When the facts are skewed?
No, "facts" that are skewed are not true facts.
Truthseekers desire to eliminate bias or "skewing",
but can never claim to do so infallibly--
hence the need for humility.
When the facts are skewed?
But this is the problem. There's no consensus re: "debunked"? (We probably agree there will not be and consensus of men is not the determining factor}.
One of my questions is, have we attacked it from all angles to the extent of our abilities and allowed each their say? These threads tend to operate at a surface level and then end very early in a surface-level disgust.
I have a question about Matt24:13. There most certainly is a context (that is even surely debated), but with all the NT instruction and even command to endure, and to abide (endure is an intensified form of abide), was Jesus also laying down a principle that carries into the rest of the NC instruction of the necessity to endure? What gives the Christian the idea that he does not have to endure as a Christian? Why would we even want to suggest such a thing?
Saved is saved, therefore, once spiritually saved (meaning reconnected to God and having accepted the payment (gift) of being declared innocent) is ALWAYS saved.
And no scripture teaches otherwise.
Often people use verses which do not have spiritually salvation in view but the deliverance or the saving of the body, mind, soul etc.,
Which is so obvious especially in Matthew example ...
"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."
Matthew 24:13
Saved physically!!
It really is that simple.
God is true to His word.
Re "One of my questions is, have we attacked it from all angles to the extent of our abilities and allowed each their say?": This hermeneutical method has been called dialectical theology, which endeavors to harmonize partially true thesis A with somewhat right opinion B in order to arrive at what should be the more correct interpretation C, which if the process continues will result in the most true belief eventually.
Unfortunately, pastors do not teach this process to parishioners, so they tend to operate at a surface level
and be content with proof-texting arguments, which I believe grieves God.
Not many professing believers understand and follow what you have said in this post. Most believe in the loss of salvation.
Interesting indeed.
MM
I tend to jump in and out of threads, probably not a good approach, but do you think salvation is 100% secure?
But this is the problem. There's no consensus re: "debunked"? (We probably agree there will not be and consensus of men is not the determining factor}.
One of my questions is, have we attacked it from all angles to the extent of our abilities and allowed each their say? These threads tend to operate at a surface level and then end very early in a surface-level disgust.
I have a question about Matt24:13. There most certainly is a context (that is even surely debated), but with all the NT instruction and even command to endure, and to abide (endure is an intensified form of abide), was Jesus also laying down a principle that carries into the rest of the NC instruction of the necessity to endure? What gives the Christian the idea that he does not have to endure as a Christian? Why would we even want to suggest such a thing?
It is absolutely secure. It's as secure as is the power of the seal Holy Spirit places upon us. Anything that suggests loss of salvation is works based salvation, which is a salvation that saves nobody today since such is not of grace.
MM
I am thinking you are looking at it from a cost - benefit approach
I see the
Benefit side of no losable salvation gives >>>>> absolute security, freedom, peace and grace
Cost side >>>>> insecurity, diminishes the work of Christ Jesus.
But anyway, ultimately it is what is plain as day in scripture, Christ endured all, we have nothing we can add, but we do have to believe it.
So, the normal question, enduring belief is not necessary?
So where does that get you? You cherry-pick all the time.
So, the normal question, enduring belief is not necessary?
Well let us be logical,
if I was told someone else paid all my debt, I am persuaded by the evidence it is true (believe) and receive the payment for myself, a very generous gift and am thereby declared innocent of all charges
then person who took on all the debt stamps my debt paid in full/justified.
I have no more debt owed,
can my unbelief in my being declared innocent change the reality that I was declared innocent, free of all debt.
Now some people get around this by stating the "future personal sins" have not been dealt with, I do not see the logic in this nor does hold up if we examine scripture to support this.
Or you have to say the person who absolved the debt is fickle. Not good.
No. It is not.
Now, let's ask a more relevant question: Who was it the Lord said must endure unto the end and THEN they shall be (future tense, not present) saved?
MM
But this is the problem. There's no consensus re: "debunked"? (We probably agree there will not be and consensus of men is not the determining factor}.
One of my questions is, have we attacked it from all angles to the extent of our abilities and allowed each their say? These threads tend to operate at a surface level and then end very early in a surface-level disgust.
I have a question about Matt24:13. There most certainly is a context (that is even surely debated), but with all the NT instruction and even command to endure, and to abide (endure is an intensified form of abide), was Jesus also laying down a principle that carries into the rest of the NC instruction of the necessity to endure? What gives the Christian the idea that he does not have to endure as a Christian? Why would we even want to suggest such a thing?
But that doesn't specifically answer my questions about the necessity of enduring, which seems like they could be answered very simply.
That was wrong....
And spewed the typical wrong thinking of many emotion driven Christians.
For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we awaita Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. Philippians 3:18-20The word 'belly' held a meaning at the time that verse was written.
It meant, emotions.
Their god is their emotions...
AI, ChatFat? ... none of that will show us what we need to know.
We need... The truth.
Too many dumb sheep playing shepherd.
Their god is their belly.
And make friends with those who have the same belly shape.
........
It does not really think, lol, it finds out what people think.
Absolutely, unmerited favour is so non-dimensional.