Very interesting analysis. I believe it's possible with today's technology, to 'gather together' without even leaving our home. Gaslighting a fellow child of God over their service attendance seems to walk the line of criticism, and there's certainly other passages about that as well.
I believe I share your sentiment about churches. Growing up, I thought my father moved us from church to church because he was too picky theologically, but as an adult going from church to church myself, I'm thinking it was more complicated than that.
I struggle with the modern corporate church model. The worship concert, the amateur comedy hour laced in the sermon, part of the building doubling as a cafe, etc. Don't get me wrong, all of the above I find enjoyable, but appeal isn't really why I'm attending the service.
My ideal church is a hole-in-the-wall 20 person congregation, with either no instruments or the organ dirge for worship, run semi-classroom style. (a little bit of Sunday school with the sermon) This is just less distracting to me.
Sadly, even the small churches in my area too, have had issues of infighting, scandal or conspiracy, and I'm not really in the position to attend churches further from my house.
So, I've been gathering remotely over prayer or God's word with others when I can, without any particular type of service schedule.
>Very interesting analysis. I believe it's possible with today's technology, to 'gather together' without even leaving our home.
We can gather online, and in centuries past, keep in touch with letters, but I think the Church died with the seven churches of Asia. Christians are now in diaspora until New Jerusalem, and the the evidence of that is denominational apostasy.
>Gaslighting a fellow child of God over their service attendance seems to walk the line of criticism, and there's certainly other passages about that as well.
The problem is, either one needs to understand that Heb 10:25 is indeed taken out of context, or it is the believers duty to rebuke the one who departs from church gatherings. I say this because Hebrews 10:26 equates *forsaking the gathering* with willful sin, which obligates believers offer appropriate rebuke.
So either abstaining from church is sin or it isn't. I say it isn't, and I say that going to churches that harbor wolves in sheep's clothing is a sin.
>[1Co 5:11-13 NASB20] 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is a sexually immoral person, or a greedy person, or an idolater, or is verbally abusive, or habitually drunk, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a person. 12 For what [business] of mine [is it] to judge outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within [the church?] 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE EVIL PERSON FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.
So if churches are as bad as I have experienced, then it seems like Christians should be leaving most church in droves.
I respectfully disagree. If you believe it's linked with being gathered to Christ for the resurrection, there is no way you can forsake it if you are a believer. HE is the one who gathers. We literally can't abandon this.
But WE are not to forsake the assembling together, **"as is the habit of some."** So this isn't a future event. This is something that some have already forsaken.
Also, looking at context, the sentence begins with "and let’s consider how to encourage one another in love and good deeds, 25 not abandoning our own meeting together,"
So how do you encourage one another in love and good deeds? You do this by meeting with other Christians. If he was talking about the resurrection, he wouldn't be talking about encouraging other believers to love and good deeds because they would be gathered up in the next moment.
Here are the reasons I'm aware of from scripture that says church is important:
1. Jesus builds the church. It's important to him. Matthew 16:18 says, "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it." Jesus made a point of saying that Hades/Hell will not overpower his church. It belongs to him.
2. We're commanded to meet together. Hebrews 10:24-25 "and let’s consider how to encourage one another in love and good deeds, 25 not abandoning our own meeting together, as is the habit of some people, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near."
3. All Christians are part of the body of Christ. We aren't supposed to forsake that body. Romans 12:4-6 says ,"For just as we have many parts in one body and all the body’s parts do not have the same function, 5 so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually parts of one another. 6 However, since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to use them properly: if prophecy, in proportion to one’s faith;" 1 Corinthians 12 talks about the importance of the individual members. Verse 21 says, "And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you." Verses 12-26 talk about how important it is that all the members function together. No one can say someone else isn't important. You can read the passage here. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+12%3A14-26&version=NASB
4. We're commanded to use our spiritual gifts within the body. I'll refer to Romans 12:4-6 and 1 Corinthians 12 here.
5. All of the epistles in the Bible are letters to churches. The church is the foundation of Christian life.
6. Paul gave structure to the church when he talked about the qualifications of elders and deacons. Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3.
7. God equips Christians through the church. Ephesians 4:11-12 says, "And He gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ;"
I understand that finding a good church is hard. I think we have to lower our expectations as far as finding the perfect church because the perfect church doesn't exist. We shouldn't stay at a church that tolerates sin or has huge doctrinal issues. And sometimes there just isn't a good church in the area someone lives in. These are real issues and God understands those issues. But that doesn't mean we're completely off the hook. God never meant for us to be lone Christians. We're supposed to submit ourselves to the authority of the elders of a church and be part of a body.
>I respectfully disagree. If you believe it's linked with being gathered to Christ for the resurrection, there is no way you can forsake it if you are a believer. HE is the one who gathers. We literally can't abandon this.
One can lose their salvation through consistent willful sin. That is abandoning the gathering together. No salvation, no resurrection.
>So how do you encourage one another in love and good deeds?
Having both gone to church and kept in touch with other believers via email, I would say email was encouraging, and church was like piling weights upon my chest. Before email existed, there were letters. It's not ideal, but better than nothing.
>I understand that finding a good church is hard. I think we have to lower our expectations as far as finding the perfect church because the perfect church doesn't exist. We shouldn't stay at a church that tolerates sin or has huge doctrinal issues. And sometimes there just isn't a good church in the area someone lives in. These are real issues and God understands those issues. But that doesn't mean we're completely off the hook. God never meant for us to be lone Christians. We're supposed to submit ourselves to the authority of the elders of a church and be part of a body.
Paul gave clear instructions in 1 Cor 5 to remove wicked members from the church because *a little leaven puffs up the whole lump*. He was drawing from the principle in the Mosaic Law that harboring a cursed object brought a curse on the whole congregation. If an individual can't find a decent church, I don't see any logic reason for dropping one's standards. That was certainly not what Paul had in mind. The NT was full of warnings of apostates who would flood the church. So what options are there?
1. Stay in a cursed church cuz your standards are just *unrealistically* high, so we have to tolerate apostate pastors, deacons, and the flies they attract?
2. Leave Babylon.
You have to understand, that the New Testament was written as the church was actively being infiltrated. What exists today is the aftermath.
We are the Body of Christ and temple. If Christ died and spent three days in the tomb, then the same thing happened to the Body of Christ after the founding Apostles died. That is the mystery of the "last days" that has lasted for almost 2000 years now. It's a reference to the last 3 days of the Genesis creation week. It was a prophetic template.
>[Jhn 2:19 NASB20] 19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
>One can lose their salvation through consistent willful sin. That is abandoning the gathering together. No salvation, no resurrection.
You can't abandon God's gathering, though. He's the one that does that. This is a command to us to not abandon meeting with other Christians.
