The Security Of The Believer

[The_Watchers_2017]

@wattie , he evidently doesn't understand the difference between Calvinist and Baptist. But then, most people don't.

@The_Watchers_2017 , you moved the goalposts when you got this thread away from its original train of thought. And it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Reformed Doctrine. Until you understand the difference, there's not much more can be said to help you.

Your Original Sealed position is a REFORMED POSITION.

Disagree as you choose but that idealism first began with the REFORMED Movement and has always been their position.

I don't care how independent you claim to be from the REFORMED, but, if you preach a Doctrine they originated then you are preaching a REFORMED DOCTRINE.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

If you take an idea from Bill Gates and present that as an independent thought, it is STILL a Bill Gates idealism.

Same about preaching Doctrine.

Wherever it originally came from, it is still that same Doctrine no matter how much you dress it up differently.

 

[Cameron143]

If you take an idea from Bill Gates and present that as an independent thought, it is STILL a Bill Gates idealism.

Same about preaching Doctrine.

Wherever it originally came from, it is still that same Doctrine no matter how much you dress it up differently.

Are you suggesting that the idea of eternal security originated with the reformers?

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Are you suggesting that the idea of eternal security originated with the reformers?

The Doctrine as we know it today, did, is what I am stating.

Everything first begins with how one interprets the Bible, but, this specific Doctrine today came from Reformers like Calvin

 

[Cameron143]

The Doctrine as we know it today, did, is what I am stating.

Everything first begins with how one interprets the Bible, but, this specific Doctrine today came from Reformers like Calvin

The Reformation was a significant age in the history of the church, but an individual's beliefs are his own. Regardless of what others may teach, an individual comes to their own understanding and settles on their own beliefs. So it doesn't really matter what anyone teaches, but what an individual believes.
Further, it's disingenuous to lump all who hold to a particular belief into one group. Even within reformed circles there is great diversity of thought. Using Calvinism as a catch-all for all reformed thought makes it easy to dismiss arguments without ever giving consideration to the argument. And it's just insulting.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

The Reformation was a significant age in the history of the church, but an individual's beliefs are his own. Regardless of what others may teach, an individual comes to their own understanding and settles on their own beliefs. So it doesn't really matter what anyone teaches, but what an individual believes.
Further, it's disingenuous to lump all who hold to a particular belief into one group. Even within reformed circles there is great diversity of thought. Using Calvinism as a catch-all for all reformed thought makes it easy to dismiss arguments without ever giving consideration to the argument. And it's just insulting.

only if you are a person who can think independently.
most people who are born as a baby to parents in the Church, are then raised in it, continue in it, never form a real concrete belief based upon their own understanding, but, the understanding of the Doctrine.

i would have been that same way if my parents never changed me from Southern Baptist to Pentecostal.
i would have only known 1 way. probably be preaching Reformed right now.
but, i do truly have an INDEPENDENT View [separate from both Baptist and Pentecostal] and i present it at every junction.

 

[Cameron143]

only if you are a person who can think independently.
most people who are born as a baby to parents in the Church, are then raised in it, continue in it, never form a real concrete belief based upon their own understanding, but, the understanding of the Doctrine.

i would have been that same way if my parents never changed me from Southern Baptist to Pentecostal.
i would have only known 1 way. probably be preaching Reformed right now.
but, i do truly have an INDEPENDENT View [separate from both Baptist and Pentecostal] and i present it at every junction.

You give credit to changing churches. I would give credit to a changed heart. God, all the while working the circumstances of your life to bring you to Himself. And your experience to provide a unique perspective and work.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

You give credit to changing churches. I would give credit to a changed heart. God, all the while working the circumstances of your life to bring you to Himself. And your experience to provide a unique perspective and work.

no, i give Credit to the Shepherds God placed in my Path, so, i would have to question both and discover the truth independently.

 

[Cameron143]

no, i give Credit to the Shepherds God placed in my Path, so, i would have to question both and discover the truth independently.

Right. But it seems, according to you, those who differ in their understanding, are incapable of doing the same.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Right. But it seems, according to you, those who differ in their understanding, are incapable of doing the same.

then their views should match mine.

my views are both Reformed and Not.

so far, in this conversation, people are only 1 of the 2, not both.

