I'm not sure how the term "eternal life" is presumptuous. Is eternal never ending or not? You're rehashing your point in another wrapper aren't you? But if a child of God could fall away, here's the question; Paul said, "it's impossible to be renewed". I believe you think that the Apostle meant it'd be very hard. It'd be really hard for a man who can fall away and actually be saved or yet be saved again. That seems to be what you're thinking, isn't it? You keep bringing that up because you're hoping the point where someone would fall from grace, would be a long road to actually reach that point. I get your point... I really do. But I want to quote an eminant preacher who had a firm grasp on the subject. Although he was a Calvinist believer, I still love reading his work... If the Savior is our anchor for our soul, even the greatest tempest wouldn't be able to break that anchor. The Apostle was letting us know that if it were possible, then there would never be a path to ever be saved again.
What? No, if you think that's my point, you are as wrong as could be. No. First, I don't think Paul wrote Hebrews. Second, no, if one commits apostasy, Scripture is crystal clear that such a person cannot ever be restored saved relationship. This issue is, if you want to use the phrase "eternal life," when does that eternal life begin? Our life now is temporal, not eternal.
Where is the "if" in Hebrews 6? If you believe in a great "falling away" prior to the Rapture, then who exactly is falling away, and what are they falling away from? Not being saved?
Why either creeds or fruit? Can it not be both? The New Testament has creeds recorded in it? Are those creeds unimportant? Can we toss them aside and reject them as long as we have fruit? Dani, you say you hold theological definitions loosely then spend two paragraphs on theology and then end with a creed: The Person of Jesus Himself. Plus nothing. Sounds like a creed. It is a creed. I agree with you! At least as far as it goes. It's not plus baptism, plus church every Sunday, plus get discipled, plus Eucharist/communion, plus catechism or plus Reformed confessions (not to say every one of those things isn't important, but they don't save). But even in what you've said....person of Jesus. The Jesus who is the created spirit brother of Satan? The Jesus who was a man like me and became a god like I will become one day? The Jesus who if I knew my Bible as well as he did, I could have died on the cross and done what he did? Are all those credal concepts side trivia that isn't essential? Or are those idols that people have created and named "Jesus"? Paul ran into various problems and he then corrected them with objective truth. They were wrong. He was correct. He wasn't wish-washy with definitions. And what was the context in which he said he resolved to know nothing but Christ crucified? If that's truly all he knew it would be a New Testament postcard. But it's in chapter 2 of 16 chapters. Paul knew quite a bit more. So obviously there is only a certain sense in which he knew only Christ crucified. He wrote 15 more chapters and 12 more epistles of stuff he knew - which we use to legitimately write creeds and confessions. Or can we pick and choose from what Paul wrote? We do lose the beautiful simplicity sometimes. But I don't think we regain it by discarding everything and gathering around Jesus. Again....which Jesus? I'm back to the why is it either/or? Can it not be both/and? Beliefs don't save. Jesus saved. But which Jesus? How does he save? Can we believe in the wrong Jesus but since we use those five letters J-E-S-U-S, we're ok no matter what we think he was? Can we have the right Jesus and believe we are saved by faith plus works (Roman Catholics have the right Jesus but add works to grace and faith)? I agree with much here. Disagree with some. You almost sound Reformed. You've said so much, I'm not sure what "it" is that you won't change your mind on. I hear you. But it seems like you're having an equally opposite and therefore equally wrong reaction. Lots of online Calvinist discussion groups are loaded with jerks. But their imbalance doesn't make a polar opposite imbalance any better. Isn't truth often (not always, but often) in a more middle ground? You can think whatever. Jesus, who you like to emphasize, said many will hear him say "I never knew you. Depart from me." I take those words at face value. You can take up universal reconciliation with him. I think to be fair, Kierk would say both there is a lot of agreement and there is a lot of disagreement. You and him are in contradiction because he says there is agreement on terms like salvation and perdition. You say there is not agreement on those terms. That is textbook contradiction. Thank goodness. I have too many books I've already bought but haven't read. I still love you, DaniH. Please don't take my poking at ideas as poking at you as a person.