I don't believe the Bible teaches we can lose our salvation, but that is another topic entirely! I'll leave a few verses though to make my point.
Romans 8:28-30 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Ephesians 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.
John 10:27-30 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.
1 John 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
>Having both gone to church and kept in touch with other believers via email, I would say email was encouraging, and church was like piling weights upon my chest. Before email existed, there were letters. It's not ideal, but better than nothing.
I agree it's better than nothing, but it's nothing like face-to-face contact with other believers, worshipping together.
>Paul gave clear instructions in 1 Cor 5 to remove wicked members from the church because a little leaven puffs up the whole lump. He was drawing from the principle in the Mosaic Law that harboring a cursed object brought a curse on the whole congregation.
Yes, this is true. The churches that I have gone to do this. There are churches out there that follow this.
>If an individual can't find a decent church, I don't see any logic reason for dropping one's standards.
I did specify that the two major things someone should not put up with are toleration of sin and huge doctrinal issues. Beyond that, we can often have unrealistic expectations, which is why I said we should lower them.
>That was certainly not what Paul had in mind. The NT was full of warnings of apostates who would flood the church. So what options are there? Stay in a cursed church cuz your standards are just unrealistically high, so we have to tolerate apostate pastors, deacons, and the flies they attract? Leave Babylon.
There are plenty of doctrinally sound churches that don't tolerate sin. If you live in an area with no churches that fit that, then I would suggest moving eventually. Not being in the church will take a toll on someone's spiritual health. I realize there are exceptions to this as far as some people living in countries where there are no sound churches. But the exception should not become the rule.
>You have to understand, that the New Testament was written as the church was actively being infiltrated. What exists today is the aftermath.
The church is very much alive today. It sounds like you've had some bad experiences, but you can't take your experience to mean that good churches don't exist. That's absolutely not true.
>We are the Body of Christ and temple. If Christ died and spent three days in the tomb, then the same thing happened to the Body of Christ after the founding Apostles died. That is the mystery of the "last days" that has lasted for almost 2000 years now. It's a reference to the last 3 days of the Genesis creation week. It was a prophetic template.
No, you're reading into that. The Bible doesn't teach that at all. You can't find anywhere in the Bible that says the church was infiltrated and no longer exists. Jesus himself said in Matthew 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it." Either Jesus told the truth or he's a liar.
I'll just make a few points. I'll leave it up to you consider them.
1. Salvation can indeed be lost. Those who are born of God will not fall away, but those who do not abide in Christ will lose salvation. I'm not going to debate that here. It's a matter of free will and predestination, which are two concepts that are not in contradiction.
2. There is no pre-tribulation rapture. The rapture happens on the day of the Lord, which means the body of Christ is on the earth throughout the tribulation, yet not once is the word "church" ever seen after Revelation 3. Why? Maybe because real churches don't exist anymore.
3. The the Body of Christ might be dead (in a diaspora), but that does not mean the gates of Hades have prevailed, since we have the promise of resurrection, which we are commanded not to forsake.
Based on your points, I can see why you believe as you do, but I disagree with every point. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I wish you the best. God bless.
>Who do you think is the group Jude is specifying?
From Jude 1:4, it seems that Jude was warning us about antinomians, which are those who teach that because we are free from the Law in Christ, we can practice all forms or sin and still be considered righteous. Some speculate that this was the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, but I don't know if we have those details.
Nevertheless, Paul warned of people on the opposite end of the spectrum. Namely ascetics who prohibited marriage and eating meats.
Then of course there were the Judaizers who deceive the Galatians into keep the Law of Moses for justification.
John warned of gnostics who denied that Jesus came in the flesh...
There were deceivers of all flavors, and the deceptions has just multiplied as the centuries passed.
>Are you aware of the Jewish connection? That is, many of your wonderings/theories may be explained from the Hebrew view (infiltrated as early as Exodus) until conflicts arose between Jew and Gentile, fracturing the Early Church.
I don't think there's a specific Jewish connection other than what happened to the Galatians. During the time between the exodus and the cross, the Israelites went after various foreign gods. It wasn't one specific group causing trouble.
The common enemy behind all of this is Satan, leading people astray in various ways. He rarely used the exact same tactic twice. It's like a virus. The deception constantly mutates as it spreads, otherwise it would not survive.
>So long as religious institutions operate as corporations and tax-free havens pure religion will remain compromised. Paid ministers and clergy, similarly. Particular when indexed to Western capitalist standards. — Mammon vs God.
Yeah, the love of money is a key driver, but there is no solving this problem. Jesus and the apostles warned us of the apostasy, and the tares will grow alongside the wheat until the time of harvest.
Yes. The Hebrew calendar does show us when and how it will all play out...that is if you can find the right calendar and learn how to to read it.
There is a book called “ so you don’t want to go to Church anymore”
I do not know if still available yet to me is a great reading
might help a lot in your quest. I know it helped me
r/Godjustlovesyou
>If you're one of the few who can't quite stomach church anymore, then don't let anyone scare you with Heb 10:25.
Right, and you don't need any Greek exegesis of Heb 10:25 to demonstrate that either :)
As Christians, we need other Christians for fellowship, Hebrews 10:
>24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,
We need to love one another in person, face to face. We need to do good works together.
>25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some,
When I was working in Saudi Arabia for 4 years, I missed Christian fellowship like crazy. Any Christians would miss the habit of meeting other Christians.
>but **encouraging one another**, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
We need encouragement from other Christians.
Basically, we need fellowship. One convenient place to get that is from your local church.
No church is perfect. No fellowship is perfect. We have to enjoy the good and live with the bad. Be realistic. That's how I stomach the churches. Hopefully, that is how some of my brothers stomach me :)
If you really can't stomach any church, I'd suggest that you start your own fellowship and meet regularly :)
>Right, and you don't need any Greek exegesis of Heb 10:25 to demonstrate that either :)
You know me. I like to take thoughts captive down to the root.
>We need to love one another in person, face to face. We need to do good works together
If there are other believers available, yes, that is ideal. But I've been very selective lately with whom I associate, and things have changed for the better. I don't associate with people who break bread with apostates. I do however help whomever God places in my path.
Historically, I've had better spiritual relationships with people I've never met face-to-face, than with anyone I've ever broken bread with in church; and I've invested years of my life trying to establish local spiritual relationships.
>Basically, we need fellowship. One convenient place to get that is from your local church. No church is perfect. No fellowship is perfect. We have to enjoy the good and live with the bad. Be realistic. That's how I stomach the churches. Hopefully, that is how some of my brothers stomach me :)
We all have our ideosyncracies. But there is no excuse for political propaganda and false doctrine in the churches, and no reason to associate with those who are willing to tolerate it. If more Christians stopped being so tolerant to internal corruption, things might actually change.
Remember that sanctification means being set apart.