 

[Cameron143]

then their views should match mine.

my views are both Reformed and Not.

so far, in this conversation, people are only 1 of the 2, not both.

Have you ever believed something only to find at a later time you were in error?

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Have you ever believed something only to find at a later time you were in error?

what i understand is there is only 1 Doctrine, and each Denomination has turned one Doctrine into multiple Versions.
they became Pharisees, Saduccees, Scribes over the Gospel, much like they did over the One Mosaic Law.

So, everyone, is in error.

 

[Cameron143]

what i understand is there is only 1 Doctrine, and each Denomination has turned one Doctrine into multiple Versions.
they became Pharisees, Saduccees, Scribes over the Gospel, much like they did over the One Mosaic Law.

So, everyone, is in error.

As true as that may be, we all hold beliefs in error. One can assume that others must be wrong, or to prayerfully consider differences.

 

[wattie]

@wattie , he evidently doesn't understand the difference between Calvinist and Baptist. But then, most people don't.

@The_Watchers_2017 , you moved the goalposts when you got this thread away from its original train of thought. And it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Reformed Doctrine. Until you understand the difference, there's not much more can be said to help you.

Yes, soooo many people get fed the idea that Christianity is either Calvinist or Arminian and there is nothing else. The Bible teaches neither.

Same as being fed the idea that Catholics and the Reformers are all the history of Christianity. That ignores independent Christian churches that never needed to reform and weren't Catholic.

Most people think Baptist's began in the 1600s. But that is just when some baptist declarations of faith were made public...not the beginning of their churches.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

As true as that may be, we all hold beliefs in error. One can assume that others must be wrong, or to prayerfully consider differences.

i am debating.
i am debating the fact where this Doctrine came from.
and i am debating, knowing where it came from, then all subjective points relating to the Doctrine + specific Scriptures used, like the meaning of Disobedience, must be included.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

we are in error because we present a Scripture that the ENTIRE CONTENT is ALL about the Holy Spirit.
but we then dissect that Verse for our sole purpose.
there's a Reason why God included BOTH PARTS in the SAME VERSE.
but, the OP, wants us to ignore that fact.
i choose never to ignore the OBVIOUS!!

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Has anybody ever accused you of giving people a license to sin? they accused Paul of that, they accuse us of it. Paul said their condemnation is just.

If folks don't accuse you of giving folks a license to sin could be you are preaching a different gospel to Paul.

Lets read the verse.

Romans 3:8
”And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,)
Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.”

Notice that they slanderously say this against Paul and it does not mean it is true. This is obviously the Jews saying this who are trying to get Christians to be circumcised and to be saved and to follow the Old Law (i.e., the 613 laws of Moses). If you were to read Acts 15:1, Acts 15:5, Acts 15:24 it tells you about this.

Acts 15:1
”And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.”

Acts 15:5
”But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

Acts 15:24
”Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:”

So Gentile Christians were being told by the apostles that they do not have to keep the Laws of Moses, and neither are they to be circumcised to be saved. It was heresy to keep circumcision and the Laws of Moses to be saved. We see hints of this heresy in Paul’s writings.

Galatians 5:2
”Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. “

Now, lets get back to Romans.

Romans 2:25-29 says,

24 ”For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?​

27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?​

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:​

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”​

Romans 3:1 says,
”What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?”

Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed. So it’s not that Christians are not under any Law in regards to salvation.

Even 1 John 3:23 says,
“And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.”

Do you believe you have to keep the commandment or Law to believe on the name of Jesus Christ for salvation? I sure do.
So you are saved by keeping a particular Law. Law can save you, but it depends on which Law you are referring to. Obviously Paul was condemning in going back to the Old Law and this is what he was referring to about those Jews who were slandering them in doing evil. Paul was not about the idea that we could sin and be saved.

Romans 6:1-2
”What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? “

Now, let’s read 1 Timothy 5:8.

1 Timothy 5:8
”But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”

Now, pay attention to what this verse says. Slowly read it and understand what it is saying here.
Paul is saying that if any (any believer) provides not for their own (even their own house), they have denied the faith and they are worse than an infidel. An infidel is an unbeliever. Just check other translations, and it says this. So if you do not provide for your own, you can be worse than unbeliever. Meaning, this verse cannot be talking about fake believers because only a believer can be worse than an unbeliever. Unbelievers cannot be worse than other unbelievers. It would make no sense. So Paul here is teaching conditional salvation and he is saying that if you commit the sin of not providing for your own later on after you were saved, you can then be worse than an unbeliever. Unbelievers are not saved. So one will lose their salvation if they do not provide for their own. That is what this verse is plainly teaching here.

