A Baptist View of Free Will

I believe that once we accept God's direction...we become free of satan's grip.
This does not mean we will never sin again...man will always sin.
But salvation gives us the capacity to work with a mind that is in line with God's desires for us
and we will always take His commands into consideration.
Those that do not believe in God will listen only to their own congnitive abilities.
I just wanted to point out that when I say "cognitive abilities" I am including the ability to reason about God's commandments, as the Holy Spirit also speaks to our reason. Learning from Scriptures requires reason, isn't it true?

A poorly educated Jehovah Witness will not have the same ability that a highly educated Jehovah Witness to consider your arguments on why the explicit statements in the Bible about abstaining from blood do not apply to the blood transfusion they need.
As a result, the first one will most likely remain attached to his beliefs, and decide to reject the transfusion and die.
The second one is more likely to be able to challenge his own views and those of his organization, and decide to accept the transfusion.

Would God condemn the first one for having taken a decision he honestly thought was the most in line with God's desire?

Couldn't disagree more.
We will ALWAYS need God's grace.
Jesus said that without Him we can do nothing and that we are to ABIDE in Him.
I was just making a rhetorical statement, my sister, as an exercise.
If we had a perfectly informed free will, we would not be humans. We would be God... and therefore, we wouldn't need God's grace.;)

Just as a footnote, one of the titles of God in Baha'i Scriptures is "The Free". God enjoys absolute and true freedom, since He is All-Knowing. Knowledge begets freedom (John 8:32).

Do you believe in the sin nature of man?
Do you believe man could achieve some kind of perfection on his own?
Pelagius believed this.
I believe man can't do anything apart from God. In God we live, move and have our existence.
No kind of progress, virtue or perfection is possible without his grace.
 
Why did Paul preach to Lydia in Acts 16:14 if the LORD was going to open her heart?
Acts 16 verse 10 says that Paul was given a message to preach the good news at Macedonia.
What good news would that be?
What IS the good news in the reformed gospel?
Can a reformed believer honestly tell anyone that they can be saved by believing the gospel?
I don't see how....since only God knows who HE WILL CHOOSE,,,there is no way to proclaim the good news of salvation to anyone
because the good news states that one needs only to believe and he will be saved.


John 1:2
2But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.

Romans 10:9
9Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Acts 2:38
38And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:16
16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.


In any verse which states how to be saved....the action (belief) is always left to the person.
It is a free will acceptance of the gospel..
The good news that ANYONE can be saved by believing and obeying.


Lydia was already a GOD FEARING WOMAN....
Her heart was opened to the Christian message.
When we turn to God...
He ALWAYS welcomes us and opens our hearts to His words.


Why did Jesus preach to "not of my sheep" in John 10:25-26?

First Jesus came to the Jews...
then the Gentiles.

John 10:1-16
1 “Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber.
2 The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep.
3 The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice.
5 But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.”
6 Jesus used this figure of speech, but the Pharisees did not understand what he was telling them.
7 Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep.
8 All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them.
9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture.
10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it.
13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—
15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.
16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.


What we learn from the above:

1. The gatekeeper (God) opens the gate for Him (Jesus, the shepherd).

2. The sheep listen to His voice....they listen....listening is an act of free will....to listen means to obey.

3. The sheep will never follow a stranger.
Follow a stranger....the sheep FOLLOW....the are not dragged along. Following is a free will choice.

4. WHOEVER enters through the gate will be saved. It does not state only the elect or only the chosen.
It says WHOEVER...just as John 3:16 states. ANYONE can enter through the gate.
In Matthew 7:13 Jesus exhorts us to ENTER through the narrow gate.


John 10:25-26
25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me,
26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.



Where is the conflict?
Only those that believe understand that Jesus is God and that He does the work of the Father.
This refers back to 1 Cor 2:15 Only those that believe hear the Holy Spirit and understand the words of God.

Why did the "sower" sow the seed on all 4 soils in Luke 8?
The sower sowed seed on all the soils because it's up to the individual to accept or not accept.
It's not up to God to choose who will be saved.

Also, the sower debunks the theory of perseverance of the saints.
Luke 8:13
13 Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.



They received the word WITH JOY.
They BELIEVED FOR A WHILE but later FELL AWAY.

Let's remember that it's Jesus making the above statement.
THEY BELIEVED FOR A WHILE....this means it IS POSSIBLE to believe for a while
and THEN fall away.

Fall away from what?
Faith, belief.