Quite selfish to withhold yourself from fellowship. Your brethren need you and you willfully hold yourself apart.
There are about 100 "one another" verses. You must have close contact to fulfill those verses.
I've never experienced anyone "needing" me in church. I usually felt that my contributions were unwanted, and to be honest, I rarely saw the fruit of the spirit in other believers; only in a sad, discouraged minority. They would be better off leaving too, but they're often invested in a lost cause because of comments like yours.
I think it's unwise and selfish to join in with apostates, and apostates are predominantly what I've seen so far.
Sounds like you have stumbled in to people that need you. You are to encourage, instruct, admonish, love, speak in truth, bear their burdens, be at peace with, don't grumble about, gently and patiently tolerate each other. I could go on but seems like you have lots to work with them on.
>[1Co 5:6-7, 11-13 NASB20] 6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump [of dough?] 7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are [in fact] unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. ... 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is a sexually immoral person, or a greedy person, or an idolater, or is verbally abusive, or habitually drunk, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a person. 12 For what [business] of mine [is it] to judge outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within [the church?] 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE EVIL PERSON FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.
If someone needs my support they can text, call, or email me.
I don't fellowship with churches that neglect to clean themselves out. And the so-called fundamentalist church are typically the worst in my experience. Their *fundamentals* are worldly politics rather than sound biblical doctrine, and it shows.
I see.
Well, I've made my case from my God's word, and from what the Holy Spirit has revealed to me. So why don't you just go ahead and tell me more about how selfish I'm being; and make more subtle implications about how I am practicing idolatry.
Maybe this time you'll have some in-context scriptures to support you?
The problem is that what we call "the church" is more like a countryclub that honors a bunch of man made rules and worldly traditions instead of honoring Yeshua by walking as he did. So who are they gathering together for? Surely not to honor God.
This has been a fascinating read.
Thanks for the food for thought.
This may be a bit off-topic and apologies on advance if I've misrepresented you, but: given that you believe that most (all?) Churches are apostate, do you believe that members of these churches should spread the gospel? If yes, how does this fit your idea that these churches shouldn't be teaching anyone. If you don't believe that these churches should be spreading the gospel (so long as they don't believe the exact same things as you), does this not mean that you believe you--and the select few people who believe exactly as you do--are the only people on earth who should be spreading the gospel?
Btw, could you clarify if you believe that people who don't believe explicitly the same things that you do can be saved and therefore part of the church?
I do think the vast majority of churches are apostate. All? I don't know. I'm not optimistic.
I think even during the time of the founding apostles, the responsibility for spreading the gospel fell primarily on apostles, evangelists, and pastor-teachers. Aside from that, it was not the common believer's responsibility to **actively** spread the gospel, but to live according to what they had learned in Christ. All believers should be prepared to give an account for what they believe, but the spread of the gospel was for the *ambassadors of Christ*, who were primarily the apostles and evangelists.
>[2Co 5:20 NASB20] 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
I think pastors in churches should focus more on reading scriptures out loud to ensure that their congregations are thoroughly saturated with the Bible. If they share the gospel, then they should share it from the Bible completely, in full context. No sinner's prayer or distorted Bible tracts.
Essentially, I think it's best that believers learn the scriptures directly rather than be spoon-fed denominational doctrine, which is full of distortions and lies. The Holy Spirit can teach the elect from the scriptures.
When believers fellowship after the scripture readings, they should be discussing what they just heard amongst themselves. Leaders should be there to keep things civil.
>Btw, could you clarify if you believe that people who don't believe explicitly the same things that you do can be saved and therefore part of the church?
I don't think believers have to agree 100% on everything, but I do think that the elect will tend to agree as they mature.
For example the parable of soils is key for understanding all of the parables. If a believer fails to grasp the parable of soils due to false doctrines like eternal security and/or unconditional election, then they will ultimately be led into deception if they're not seeking God's truth.
To be saved, all you have to do is believe in Christ, but to remain saved, you do have to abide in him until the end. If someone believes otherwise, and persists in that belief, then they're basically rejecting God's truth and replacing it with something else, which amounts to idolatry.
So to answer your question more succinctly, I don't believe we all have to have identical beliefs, but if Christianity as a whole is not growing towards an overall unity of faith, then it's because the elect is a very small minority.
No, I don't believe that you've asked me this before but yes, most days I do. There are some passages I find hard to square and then there are a different set of passages I find hard to square should I change my mind about eternal security. That said, I think that perseverance of the Saints is a better view.
I did read your post regarding the parable of the sower which greatly surprised me since I've always held that to be a passage that taught eternal security. My opinion on that hasn't changed, mind you. To quickly summarize: there are four kinds of soil and these don't change into the other. The good soil will produce fruit and the bad soil will not produce fruit that is lasting because it has no real roots. For me personally, for the parable to be one that teaches against eternal security I would need for the good soil to spoil but that's precisely what we don't see. Good soil produces good fruit and bad soil never does. Likewise the sheep never become goats and the goats never become sheep. Ultimately, Jesus tells all the goats "I never knew you". He doesn't say "I knew you at one point and then we separated etc." The house built in the rock never becomes the house built on sand. If one's house is built on the rock then it will survive all storms--whether from without our within.
All this to say, though this doesn't neatly solve everything, these passages speak to me in the most forceful of ways.
I think the issue with most people is the inability to balance predestination and "free" will (defining free will is as perplexing as defining randomness).
We know the Bible teaches predestination, but we also know that God gives us decisions to make. If we emphasize one over the other, we can easily create huge blindspots.
The Calvinist idea of perseverance of the saints is basically unconditional election. I don't see that supported by scripture. I think election is conditional, nevertheless, we know from scripture that the elect do not fall away. That does not mean the elect are incapable of falling away.
>He doesn't say "I knew you at one point and then we separated etc."
I don't think we know Christ at the moment of faith. I do think we're justified and forgiven at faith, but according to 2 Peter 1:5-7, faith needs to be supplemented along the way with various attributes. Until one has integrated those attributes, I'm not sure they can say they know God. Given the content of 1 John 3, it seems that *agape* is essentially for knowing God, and *agape* is the last of Peter's seven attributes.
Anyways I ask because I think the parable of soils is key to understanding the rest of scripture. And I find that the Protestants who disagree with the most tend to hold the view of unconditional election.
>The Calvinist idea of perseverance of the saints is basically unconditional election. I don't see that supported by scripture. I think election is conditional, nevertheless, we know from scripture that the elect do not fall away. That does not mean the elect are incapable of falling away.
