not the prayer itself, but the reality described in Apocalypse 5 and 8 is still saints praying to God who knows of the prayer as He is judging us.
The difference is whether saints, after physical death, actually pass along prayers they have received from us or not. So I agree that the incense is not the prayer of the living person on earth itself. The prayers of the people on earth go directly to God.