Jesus does not support Preservation of the Saints.
  • Answer:
  • [Eph 2:10 KJV] "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."
  • 1 Co 3:6-7 [KJV] "I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase."
[That's monergism]
Unfortunately, the above has nothing to do with our discussion.
The discussion is : WHY PREACH THE GOSPEL IF GOD DECIDES WHO WILL BE SAVED OR CONDEMNED.

Eph 2:10 and 1 Cor 3:6-7 do not support your idea of monergism.
 
Why preach the gospel at all IF God is going to choose the saved and the lost???
You hit the nail on the head, my sister.

God's call is for everyone.
Otherwise, instead of sending preachers to knock at every door, God would have painted the doors of the elect of certain color (say, red like in the Passover) so that the preacher would know which one to knock at.
 
Once we define any human capacity, the definition does not imply that the capacity is unlimited.
For example, agreeing on what "memory" means, does not imply that I can remember what happened to me on March 13th, 2011 by 5:00 PM.

According to the definition we agreed on, if I have free will, I will be able to choose between two moral options... say A and B.
But to choose between A and B I need first to identify A and B with enough clarity: what A and B really are, what are the consequences, why I feel inclined to choose or reject A and B, etc.

Let's take the example you provide:
Our ability to decide on whether we should kill a person may be severely challenged by circumstances like war or defending from an aggression. Even abortion and euthanasia have been subject to the same debate. This gets further complicated when, instead of "killing", we go through different degrees of "hurting" or "putting a life in risk".
In many of these situations it would be difficult to know whether a person actually "decided" to kill/not kill (or hurt/not hurt) or was just allowing her more primitive impulses to take control because her cognitive skills could not help her much.
I see that we're not going to get past the definition.
If we don't understand free will the same way...it will be impossible to discuss it.

Maybe I should have used the word MURDER.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the definition...I just don't have a lot of time to spend on here.
Well, I would gently suggest to keep small children and mentally disabled people in the loop within any discussion about free will.
How does a mentally handicapped person have free will?
Now we'd have to discuss the REASON why there is limited mental capacity.
Then we'd have to discuss the OUTCOME of the reason.

I'm just not willing to have philosophical discussions.
By doing this we keep the perspective of the whole spectrum of free will: how it develops, what it means for the person in question and how it impacts our understanding and the judgement we often pass unto others.

Could we keep them as part of the discussion?
Sorry Pancho.
I discuss theology and apologetics.
I find philosophy very interesting but it's just not what I know about and so I cannot discuss something I know nothing about.
(Please think: how could we discuss "human sight" if we don't include in the discussion the visually impaired people?)
Guess we can't.
We do.

I believe you for sure.
It is good that you mention the term "spectrum", because within the spectrum of autism (and many other conditions) there is a spectrum of free will. Not all autistic children are able to identify with the same clarity what they want, what they need, what other people want and need, what good or harm can A or B cause, etc. Furthermore, the ability to realize that they MUST make a decision is not the same.
I know this very well. My point is that some of them do.
See...this conversation can go on forever without getting anywhere.
They show us that free will moves within the spectrum of the cognitive abilities free will needs to operate.
OK.
If you want to discuss philosophical free will you'll have to do it with someone else.
I was honest and stated this from the very beginning which is why I gave you the theological definition of free will.
 
I just wanted to point out that when I say "cognitive abilities" I am including the ability to reason about God's commandments, as the Holy Spirit also speaks to our reason. Learning from Scriptures requires reason, isn't it true?

A poorly educated Jehovah Witness will not have the same ability that a highly educated Jehovah Witness to consider your arguments on why the explicit statements in the Bible about abstaining from blood do not apply to the blood transfusion they need.
As a result, the first one will most likely remain attached to his beliefs, and decide to reject the transfusion and die.
The second one is more likely to be able to challenge his own views and those of his organization, and decide to accept the transfusion.

Would God condemn the first one for having taken a decision he honestly thought was the most in line with God's desire?
Yes.
That's what free will is all about.
The free will to sin or not to sin.
God is just and will judge on the decision.
I was just making a rhetorical statement, my sister, as an exercise.
If we had a perfectly informed free will, we would not be humans. We would be God... and therefore, we wouldn't need God's grace.;)

Just as a footnote, one of the titles of God in Baha'i Scriptures is "The Free". God enjoys absolute and true freedom, since He is All-Knowing. Knowledge begets freedom (John 8:32).


I believe man can't do anything apart from God. In God we live, move and have our existence.
No kind of progress, virtue or perfection is possible without his grace.
That's not an answer.
Do you believe that man has a sin nature?
Or do you believe that man is born good?
 