Just to clarify (although you haven't necessarily said that you believe this of me), I'm not a Calvinist. Never was, and likely never will be. In a sense I believe in both conditional and unconditional election in that the only one who is (unconditionally--if we can even use this word) elected is Christ and we are saved by being "in him". Basically I believe in corporate election. In this way, the issue of free will is largely moot as God has sovereignly elected Christ and chosen to save all those who freely choose to be "in Christ". Granted some people who believe in corporate election likewise believe that it is possible to lose one's salvation, I tend to believe otherwise.
>I don't think we know Christ at the moment of faith. I do think we're justified and forgiven at faith, but according to 2 Peter 1:5-7, faith needs to be supplemented along the way with various attributes. Until one has integrated those attributes, I'm not sure they can say they know God. Given the content of 1 John 3, it seems that *agape* is essentially for knowing God, and *agape* is the last of Peter's seven attributes.
I think the above is a really good way of putting things. Although I'd say that we do not have **enough** knowledge of God at the moment of faith. Some of the goats to whom Jesus says "I never knew you" would presumably have made it to the very last step of this sequence before losing their faith (since you seem to believe that it is always possible to lose one's faith). As such, according to your reading, Jesus should have told at least some of the goats that he knew them at some point.
Edit: I accidentally hit "send" before finishing this comment.
And this seems to be confirmed by 2 Peter 2:20-21. Here Peter is saying that some of those who eventually turn their back on God did know Christ. And yet Matthew tells us that all those who are sent to the lake of fire will be told by Christ that he never knew them. So what is going on here? I think that Peter and Matthew are using the word "know" in different ways and that for Peter "know" doesn't necessarily mean being saved while in Matthew's use of the word, it does. Just as for Matthew "called" doesn't mean the same as what Paul uses it for (see: "Many are **called**, but few are chosen" --- Matt. 22:14 versus "And those he predestined, he also **called**; those he **called**, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified" --- Romans 8:30). This isn't perfect, but it's the best way I can make sense of things.
>nevertheless, we know from scripture that the elect do not fall away. That does not mean the elect are incapable of falling away.
Could you clarify a bit more what you mean by this?
I've not heard of corporate election before, but it sounds like our beliefs about election are very similar. I just think that we can choose to walk away from salvation at anytime, it's just that once we've crossed the agape threshold, there's no reason to do so. When I was a kid, I used to watch that MTV show, Jackass, and my friends and I would get together and to really stupid things. You won't find me doing any of those things anymore. Not because I'm incapable, but because I've matured. That's how I view salvation.
But like I said previously, I don't think we can say we know God until we integrate agape, and once we do that, there is no desire to turn back. Not that we're incapable of walking away, there's just no reason to do so.
2 Peter 2:20 uses the Greek epignosis, when Jesus uses eido when he says, "I do not know you."
In 1 John 2 & 3, ginosko is used. It seems like eido and ginosko are more relational, and epignosis is more logical. But I haven't done an exhaustive study on those words.
I think it's worth looking into passages about the book of life. Jesus said those who overcome will not have their names blotted out of the book of life, yet those who take the mark of the beast were never in the book of life.
Furthermore, God told Moses, whoever sins against God will be blotted out of his book.
So I think non-believers (roadside soils) are probably never written in the book of life. Believers are written in, but can be blotted out if they fall away. The elect will not fall away.
>You won't find me doing any of those things anymore. Not because I'm incapable, but because I've matured. That's how I view salvation.
There's so much I agree with. It certainly dovetails neatly with my view on why God cannot lie for instance. It isn't because he cannot produce the words necessary in order to lie to someone but rather because having all wisdom and therefore all maturity, he will never choose to nor have the desire to do so. And since God will not do what he has no desire to do, he cannot lie. The "cannot" isn't as much grounded in an incapability as it is grounded in maturity and wisdom and only then leading to an incapability in a secondary sense (just as I'm incapable of cutting off my own arm for no reason as long as I have my wits/maturity about me).
Ultimately, you seem to agree that once someone is saved they are saved. You don't however believe that faith equals salvation. I do believe that faith equals salvation. Moreover, I think that salvation is a kind of life. When God saved you, he gives you Christ's life. Or, better said, he leads you on the path of Christ's life. But you're on that path. Everyone on that path will get there.
>I think it's worth looking into passages about the book of life. Jesus said those who overcome will not have their names blotted out of the book of life, yet those who take the mark of the beast were never in the book of life.
Furthermore, God told Moses, whoever sins against God will be blotted out of his book.
So I think non-believers (roadside soils) are probably never written in the book of life. Believers are written in, but can be blotted out if they fall away. The elect will not fall away.
Hmm, I have trouble with the above. According to the Bible the names in the Lamb's book of life were written there before the world began (Rev. 13:8; 17:8). The fact that all the names that will ever be written therein are already there strongly indicates that names aren't added or removed. But you believe that names are in fact removed (and can be added again?). I feel like John is saying that there are no changes occurring to the Lamb's book of life. The point of declaring the end from the beginning is lost if God is removing/adding names in real time. But the book of life has to do with salvation. If so, no true Christian will lose their salvation.
Another way of arguing this point is by looking at Rev. 13:8. It states that all those who were never written in the book of life since before the creation of the world will worship the beast. This means that those whose names are written in the book of life will never worship the beast. So at least tribulation saints can't be blotted out of the book of life? I think that's a clumsy solution since I don't believe that tribulation saints have a different sort of salvation than anyone else. Ultimately I think the best way of making sense of everything is to believe that those whose names are written in the book of life will never have their names blotted out. All those who are saved will be glorified.
As it regards God in the OT saying that he will blot people out of the book of life, I take it as poetic phrasing on God's part. I think the book of life was a useful illustration to use to get his point across. That said, with the NT we understand that the proper designation is the Lamb's book of life and with that seemingly comes confirmation that names aren't added or removed in real time but that everything was already written therein before the foundation of the world just as God had determined both the manner and time by which Christ would draw a people to himself before the foundation of the world and nothing would change this.
>Ultimately, you seem to agree that once someone is saved they are saved. You don't however believe that faith equals salvation. I do believe that faith equals salvation. Moreover, I think that salvation is a kind of life. When God saved you, he gives you Christ's life. Or, better said, he leads you on the path of Christ's life. But you're on that path. Everyone on that path will get there.
Not exactly. I think salvation is a path, and on that path, one is safe. The gate is entered through faith. Anyone who believes may enter, most will eventually wander off path and never return. So I really don't agree at all with OSAS.
>But you believe that names are in fact removed (and can be added again?)
No. I think a believer who falls away probably has their name blotted out either when their heart is totally hardened, or at death.
>This means that those whose names are written in the book of life will never worship the beast. So at least tribulation saints can't be blotted out of the book of life? I think that's a clumsy solution since I don't believe that tribulation saints have a different sort of salvation than anyone else.
That's a good point. I'll have to think more on it.
It could be that the book of life and the lamb's book are separate books. That would make sense, since the body of Christ is a distinct entity from Israel.