 

[Cameron143]

i am debating.
i am debating the fact where this Doctrine came from.
and i am debating, knowing where it came from, then all subjective points relating to the Doctrine + specific Scriptures used, like the meaning of Disobedience, must be included.

You've missed my first point. I hold what you refer to as reformed understanding. This didn't arise from Calvin. My understanding came as a result of reading the Bible.
Again, people believe what they believe independently of the beliefs of others. Calvin had his beliefs. They have nothing to do with my beliefs.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Has anybody ever accused you of giving people a license to sin? they accused Paul of that, they accuse us of it. Paul said their condemnation is just.

If folks don't accuse you of giving folks a license to sin could be you are preaching a different gospel to Paul.

Most Christians I have talked with believe they can sin and still be saved. This is why they are not going to make it into God’s Kingdom according to the Judgment (See: Matthew 7:22-23, and Matthew 13:41-42). One Christian admitted to me that he could mow down a crowd with a machine gun and be saved by believing in Jesus while doing so. This is probably something you disagree with I am hoping. The other more popular Christian sin and still be saved belief is basically saying you will not murder, and rob banks and stuff, but you will sin and you must sin as a part of this life on some level, and yet you are still saved. Meaning, if you lied, or probably looked upon a woman in lust, you are saved because it is not murder, or the other really bad sins. This group believes they are not bad because they believe they are slowly becoming more holy conduct even though they may sin either daily, weekly, or monthly (trapped to their sin). Proverbs 28:13 says we have to confess and forsake sin in order to have mercy. 1 John 1:9, and 1 John 1:7 basically says the same thing. There is no salvation if one is not forgiven or if one does not have mercy from God. So if a person is not playing ball on God’s terms in forsaking and overcoming sin in this life as a part of God’s plan of salvation, then they are justifying sin. Nowhere is Romans 3:8 in context to sin and still be saved Christians, but it was in context to the Jew and their circumcision (Romans 3:1) (See also Romans 2:25-29) (Galatians 5:2) (Acts 15:1) (Acts 15:5) (Acts 15:24). So yeah. You can quote the Bible out of context if you like to justify the idea that Christians can sin and still be saved. But that is not what Paul is saying in Romans 3:8.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

if we confess our sins.

... you are confessing your holiness or are making holiness the requisite. You know that we all sin even when we have got the victory over the more greivious ones, so how many times a week do you "die" and need to be brought back to life? what about the sins you don't even know about?

Are you simply hoping that though you are a rat you are a cleaner rat than others?

Our salvation is once and forever.

That is why we can be CERTAIN if we confess our sins God is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and the blood of His Son cleanseth us from all unrighteousness.

Otherwise if we have lost our salvation we will have to crucify our Lord again to be saved again we make amok of it all. Hebrews says it's impossible.

Hebrews is comparing our perfect sacrifice to the old Jewish way of every time a sin was committed a lamb had to be slain and sacrificed.

"He by a single sacrifice has sanctified for all time those who come to Him in faith"

There are sins that do not lead to death (1 John 5:16-17). Not being baptized is a sin that will lead to spiritual death (See: 1 Peter 3:21, 1 Corinthians 1:17).

Matthew 5:22 (AMP)
”But I say to you that everyone who continues to be angry with his brother or harbors malice against him shall be guilty before the court; and whoever speaks [contemptuously and insultingly] to his brother, Raca (You empty-headed idiot)!’ shall be guilty before the supreme court (Sanhedrin); and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of the fiery hell.”

Notice the verse above. The words in blue are describing two sins that lead to judgment in earthly courts, and the words in red is describing the kind of sin that leads to punishment in hellfire.

1 Timothy 6:3-4 says,
”If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing,….”

James 4:6 says God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.
Meaning, if we do not agree with the words of Jesus and the doctrine according to godliness one is proud and God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. In other words, one will not be saved if they justify the idea of sin.

Jude 1:4 warns against those who turn God’s grace into a license for immorality.