You hit the nail on the head, my sister.

God's call is for everyone.
Otherwise, instead of sending preachers to knock at every door, God would have painted the doors of the elect of certain color (say, red like in the Passover) so that the preacher would know which one to knock at.
The preacher wouldn't even be necessary.

So my point is this:
We're in a thread about the baptist view of free will.

My contention (and that of every other non-calvinist Christian) is that the reformed teach that
man DOES NOT have free will.
They will say man does because he will do what he desires the most.
Problem is that what he desires the most will be what God DECREES for him to desire the most.
It's an interesting ferris wheel. It goes 'round and 'round.
The above is called compatibilist free will --- which is no free will at all.

Every other Christian believes in libertarian free will.
Libertarian free will teaches that a person is able to freely choose between 2 moral options.
(given no other circumstance such as outside coercion).
 
Acts 16 verse 10 says that Paul was given a message to preach the good news at Macedonia.
What good news would that be?
What IS the good news in the reformed gospel?
Can a reformed believer honestly tell anyone that they can be saved by believing the gospel?
I don't see how....
... and THAT is why I only responded to the general mischaracterization of monergism as RADICAL SUPRALAPSARIANISM [no need for evangelism since God does not use means to achieve His desired and inevitable ENDS].

I offered answers, which you ignored, so there is no room for conversation.
You believe me damned, so there is no "fellowship" between us.

What more need be said.
Return to "ignore" and "Talk to the hand".
 
Hellfire and damnation should be part of the gospel @MTMattie.

J.
Gospel is Good News. :geek:

Telling a person "You are in hell" is not good news. Either she has already noticed it, or will soon notice it.
Telling a person "God can get you out of the hell you live in" is good news.

If a doctor tells her patient "You are in extreme pain" she's not giving good news. The patient came to the doctor precisely because she is in extreme pain. If a doctor tells her patient "You will stop having pain with this treatment" then she's giving good news.

Whenever you speak of hellfire as a place of future torment, nobody listens.
People care about the hell they are experiencing now.
A bad life sucks. A bad life hurts. People need God now. And God's offer is for now.

1739465666442.png
 
... and THAT is why I only responded to the general mischaracterization of monergism as RADICAL SUPRALAPSARIANISM [no need for evangelism since God does not use means to achieve His desired and inevitable ENDS].
I don't remember what supralaps.....is.
There is also the opposite...but I don't recall what it is either.

What means do you think God uses?

I offered answers, which you ignored, so there is no room for conversation.
Actually you gave verses and I replied to them....
we don't have to agree.
If you don't care to converse it's OK.
I know it must be difficult to contend with this on these forums.
But,,,again,,,it's because no other denomination agrees....
there must surely be something wrong when only a small group believes something.

You believe me damned, so there is no "fellowship" between us.
When did I say you were damned?
Did I turn into God since the last time we met up?

I said reformed/calvinist theology is heretical.
I didn't say anything about YOU.
I don't think you're damned for goodness sake.
I think you're following INCORRECT SOTERIOLOGY/THEOLOGY.


What more need be said.
Return to "ignore" and "Talk to the hand".
I don't use ignore.
I'm not in a kindergarten class here.
If you wish to refrain from posting to me, that's OK.
I still think you're very intelligent and I'll continue to make
comments here and there.
You're still my favorite calvinist.
:)
 
Gospel is Good News. :geek:

Telling a person "You are in hell" is not good news. Either she has already noticed it, or will soon notice it.
Telling a person "God can get you out of the hell you live in" is good news.

If a doctor tells her patient "You are in extreme pain" she's not giving good news. The patient came to the doctor precisely because she is in extreme pain. If a doctor tells her patient "You will stop having pain with this treatment" then she's giving good news.

Whenever you speak of hellfire as a place of future torment, nobody listens.
People care about the hell they are experiencing now.
A bad life sucks. A bad life hurts. People need God now. And God's offer is for now.

View attachment 1359
I'm not interested in your philosophical arguments or your radical reinterpretation of the Scriptures. And judging by your signature, you don't even adhere to some of your own Bahá'í tenets.

Frankly, I'm surprised you're still here.

J.
 
I'm not interested in your philosophical arguments or your radical reinterpretation of the Scriptures. And judging by your signature, you don't even adhere to some of your own Bahá'í tenets.

Frankly, I'm surprised you're still here.

J.

That's OK, my brother. We all have different interests.
I am interested in your points of view, so I read them and comment on them.

Praise be to God for your presence and participation in the Forum.
 