Ok, that's a non issue. Again, we're returning to the disputed issue of what is saved. Again, it's the soul, not the flesh, and not the spirit. And eternal life for the soul begins when that soul is reborn. And if it is the soul, again we return to the scripture that tells us the state of the soul once it's born of God: 1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. No one RK. In your profession, how would you define the term rhetorical? And here's another one that uses that term Rapture.
I'm being serious. Are you saying there are some areas where the definition doesn't matter, and disagreement over the definition is legitimately between people who hold to the correct view of 'fruit', and those who don't?
Saved = relationship with God. Hebrews 6 and other passages indicate that such a relationship is not immutable. I don't believe Scripture teaches a tripartite human. Scripture teaches a human, a union of a material body and an immaterial essence. Your use of i John 3:9 in that manner screams of Gnosticism, saying that the body can sin while the soul does not. Hebrews 6 is not rhetorical. And Hebrews 6 is not alone. Rapture? It's a Latin term, straight out of the Vulgate. I personally don't hold to any such thing, being a partial preterist.
The people who follow the actual Jesus who was the subject of the apostles and Gospel authors, will all end up acting like Him. Because you become what you worship, and it's the point of a disciple to emulate his/her master. 1. They will love neighbors and enemies alike. 2. They will be full of compassion. 3. They will not tolerate religious bigotry or spiritual abuse. 4. They will connect in true friendship. 5. They will be willing to sacrifice their own lives so that others may live. 6. They will actually be concerned about the poor and marginalized within their own culture and society, and take active steps to help them. 7. They will exude peace. 8. They will display joy even in horrible circumstances. 9. They will be kind and patient with others. 10. They will be givers rather than takers. You are probably correct in that I, too, have a creed. But I will place actual behavior over creed, any day. Because if you are connected with the true and real Jesus as we Christians understand Him, then that connection will invariably transform you into some sort of "mini Jesus"; always and without fail. Not the God part where we get to save the whole world by dying for them, but the other, human part. And hopefully God will lend His power to our transformed human part at some point. So that other people can be born again, which is an actual supernatural act that nobody but God can make happen (at least that's what I believe). Why should you care what I have to say? I mean, honestly. I don't expect you to, other than the fact that you consider me your sister and as such take your time to pay attention to me and interact with me even when we disagree. That's the #1 reason I care about what anybody here has to say: Because you're my siblings and that's how I treat my siblings --- with attention and care (and the occasional yelling at them in German). I do try to listen to the spirit behind the letter, usually, and I do my very best to consider the person who is writing things (within internet limitations, of course). We have to do this. We have to prove ourselves to one another. Paul had to prove himself. The first disciples didn't just say "oh hey, you had a powerful conversion experience? Great, come on in, start teaching and make yourself at home." Nope. They did the exact opposite of that. They waited and tested and took their good time and expected Paul to prove himself over and over again before they listened to anything he had to say; brilliant though he was. Then again he had been persecuting them so that's even more understandable. I think I've sufficiently proven myself for y'all to read my diatribes even though you find them cringeworthy at times because I can be very contradictory and love making generalized statements and refuse to be pinned down to any "-ism" or whatever. I'm kind of a jerk that way. Sorry. I think you've all proven yourselves to the point where I (mostly) pay attention to what y'all have to say, even though a lot of things you do say go over my head or make my brain twitch, but I try to process them and formulate some sort of coherent response anyway, because of the fact that I consider you my brothers & sisters and we tend to get on pretty well, and have for a long time. If someone not my sibling said the same exact things you guys do ... then I'm not so sure I would pay the same kind of attention to them, honestly. Because brotherly love and all that jazz ...