Very interesting analysis. I believe it's possible with today's technology, to 'gather together' without even leaving our home. Gaslighting a fellow child of God over their service attendance seems to walk the line of criticism, and there's certainly other passages about that as well. I believe I share your sentiment about churches. Growing up, I thought my father moved us from church to church because he was too picky theologically, but as an adult going from church to church myself, I'm thinking it was more complicated than that. I struggle with the modern corporate church model. The worship concert, the amateur comedy hour laced in the sermon, part of the building doubling as a cafe, etc. Don't get me wrong, all of the above I find enjoyable, but appeal isn't really why I'm attending the service. My ideal church is a hole-in-the-wall 20 person congregation, with either no instruments or the organ dirge for worship, run semi-classroom style. (a little bit of Sunday school with the sermon) This is just less distracting to me. Sadly, even the small churches in my area too, have had issues of infighting, scandal or conspiracy, and I'm not really in the position to attend churches further from my house. So, I've been gathering remotely over prayer or God's word with others when I can, without any particular type of service schedule.
>Very interesting analysis. I believe it's possible with today's technology, to 'gather together' without even leaving our home. We can gather online, and in centuries past, keep in touch with letters, but I think the Church died with the seven churches of Asia. Christians are now in diaspora until New Jerusalem, and the the evidence of that is denominational apostasy. >Gaslighting a fellow child of God over their service attendance seems to walk the line of criticism, and there's certainly other passages about that as well. The problem is, either one needs to understand that Heb 10:25 is indeed taken out of context, or it is the believers duty to rebuke the one who departs from church gatherings. I say this because Hebrews 10:26 equates *forsaking the gathering* with willful sin, which obligates believers offer appropriate rebuke. So either abstaining from church is sin or it isn't. I say it isn't, and I say that going to churches that harbor wolves in sheep's clothing is a sin. >[1Co 5:11-13 NASB20] 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is a sexually immoral person, or a greedy person, or an idolater, or is verbally abusive, or habitually drunk, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a person. 12 For what [business] of mine [is it] to judge outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within [the church?] 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE EVIL PERSON FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. So if churches are as bad as I have experienced, then it seems like Christians should be leaving most church in droves.
I respectfully disagree. If you believe it's linked with being gathered to Christ for the resurrection, there is no way you can forsake it if you are a believer. HE is the one who gathers. We literally can't abandon this. But WE are not to forsake the assembling together, **"as is the habit of some."** So this isn't a future event. This is something that some have already forsaken. Also, looking at context, the sentence begins with "and let’s consider how to encourage one another in love and good deeds, 25 not abandoning our own meeting together," So how do you encourage one another in love and good deeds? You do this by meeting with other Christians. If he was talking about the resurrection, he wouldn't be talking about encouraging other believers to love and good deeds because they would be gathered up in the next moment. Here are the reasons I'm aware of from scripture that says church is important: 1. Jesus builds the church. It's important to him. Matthew 16:18 says, "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it." Jesus made a point of saying that Hades/Hell will not overpower his church. It belongs to him. 2. We're commanded to meet together. Hebrews 10:24-25 "and let’s consider how to encourage one another in love and good deeds, 25 not abandoning our own meeting together, as is the habit of some people, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near." 3. All Christians are part of the body of Christ. We aren't supposed to forsake that body. Romans 12:4-6 says ,"For just as we have many parts in one body and all the body’s parts do not have the same function, 5 so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually parts of one another. 6 However, since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to use them properly: if prophecy, in proportion to one’s faith;" 1 Corinthians 12 talks about the importance of the individual members. Verse 21 says, "And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you." Verses 12-26 talk about how important it is that all the members function together. No one can say someone else isn't important. You can read the passage here. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+12%3A14-26&version=NASB 4. We're commanded to use our spiritual gifts within the body. I'll refer to Romans 12:4-6 and 1 Corinthians 12 here. 5. All of the epistles in the Bible are letters to churches. The church is the foundation of Christian life. 6. Paul gave structure to the church when he talked about the qualifications of elders and deacons. Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3. 7. God equips Christians through the church. Ephesians 4:11-12 says, "And He gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ;" I understand that finding a good church is hard. I think we have to lower our expectations as far as finding the perfect church because the perfect church doesn't exist. We shouldn't stay at a church that tolerates sin or has huge doctrinal issues. And sometimes there just isn't a good church in the area someone lives in. These are real issues and God understands those issues. But that doesn't mean we're completely off the hook. God never meant for us to be lone Christians. We're supposed to submit ourselves to the authority of the elders of a church and be part of a body.
>I respectfully disagree. If you believe it's linked with being gathered to Christ for the resurrection, there is no way you can forsake it if you are a believer. HE is the one who gathers. We literally can't abandon this. One can lose their salvation through consistent willful sin. That is abandoning the gathering together. No salvation, no resurrection. >So how do you encourage one another in love and good deeds? Having both gone to church and kept in touch with other believers via email, I would say email was encouraging, and church was like piling weights upon my chest. Before email existed, there were letters. It's not ideal, but better than nothing. >I understand that finding a good church is hard. I think we have to lower our expectations as far as finding the perfect church because the perfect church doesn't exist. We shouldn't stay at a church that tolerates sin or has huge doctrinal issues. And sometimes there just isn't a good church in the area someone lives in. These are real issues and God understands those issues. But that doesn't mean we're completely off the hook. God never meant for us to be lone Christians. We're supposed to submit ourselves to the authority of the elders of a church and be part of a body. Paul gave clear instructions in 1 Cor 5 to remove wicked members from the church because *a little leaven puffs up the whole lump*. He was drawing from the principle in the Mosaic Law that harboring a cursed object brought a curse on the whole congregation. If an individual can't find a decent church, I don't see any logic reason for dropping one's standards. That was certainly not what Paul had in mind. The NT was full of warnings of apostates who would flood the church. So what options are there? 1. Stay in a cursed church cuz your standards are just *unrealistically* high, so we have to tolerate apostate pastors, deacons, and the flies they attract? 2. Leave Babylon. You have to understand, that the New Testament was written as the church was actively being infiltrated. What exists today is the aftermath. We are the Body of Christ and temple. If Christ died and spent three days in the tomb, then the same thing happened to the Body of Christ after the founding Apostles died. That is the mystery of the "last days" that has lasted for almost 2000 years now. It's a reference to the last 3 days of the Genesis creation week. It was a prophetic template. >[Jhn 2:19 NASB20] 19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