I think you're following INCORRECT SOTERIOLOGY/THEOLOGY.
Fantastic way to put it!
I wished we all use the word "incorrect theology" instead of "heresy", "lie", "blasphemy", "deception", "betrayal to the truth", "doctrine of demons", "attack to the fundamentals of the gospel" and similar terms that flood theological debates on the Internet. They are like a plague. Sometimes I think God laughs at them. Sometimes I think God hates them.
Probably God doesn't do any of the two, but I do :geek:
 
Fantastic way to put it!
I wished we all use the word "incorrect theology" instead of "heresy", "lie", "blasphemy", "deception", "betrayal to the truth", "doctrine of demons", "attack to the fundamentals of the gospel" and similar terms that flood theological debates on the Internet. They are like a plague. Sometimes I think God laughs at them. Sometimes I think God hates them.
Probably God doesn't do any of the two, but I do :geek:
I've been on these forums quite a few years now.
I've recently come to the conclusion that Calvinism is indeed heretical.
If we want to be honest, we'd also have to say that it's blasphemous and
I could explain why.

You're a nice person and belong to a nice religion.
One that wishes to see all peoples get along and worship the One true God
based on the teachings of their own lord...the one sent by God.

Christianity is not like that.
We believe that only Jesus raised Himself from the dead,
or even if God Father raised Him...this was done to prove that He
is indeed God and that we are to follow Him.

So we hold our beliefs very dear and would like to see all Christians adhere to
biblical teachings - at least the big, important ones that make a person be Christian.

Now...I can't remember the name of your inspired person...but I know that he did not
claim to be God and he did not come back from the dead.

So the end result is this:
Either Jesus was a crazy person who thought He was God...
or
He was God.

This is why we consider Him to be different from every other illuminato.
 
I've been on these forums quite a few years now.
I've recently come to the conclusion that Calvinism is indeed heretical.
If we want to be honest, we'd also have to say that it's blasphemous and
I could explain why.

You're a nice person and belong to a nice religion.
One that wishes to see all peoples get along and worship the One true God
based on the teachings of their own lord...the one sent by God.

Christianity is not like that.
We believe that only Jesus raised Himself from the dead,
or even if God Father raised Him...this was done to prove that He
is indeed God and that we are to follow Him.

So we hold our beliefs very dear and would like to see all Christians adhere to
biblical teachings - at least the big, important ones that make a person be Christian.

Now...I can't remember the name of your inspired person...but I know that he did not
claim to be God and he did not come back from the dead.

So the end result is this:
Either Jesus was a crazy person who thought He was God...
or
He was God.

This is why we consider Him to be different from every other illuminato.
I see your point, GodsGrace.

Please bear with me in explaining the two reasons why I applaud your use of "incorrect theology" while reject the use of "heresy" in this Forum:

1. The use of "heresy" in the Bible goes beyond a doctrinal mistake. The Bible counts heretics among those who live the life of the flesh, and therefore cannot enter the Kingdom of God. So, by calling a Calvinist heretic, we are telling him that we know he lives an immoral, wicked life, and that we know he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

"Now the works of the flesh are revealed, which are these: adultery, sexual immorality, impurity, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, strife, jealousy, rage, selfishness, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I previously warned you, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Gal 5:19-20)


2. Apostles were mainly concerned about the moral effects of the false teachings. They spent 10% of their time and "ink" in refuting with arguments as we do in the Forum, and 90% in exposing them as wicked persons. So, although it is not our intention, by calling a Calvinist "heretic", we are telling him that they more or less fit the longest description of false teachers found in 2 Peter chapter 2. Please look where the emphasis is placed:

"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words. Their judgment, made long ago, does not linger, and their destruction does not slumber.
For if God did not spare the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness to be kept for judgment; and if He did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, making them an example to those afterward who would live ungodly lives; and if He delivered righteous Lot, who was distressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked (for that righteous man lived among them, and what he saw and heard of their lawless deeds tormented his righteous soul day after day); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the Day of Judgment, especially those who walk after the flesh in pursuit of unclean desires, and despise authority.
They are presumptuous and arrogant, and are not afraid to slander the angelic beings. Whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring slanderous accusations against them before the Lord. But these people are like irrational animals, born to be captured and destroyed. They speak evil of the things that they do not understand, and in their corruption they will be destroyed.
They shall receive the wages of unrighteousness. They count it a pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes who revel in their own deception while they carouse together with you. They have eyes full of adultery that cannot cease from sin. They entice unstable souls. Their hearts are trained in greed. They are cursed children! They have forsaken the right way and have gone astray. They follow the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness, but who was rebuked for his iniquity. The mute donkey speaking with a man’s voice constrained the madness of the prophet.
These men are wells without water and clouds that are carried by a storm, for whom the gloom of darkness has been reserved forever. For when they speak arrogant words of vanity, they entice by the lusts of the flesh and by depravity those who barely escaped from those who live in error. Although they promise them freedom, they themselves are slaves of corruption, for by that which a man is overcome, to this he is enslaved. For if after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than to have known it and then turn back from the holy commandment that was delivered to them. But it has happened to them according to the true proverb, “The dog returns to his own vomit", and “the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mud.”
 