There is no "correct view" of fruit, which is in itself a metaphor for something else: Behavior. I truly don't understand why words (seem to) matter more than behavior? Or are we just talking past each other which has happened before? If I walked up to you and told you "believe in Jesus!" and proceeded to beat you, literally, with my Bible, saying all the "right words" while also beating you ... you'd know instantly that I was full of it. Because behavior is its own proof, and we all know it. I look for behavior above all. Regardless of "right words". Consistent behavior, proven, over time, borne out in actual interactions between actual people. I watch for it like a hawk. Regardless of what someone says. Even on an internet forum or in social media people "behave" in certain ways. Which can at times be difficult to gauge because we're missing body language, facial expressions, tone of voice, and so forth that give us the clues we would normally go by in face-to-face interactions. But gauge we must, although with the internet as a buffer we can permit/suffer/tolerate aberrant behavior to a greater extent than in person because of the absence of physical threat.
Of course there is and you gave a great "definition" below. Agreed. 100% I have always felt that the most important tool in witnessing is how we interact with others. Even those we rarely speak with personally can view this witness. The gospel message can be conveyed with not only words but by also being a light in the darkness. Some can dismiss and shrug off the words but they can't help but see the light. Unfortunately some will hate you for it but that's just the way of the world, yeah? Some hate Jesus and will hate you too. That's just the way it is.
Words correspond to the world around us. If we define 'fruit' coming from obedience, then we have word and act in relationship. The word 'fruit' itself is, after all, imagery for exactly this; and, of course, no one saying that words matter more than behaviour. Your example proves my point, and answers the question I'm asking. The problem is that you wrote 'oh come on' earlier, and that there is 'no "correct view" of fruit' here, while arguing that there in fact is a correct view: fruit is the result of obedience to Jesus. So: (1) does it really all depend on definition? (2) is there a correct view of fruit, or not?
You obviously believe there is ... but I honestly don't see it. Do you think it's better to "correctly view/define" an apple and its qualities, or use it for the purpose it's been created, which is to shove it in your face and enjoy it and let it nourish you? Unless you're an apple grower, in which case you had better know your apples inside and out. That, to me, is the "correct view" ... one that in my mind only a grower can have. I am not an actual grower of spiritual/God things. I am a growee. Jesus was/is the Grower. Paul was a growee, trying to verbalize how the Grower does His growing. We're all "growees" in the end. So no, I don't think we get to have a "correct view" although that doesn't prevent us from "getting it mostly right" anyway, because of how we're created to function to begin with. By the Grower.
Is the fruit of the spirit disobedience? If you answer 'no', are you only 'getting it mostly right', or are you completely right?
Of course not. I see what you're getting at though. I look at things as "compared to Jesus". He was obedient in the purest and truest sense of the word. Me? Not so much. That's what I mean by "mostly right". There are times I struggle to obey and do the right thing. I don't see Jesus struggling, until it was time for Him to actually be tortured and then crucified. So if I struggle now, when it's comparatively easy, how will I struggle if it ever comes to me actually laying my life down? Will I do it?? I honestly don't know. Some things you *think* you know or *think* you believe, until some sort of reality hits. Then you find out that you honestly don't know or believe at all, beyond intellectual assent which then gives way to actual behavior that may or may not surprise you ...
But that's where faith comes in...and relationship. Unless we want to believe that Jesus would toss us out for one act of disobedience. Or that one act of unrepented disobedience would be evidence of a lack of relationship to start with.
Certainly. There is much grace given to children but at some point we must grow up ... which is normally when it gets interesting, like you're dealing with a different Jesus than you did when you were allowed to be a spiritual child. You're getting a different kind of grace but it can be difficult to see it as such. As a parent, I can appreciate that, but it's still weird at times. Lots of old children running around in adult suits ... just saying.
I'm just letting you know I've had a superbad horrible godawful day and I'm not going to continue with this. No slight to you and nothing to do with you or anyone here. I have no brain left and am starting my new job tomorrow and have to find 2 brain cells to rub together so I can actually do it. Peace out.