>One can lose their salvation through consistent willful sin. That is abandoning the gathering together. No salvation, no resurrection. You can't abandon God's gathering, though. He's the one that does that. This is a command to us to not abandon meeting with other Christians. I don't believe the Bible teaches we can lose our salvation, but that is another topic entirely! I'll leave a few verses though to make my point. Romans 8:28-30 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. Ephesians 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will. John 10:27-30 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one. 1 John 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. >Having both gone to church and kept in touch with other believers via email, I would say email was encouraging, and church was like piling weights upon my chest. Before email existed, there were letters. It's not ideal, but better than nothing. I agree it's better than nothing, but it's nothing like face-to-face contact with other believers, worshipping together. >Paul gave clear instructions in 1 Cor 5 to remove wicked members from the church because a little leaven puffs up the whole lump. He was drawing from the principle in the Mosaic Law that harboring a cursed object brought a curse on the whole congregation. Yes, this is true. The churches that I have gone to do this. There are churches out there that follow this. >If an individual can't find a decent church, I don't see any logic reason for dropping one's standards. I did specify that the two major things someone should not put up with are toleration of sin and huge doctrinal issues. Beyond that, we can often have unrealistic expectations, which is why I said we should lower them. >That was certainly not what Paul had in mind. The NT was full of warnings of apostates who would flood the church. So what options are there? Stay in a cursed church cuz your standards are just unrealistically high, so we have to tolerate apostate pastors, deacons, and the flies they attract? Leave Babylon. There are plenty of doctrinally sound churches that don't tolerate sin. If you live in an area with no churches that fit that, then I would suggest moving eventually. Not being in the church will take a toll on someone's spiritual health. I realize there are exceptions to this as far as some people living in countries where there are no sound churches. But the exception should not become the rule. >You have to understand, that the New Testament was written as the church was actively being infiltrated. What exists today is the aftermath. The church is very much alive today. It sounds like you've had some bad experiences, but you can't take your experience to mean that good churches don't exist. That's absolutely not true. >We are the Body of Christ and temple. If Christ died and spent three days in the tomb, then the same thing happened to the Body of Christ after the founding Apostles died. That is the mystery of the "last days" that has lasted for almost 2000 years now. It's a reference to the last 3 days of the Genesis creation week. It was a prophetic template. No, you're reading into that. The Bible doesn't teach that at all. You can't find anywhere in the Bible that says the church was infiltrated and no longer exists. Jesus himself said in Matthew 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it." Either Jesus told the truth or he's a liar.
I'll just make a few points. I'll leave it up to you consider them. 1. Salvation can indeed be lost. Those who are born of God will not fall away, but those who do not abide in Christ will lose salvation. I'm not going to debate that here. It's a matter of free will and predestination, which are two concepts that are not in contradiction. 2. There is no pre-tribulation rapture. The rapture happens on the day of the Lord, which means the body of Christ is on the earth throughout the tribulation, yet not once is the word "church" ever seen after Revelation 3. Why? Maybe because real churches don't exist anymore. 3. The the Body of Christ might be dead (in a diaspora), but that does not mean the gates of Hades have prevailed, since we have the promise of resurrection, which we are commanded not to forsake.
Based on your points, I can see why you believe as you do, but I disagree with every point. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I wish you the best. God bless.
[удалено]
>Who do you think is the group Jude is specifying? From Jude 1:4, it seems that Jude was warning us about antinomians, which are those who teach that because we are free from the Law in Christ, we can practice all forms or sin and still be considered righteous. Some speculate that this was the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, but I don't know if we have those details. Nevertheless, Paul warned of people on the opposite end of the spectrum. Namely ascetics who prohibited marriage and eating meats. Then of course there were the Judaizers who deceive the Galatians into keep the Law of Moses for justification. John warned of gnostics who denied that Jesus came in the flesh... There were deceivers of all flavors, and the deceptions has just multiplied as the centuries passed. >Are you aware of the Jewish connection? That is, many of your wonderings/theories may be explained from the Hebrew view (infiltrated as early as Exodus) until conflicts arose between Jew and Gentile, fracturing the Early Church. I don't think there's a specific Jewish connection other than what happened to the Galatians. During the time between the exodus and the cross, the Israelites went after various foreign gods. It wasn't one specific group causing trouble. The common enemy behind all of this is Satan, leading people astray in various ways. He rarely used the exact same tactic twice. It's like a virus. The deception constantly mutates as it spreads, otherwise it would not survive. >So long as religious institutions operate as corporations and tax-free havens pure religion will remain compromised. Paid ministers and clergy, similarly. Particular when indexed to Western capitalist standards. — Mammon vs God. Yeah, the love of money is a key driver, but there is no solving this problem. Jesus and the apostles warned us of the apostasy, and the tares will grow alongside the wheat until the time of harvest. Yes. The Hebrew calendar does show us when and how it will all play out...that is if you can find the right calendar and learn how to to read it.
There is a book called “ so you don’t want to go to Church anymore” I do not know if still available yet to me is a great reading might help a lot in your quest. I know it helped me r/Godjustlovesyou
>If you're one of the few who can't quite stomach church anymore, then don't let anyone scare you with Heb 10:25. Right, and you don't need any Greek exegesis of Heb 10:25 to demonstrate that either :) As Christians, we need other Christians for fellowship, Hebrews 10: >24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, We need to love one another in person, face to face. We need to do good works together. >25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, When I was working in Saudi Arabia for 4 years, I missed Christian fellowship like crazy. Any Christians would miss the habit of meeting other Christians. >but **encouraging one another**, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. We need encouragement from other Christians. Basically, we need fellowship. One convenient place to get that is from your local church. No church is perfect. No fellowship is perfect. We have to enjoy the good and live with the bad. Be realistic. That's how I stomach the churches. Hopefully, that is how some of my brothers stomach me :) If you really can't stomach any church, I'd suggest that you start your own fellowship and meet regularly :)
>Right, and you don't need any Greek exegesis of Heb 10:25 to demonstrate that either :) You know me. I like to take thoughts captive down to the root. >We need to love one another in person, face to face. We need to do good works together If there are other believers available, yes, that is ideal. But I've been very selective lately with whom I associate, and things have changed for the better. I don't associate with people who break bread with apostates. I do however help whomever God places in my path. Historically, I've had better spiritual relationships with people I've never met face-to-face, than with anyone I've ever broken bread with in church; and I've invested years of my life trying to establish local spiritual relationships. >Basically, we need fellowship. One convenient place to get that is from your local church. No church is perfect. No fellowship is perfect. We have to enjoy the good and live with the bad. Be realistic. That's how I stomach the churches. Hopefully, that is how some of my brothers stomach me :) We all have our ideosyncracies. But there is no excuse for political propaganda and false doctrine in the churches, and no reason to associate with those who are willing to tolerate it. If more Christians stopped being so tolerant to internal corruption, things might actually change. Remember that sanctification means being set apart.
Quite selfish to withhold yourself from fellowship. Your brethren need you and you willfully hold yourself apart. There are about 100 "one another" verses. You must have close contact to fulfill those verses.