Last edited:
I rejoice when my Christian brothers and sisters show spiritual unity in the middle of the natural theological differences, that we should continue to discuss openly and honestly.

Seeking for spiritual unity is not just a matter of being a nice person belonging to a nice religion. It is a matter of fulfilling the deepest desire of Jesus Christ. The unity Jesus wants to see in you guys is as strong, as meaningful, as the unity between Jesus and The Father.

I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, that they may all be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You. May they also be one in Us, that the world may believe that You have sent Me. I have given them the glory which You gave Me, that they may be one even as We are one: I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfect in unity, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. (John 17:20-22)
 
I see your point, GodsGrace.

Please bear with me in explaining the two reasons why I applaud your use of "incorrect theology" while reject the use of "heresy" in this Forum:

1. The use of "heresy" in the Bible goes beyond a doctrinal mistake. The Bible counts heretics among those who live the life of the flesh, and therefore cannot enter the Kingdom of God. So, by calling a Calvinist heretic, we are telling him that we know he lives an immoral, wicked life, and that we know he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

"Now the works of the flesh are revealed, which are these: adultery, sexual immorality, impurity, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, strife, jealousy, rage, selfishness, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I previously warned you, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Gal 5:19-20)

I agree that a heresy goes beyond a doctrinal dispute.

Look at your list.
If I'm jealous,,,am I going straight to hell?
If I'm sexually immoral in some way, am I going straight to hell?
If I get drunk am I lost forever?

Paul was speaking to a way of life.
He was saying that if we want to be in the church,,,
then we must agree with the church.

He was agreeing with me.
2. Apostles were mainly concerned about the moral effects of the false teachings. They spent 10% of their time and "ink" in refuting with arguments as we do in the Forum, and 90% in exposing them as wicked persons. So, although it is not our intention, by calling a Calvinist "heretic", we are telling him that they more or less fit the longest description of false teachers found in 2 Peter chapter 2. Please look where the emphasis is placed:

"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words. Their judgment, made long ago, does not linger, and their destruction does not slumber.
I agree with the above.
I agree that there are false prophets who make up their very own doctrine.
Should I also agree with those that say that Jesus is not God?
Should I also agree with those that teach that we could live a life of sin and still be saved?

No. Pancho.
I will not agree with false prophets.

For if God did not spare the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness to be kept for judgment; and if He did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, making them an example to those afterward who would live ungodly lives; and if He delivered righteous Lot, who was distressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked (for that righteous man lived among them, and what he saw and heard of their lawless deeds tormented his righteous soul day after day); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the Day of Judgment, especially those who walk after the flesh in pursuit of unclean desires, and despise authority.
I don't know what this has to do with anything.
They are presumptuous and arrogant, and are not afraid to slander the angelic beings. Whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring slanderous accusations against them before the Lord. But these people are like irrational animals, born to be captured and destroyed. They speak evil of the things that they do not understand, and in their corruption they will be destroyed.
I've already replied to this.
And if you're insinuating that I'm arrogant because I like to keep to orthodox Christianity...
I will certainly accept your definition of me.
They shall receive the wages of unrighteousness. They count it a pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes who revel in their own deception while they carouse together with you. They have eyes full of adultery that cannot cease from sin. They entice unstable souls. Their hearts are trained in greed. They are cursed children! They have forsaken the right way and have gone astray. They follow the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness, but who was rebuked for his iniquity. The mute donkey speaking with a man’s voice constrained the madness of the prophet.
These men are wells without water and clouds that are carried by a storm, for whom the gloom of darkness has been reserved forever. For when they speak arrogant words of vanity, they entice by the lusts of the flesh and by depravity those who barely escaped from those who live in error. Although they promise them freedom, they themselves are slaves of corruption, for by that which a man is overcome, to this he is enslaved. For if after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than to have known it and then turn back from the holy commandment that was delivered to them. But it has happened to them according to the true proverb, “The dog returns to his own vomit", and “the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mud.”
What else can I say?

Do you think you'll be changing my mind?
 
I rejoice when my Christian brothers and sisters show spiritual unity in the middle of the natural theological differences, that we should continue to discuss openly and honestly.

Seeking for spiritual unity is not just a matter of being a nice person belonging to a nice religion. It is a matter of fulfilling the deepest desire of Jesus Christ. The unity Jesus wants to see in you guys is as strong, as meaningful, as the unity between Jesus and The Father.

I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, that they may all be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You. May they also be one in Us, that the world may believe that You have sent Me. I have given them the glory which You gave Me, that they may be one even as We are one: I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfect in unity, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. (John 17:20-22)
So who's breaking the unity Pancho??
Those that believe the Christianity of 2 thousand years ago..
or those that believe a new version of Christianity from 400 years ago?
 
So who's breaking the unity Pancho??
Those that believe the Christianity of 2 thousand years ago..
or those that believe a new version of Christianity from 400 years ago?
Divisions are not a modern problem.
Early Christians, those you refer to as believing the Christiany of 2000 years ago, also faced divisions, and big ones.
As we can read in the epistles of Paul and others, that was a hot issue that worried them... They spent pages writing to bring Christians to unity.
For example, I could say that the main purpose of the letters to Romans and Galatians was to bring converts from Jewish and Gentile background to unity. Not exactly to present a theological essay on justification, faith, works, grace and law.

Paul wanted over all things was to deactivate the conflict between those who despised Greeks for not conforming to the law of Moses, and those who despised Jews for belonging to a nation that have killed Christ.
Same with Peter. Whatever the doctrinal controversies, for Peter love was the thing.
"Above all things, have unfailing love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins." (1 P 4:8).

Even John, who warned about the gnostic heretics of his time, knew that love among brethren was the definitive sign of who is from the devil and how is from God... who is alive in God and who is still dead in his sins:
" In this the children of God and the children of the devil are revealed: Whoever does not live in righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother." "We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brothers." " In this the children of God and the children of the devil are revealed: Whoever does not live in righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother." (1 John 3:10,14)

And after apostolic times?

Well, we could go through the history of Christianism in the first centuries, the wars and mutual excommunications, the shedding of blood.
Then we could go through the divisions within the Reformers in the XVII, XVIII centuries and beyond.

So, to your question Who's breaking the unity? I would answer "Those who despise their brother for being wrong. Those who base their salvation not on Christ, but on Christology."

.
 
Last edited:
Divisions are not a modern problem.
Early Christians, those you refer to as believing the Christiany of 2000 years ago, also faced divisions, and big ones.
As we can read in the epistles of Paul and others, that was a hot issue that worried them... They spent pages writing to bring Christians to unity.
For example, I could say that the issue number 1 of the letters to Romans and Galatians was to bring converts from Jewish and Gentile background to unity. Not to present a theological essay on justification, faith, works, grace and law.
Could be. I'd say that the main reason for Paul's letters was to teach new converts...testify as to the truth of the Christian faith,
warn against heresies, and, yes, also to teach them to be of one mind.

So when a new religion/doctrine comes along that IS DIVISIVE,,,,are you saying that it's OK?
Because it seems that you're scolding ME instead of the ones that have brought the division.
Paul wanted over all things was to deactivate the conflict between those who despised Greeks for not conforming to the law of Moses, and those who despised Jews for belonging to a nation that have killed Christ.
I'm not a theologian...maybe I missed it.
Where is all this hate in the NT?

Paul was first a pastor, a community-builder and community-keeper... then, in a far second place, a theologian.
Some evangelical leaders have this upside down.
Seeing as how Paul wrote ROMANS and how educated he was...
I'd say that he was the first big Christian theologian.
The other writers certainly were not.

And after apostolic times?

Well, we could go through the history of Christianism in the first 3 centuries, the wars and mutual excommunications, the shedding of blood.
Then we could go through the divisions within the Reformers in the XVII, XVIII centuries and beyond.
I'm willing to discuss early church history.
Which wars?
So, to your question Who's breaking the unity? I would answer "Those who despise their brother for being wrong. Those who based their salvation on being right".

.
You sure do talk a lot about hate.
I don't see any hate in my posts and in the posts of those that reply to me.
Could be that it's there but I just don't see it.

And everyone here thinks they're right.
So we're all lost?
 
Back
Top Bottom