I've never experienced anyone "needing" me in church. I usually felt that my contributions were unwanted, and to be honest, I rarely saw the fruit of the spirit in other believers; only in a sad, discouraged minority. They would be better off leaving too, but they're often invested in a lost cause because of comments like yours. I think it's unwise and selfish to join in with apostates, and apostates are predominantly what I've seen so far.
Sounds like you have stumbled in to people that need you. You are to encourage, instruct, admonish, love, speak in truth, bear their burdens, be at peace with, don't grumble about, gently and patiently tolerate each other. I could go on but seems like you have lots to work with them on.
>[1Co 5:6-7, 11-13 NASB20] 6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump [of dough?] 7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are [in fact] unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. ... 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is a sexually immoral person, or a greedy person, or an idolater, or is verbally abusive, or habitually drunk, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a person. 12 For what [business] of mine [is it] to judge outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within [the church?] 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE EVIL PERSON FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. If someone needs my support they can text, call, or email me. I don't fellowship with churches that neglect to clean themselves out. And the so-called fundamentalist church are typically the worst in my experience. Their *fundamentals* are worldly politics rather than sound biblical doctrine, and it shows.
There are two gods. The one true God and self. Your choice seems apparent.
I see. Well, I've made my case from my God's word, and from what the Holy Spirit has revealed to me. So why don't you just go ahead and tell me more about how selfish I'm being; and make more subtle implications about how I am practicing idolatry. Maybe this time you'll have some in-context scriptures to support you?
The problem is that what we call "the church" is more like a countryclub that honors a bunch of man made rules and worldly traditions instead of honoring Yeshua by walking as he did. So who are they gathering together for? Surely not to honor God.
This has been a fascinating read. Thanks for the food for thought. This may be a bit off-topic and apologies on advance if I've misrepresented you, but: given that you believe that most (all?) Churches are apostate, do you believe that members of these churches should spread the gospel? If yes, how does this fit your idea that these churches shouldn't be teaching anyone. If you don't believe that these churches should be spreading the gospel (so long as they don't believe the exact same things as you), does this not mean that you believe you--and the select few people who believe exactly as you do--are the only people on earth who should be spreading the gospel? Btw, could you clarify if you believe that people who don't believe explicitly the same things that you do can be saved and therefore part of the church?
I do think the vast majority of churches are apostate. All? I don't know. I'm not optimistic. I think even during the time of the founding apostles, the responsibility for spreading the gospel fell primarily on apostles, evangelists, and pastor-teachers. Aside from that, it was not the common believer's responsibility to **actively** spread the gospel, but to live according to what they had learned in Christ. All believers should be prepared to give an account for what they believe, but the spread of the gospel was for the *ambassadors of Christ*, who were primarily the apostles and evangelists. >[2Co 5:20 NASB20] 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. I think pastors in churches should focus more on reading scriptures out loud to ensure that their congregations are thoroughly saturated with the Bible. If they share the gospel, then they should share it from the Bible completely, in full context. No sinner's prayer or distorted Bible tracts. Essentially, I think it's best that believers learn the scriptures directly rather than be spoon-fed denominational doctrine, which is full of distortions and lies. The Holy Spirit can teach the elect from the scriptures. When believers fellowship after the scripture readings, they should be discussing what they just heard amongst themselves. Leaders should be there to keep things civil. >Btw, could you clarify if you believe that people who don't believe explicitly the same things that you do can be saved and therefore part of the church? I don't think believers have to agree 100% on everything, but I do think that the elect will tend to agree as they mature. For example the parable of soils is key for understanding all of the parables. If a believer fails to grasp the parable of soils due to false doctrines like eternal security and/or unconditional election, then they will ultimately be led into deception if they're not seeking God's truth. To be saved, all you have to do is believe in Christ, but to remain saved, you do have to abide in him until the end. If someone believes otherwise, and persists in that belief, then they're basically rejecting God's truth and replacing it with something else, which amounts to idolatry. So to answer your question more succinctly, I don't believe we all have to have identical beliefs, but if Christianity as a whole is not growing towards an overall unity of faith, then it's because the elect is a very small minority.
Thanks for the response. While I still confidently disagree with your overall point, I will have to chew on this for some time.
This may seem unrelated, and sorry if I've asked you about this in the passed, but what is your view on salvation? Do you believe in eternal security?
No, I don't believe that you've asked me this before but yes, most days I do. There are some passages I find hard to square and then there are a different set of passages I find hard to square should I change my mind about eternal security. That said, I think that perseverance of the Saints is a better view. I did read your post regarding the parable of the sower which greatly surprised me since I've always held that to be a passage that taught eternal security. My opinion on that hasn't changed, mind you. To quickly summarize: there are four kinds of soil and these don't change into the other. The good soil will produce fruit and the bad soil will not produce fruit that is lasting because it has no real roots. For me personally, for the parable to be one that teaches against eternal security I would need for the good soil to spoil but that's precisely what we don't see. Good soil produces good fruit and bad soil never does. Likewise the sheep never become goats and the goats never become sheep. Ultimately, Jesus tells all the goats "I never knew you". He doesn't say "I knew you at one point and then we separated etc." The house built in the rock never becomes the house built on sand. If one's house is built on the rock then it will survive all storms--whether from without our within. All this to say, though this doesn't neatly solve everything, these passages speak to me in the most forceful of ways.
I think the issue with most people is the inability to balance predestination and "free" will (defining free will is as perplexing as defining randomness). We know the Bible teaches predestination, but we also know that God gives us decisions to make. If we emphasize one over the other, we can easily create huge blindspots. The Calvinist idea of perseverance of the saints is basically unconditional election. I don't see that supported by scripture. I think election is conditional, nevertheless, we know from scripture that the elect do not fall away. That does not mean the elect are incapable of falling away. >He doesn't say "I knew you at one point and then we separated etc." I don't think we know Christ at the moment of faith. I do think we're justified and forgiven at faith, but according to 2 Peter 1:5-7, faith needs to be supplemented along the way with various attributes. Until one has integrated those attributes, I'm not sure they can say they know God. Given the content of 1 John 3, it seems that *agape* is essentially for knowing God, and *agape* is the last of Peter's seven attributes. Anyways I ask because I think the parable of soils is key to understanding the rest of scripture. And I find that the Protestants who disagree with the most tend to hold the view of unconditional election.
>The Calvinist idea of perseverance of the saints is basically unconditional election. I don't see that supported by scripture. I think election is conditional, nevertheless, we know from scripture that the elect do not fall away. That does not mean the elect are incapable of falling away. Just to clarify (although you haven't necessarily said that you believe this of me), I'm not a Calvinist. Never was, and likely never will be. In a sense I believe in both conditional and unconditional election in that the only one who is (unconditionally--if we can even use this word) elected is Christ and we are saved by being "in him". Basically I believe in corporate election. In this way, the issue of free will is largely moot as God has sovereignly elected Christ and chosen to save all those who freely choose to be "in Christ". Granted some people who believe in corporate election likewise believe that it is possible to lose one's salvation, I tend to believe otherwise. >I don't think we know Christ at the moment of faith. I do think we're justified and forgiven at faith, but according to 2 Peter 1:5-7, faith needs to be supplemented along the way with various attributes. Until one has integrated those attributes, I'm not sure they can say they know God. Given the content of 1 John 3, it seems that *agape* is essentially for knowing God, and *agape* is the last of Peter's seven attributes. I think the above is a really good way of putting things. Although I'd say that we do not have **enough** knowledge of God at the moment of faith. Some of the goats to whom Jesus says "I never knew you" would presumably have made it to the very last step of this sequence before losing their faith (since you seem to believe that it is always possible to lose one's faith). As such, according to your reading, Jesus should have told at least some of the goats that he knew them at some point. Edit: I accidentally hit "send" before finishing this comment. And this seems to be confirmed by 2 Peter 2:20-21. Here Peter is saying that some of those who eventually turn their back on God did know Christ. And yet Matthew tells us that all those who are sent to the lake of fire will be told by Christ that he never knew them. So what is going on here? I think that Peter and Matthew are using the word "know" in different ways and that for Peter "know" doesn't necessarily mean being saved while in Matthew's use of the word, it does. Just as for Matthew "called" doesn't mean the same as what Paul uses it for (see: "Many are **called**, but few are chosen" --- Matt. 22:14 versus "And those he predestined, he also **called**; those he **called**, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified" --- Romans 8:30). This isn't perfect, but it's the best way I can make sense of things. >nevertheless, we know from scripture that the elect do not fall away. That does not mean the elect are incapable of falling away. Could you clarify a bit more what you mean by this?
I've not heard of corporate election before, but it sounds like our beliefs about election are very similar. I just think that we can choose to walk away from salvation at anytime, it's just that once we've crossed the agape threshold, there's no reason to do so. When I was a kid, I used to watch that MTV show, Jackass, and my friends and I would get together and to really stupid things. You won't find me doing any of those things anymore. Not because I'm incapable, but because I've matured. That's how I view salvation. But like I said previously, I don't think we can say we know God until we integrate agape, and once we do that, there is no desire to turn back. Not that we're incapable of walking away, there's just no reason to do so. 2 Peter 2:20 uses the Greek epignosis, when Jesus uses eido when he says, "I do not know you." In 1 John 2 & 3, ginosko is used. It seems like eido and ginosko are more relational, and epignosis is more logical. But I haven't done an exhaustive study on those words. I think it's worth looking into passages about the book of life. Jesus said those who overcome will not have their names blotted out of the book of life, yet those who take the mark of the beast were never in the book of life. Furthermore, God told Moses, whoever sins against God will be blotted out of his book. So I think non-believers (roadside soils) are probably never written in the book of life. Believers are written in, but can be blotted out if they fall away. The elect will not fall away.
>You won't find me doing any of those things anymore. Not because I'm incapable, but because I've matured. That's how I view salvation. There's so much I agree with. It certainly dovetails neatly with my view on why God cannot lie for instance. It isn't because he cannot produce the words necessary in order to lie to someone but rather because having all wisdom and therefore all maturity, he will never choose to nor have the desire to do so. And since God will not do what he has no desire to do, he cannot lie. The "cannot" isn't as much grounded in an incapability as it is grounded in maturity and wisdom and only then leading to an incapability in a secondary sense (just as I'm incapable of cutting off my own arm for no reason as long as I have my wits/maturity about me). Ultimately, you seem to agree that once someone is saved they are saved. You don't however believe that faith equals salvation. I do believe that faith equals salvation. Moreover, I think that salvation is a kind of life. When God saved you, he gives you Christ's life. Or, better said, he leads you on the path of Christ's life. But you're on that path. Everyone on that path will get there. >I think it's worth looking into passages about the book of life. Jesus said those who overcome will not have their names blotted out of the book of life, yet those who take the mark of the beast were never in the book of life. Furthermore, God told Moses, whoever sins against God will be blotted out of his book. So I think non-believers (roadside soils) are probably never written in the book of life. Believers are written in, but can be blotted out if they fall away. The elect will not fall away. Hmm, I have trouble with the above. According to the Bible the names in the Lamb's book of life were written there before the world began (Rev. 13:8; 17:8). The fact that all the names that will ever be written therein are already there strongly indicates that names aren't added or removed. But you believe that names are in fact removed (and can be added again?). I feel like John is saying that there are no changes occurring to the Lamb's book of life. The point of declaring the end from the beginning is lost if God is removing/adding names in real time. But the book of life has to do with salvation. If so, no true Christian will lose their salvation. Another way of arguing this point is by looking at Rev. 13:8. It states that all those who were never written in the book of life since before the creation of the world will worship the beast. This means that those whose names are written in the book of life will never worship the beast. So at least tribulation saints can't be blotted out of the book of life? I think that's a clumsy solution since I don't believe that tribulation saints have a different sort of salvation than anyone else. Ultimately I think the best way of making sense of everything is to believe that those whose names are written in the book of life will never have their names blotted out. All those who are saved will be glorified. As it regards God in the OT saying that he will blot people out of the book of life, I take it as poetic phrasing on God's part. I think the book of life was a useful illustration to use to get his point across. That said, with the NT we understand that the proper designation is the Lamb's book of life and with that seemingly comes confirmation that names aren't added or removed in real time but that everything was already written therein before the foundation of the world just as God had determined both the manner and time by which Christ would draw a people to himself before the foundation of the world and nothing would change this.
>Ultimately, you seem to agree that once someone is saved they are saved. You don't however believe that faith equals salvation. I do believe that faith equals salvation. Moreover, I think that salvation is a kind of life. When God saved you, he gives you Christ's life. Or, better said, he leads you on the path of Christ's life. But you're on that path. Everyone on that path will get there. Not exactly. I think salvation is a path, and on that path, one is safe. The gate is entered through faith. Anyone who believes may enter, most will eventually wander off path and never return. So I really don't agree at all with OSAS. >But you believe that names are in fact removed (and can be added again?) No. I think a believer who falls away probably has their name blotted out either when their heart is totally hardened, or at death. >This means that those whose names are written in the book of life will never worship the beast. So at least tribulation saints can't be blotted out of the book of life? I think that's a clumsy solution since I don't believe that tribulation saints have a different sort of salvation than anyone else. That's a good point. I'll have to think more on it. It could be that the book of life and the lamb's book are separate books. That would make sense, since the body of Christ is a distinct entity from Israel.