Discussion of a Foundational "Evangelical" Teaching

[Cassia]

The main difference between Arminian teaching and Lutheran teaching is that the first teaches that you can lose your salvation and the other teaches OSAS. So the conflict is around the book of Hebrews that the first point to chapter 10 and the second point to chapter 6. But when properly read chapter 6 is to those who have accepted Christ while chapter 10 is about those who reject and undermine the Holy Spirit. What neither take into consideration is rewards. Instead both look to perdition rather than loss of rewards.

 

[Rens]

God saved us because He loved the world...you know the rest.

Our response is a response and isn't what saves us. Just as in real life we end up loving our parents without being told TO LOVE THEM in order for them to be our parents, God builds a relationship with us. We grow to love Him. How can we not for what He has done for our salvation? Our response isn't the source of our salvation.

That is a response when you are already saved, not when you're not saved. You all got saved as a kid. Not one kid will say no to Jesus. A grown up who isn't His child can resist Him so he can't get saved. God broke Nebukadnesar's pride first before he admitted He is God. If someone is proud he cannot accept Jesus. Little children don't have that problem.
Jerusalem Jerusalem I wanted to gather your kids but you didn't want to. The parents kept their own kids from Him. People can say no to God. That's why they don't get saved. Why else not? Cause He was for no reason at all not willing to give them the gift?? That is weird. Their heart must have been proud and bad soil. He throws noone out who comes to Him.
Even when I did not believe He existed it was not even a question for me that I'd follow Him if He did exist. There are those that are so proud, if God exists they don't want Him cause He's evil and not a superior humanist like them. Now I believe even those can get saved but they are not saved now because they're proud and resist Him. One guy said if God saves me within 2 days like Paul I will believe, otherwise not. Then he was kinda surprised that God didn't dance to his whistling. Come on now. He resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Someone like that first needs to be humbled.

 

[TurtleHare]

Just wading my way through all the religionistic gobblety-goop of another 'it's-my-way-or-the-excommunication-highway' thread.

Btw, which religious expert is now going to insist on telling us they know when Lazarus got saved/or was born-again/or became a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ/or joined some religious organization and got water-baptized and ate and drank Jesus' flesh and blood as denominational requirements to have his sins forgiven?

Seriously look at how you mock your fellow christians you ought to be ashamed of your behavior and this ain't the only post where your doing it because you got something against other people who believe differently than you but are better at proving it from scripture and that makes you mad so you try to put them down.

Jesus didn't even ordain baptism or Holy communion until after Lazarus was raised so your point is pure nonsense ya know?

 

[TurtleHare]

That is a response when you are already saved, not when you're not saved. You all got saved as a kid. Not one kid will say no to Jesus. A grown up who isn't His child can resist Him so he can't get saved. God broke Nebukadnesar's pride first before he admitted He is God. If someone is proud he cannot accept Jesus. Little children don't have that problem.
Jerusalem Jerusalem I wanted to gather your kids but you didn't want to. The parents kept their own kids from Him. People can say no to God. That's why they don't get saved. Why else not? Cause He was for no reason at all not willing to give them the gift?? That is weird. Their heart must have been proud and bad soil. He throws noone out who comes to Him.
Even when I did not believe He existed it was not even a question for me that I'd follow Him if He did exist. There are those that are so proud, if God exists they don't want Him cause He's evil and not a superior humanist like them. Now I believe even those can get saved but they are not saved now because they're proud and resist Him. One guy said if God saves me within 2 days like Paul I will believe, otherwise not. Then he was kinda sad that God didn't dance to his whistling. Come on now. He resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Someone like that first needs to be humbled.

heh do you see how you say that the unsaved are too proud and that's what we've been saying because the unsaved can't just humble without divine intervention. You said it, sister, the unsaved can't save themselves.

 

[user1234]

Seriously look at how you mock your fellow christians you ought to be ashamed of your behavior and this ain't the only post where your doing it because you got something against other people who believe differently than you but are better at proving it from scripture and that makes you mad so you try to put them down.

Jesus didn't even ordain baptism or Holy communion until after Lazarus was raised so your point is pure nonsense ya know?

Just when was Lazarus saved? When was he born again? When did he first become a believer? Did he get water-baptised before he died? After? Did he ever take communion? Did he think it was symbolic? Did he think he was literally eating Jesus?
[Staff Edit]

 

[Rens]

heh do you see how you say that the unsaved are too proud and that's what we've been saying because the unsaved can't just humble without divine intervention. You said it, sister, the unsaved can't save themselves.

Yes I agree, we're saved by grace through faith just like the Bible says, nothing from ourselves and that happened when I heard I had to pray the sinner's prayer and did it. Afterwards I felt an immediate change.

 

[Brighten04]

Yes I agree, we're saved by grace through faith just like the Bible says, nothing from ourselves and that happened when I heard I had to pray the sinner's prayer and did it. Afterwards I felt an immediate change.

Yes. But that is so hard to explain.

 

[Tigger]

The main difference between Arminian teaching and Lutheran teaching is that the first teaches that you can lose your salvation and the other teaches OSAS. So the conflict is around the book of Hebrews that the first point to chapter 10 and the second point to chapter 6. But when properly read chapter 6 is to those who have accepted Christ while chapter 10 is about those who reject and undermine the Holy Spirit. What neither take into consideration is rewards. Instead both look to perdition rather than loss of rewards.

Lutheranism doesn't teach OSAS, it teaches believers must be drawn by the Father but that they 'can' ship wreck their faith.

 

[Cassia]

Lutheranism doesn't teach OSAS, it teaches believers must be drawn by the Father but that they 'can' ship wreck their faith.

Oh sorry, I guess I got that mixed up with Calvinism. (so actually Lutherans side with Arminians on loss of salvation being possible after salvation?) There's the objectiveness of Calvinists and the subjectiveness of Arminians. The teachings of rewards and loss of rewards are missing from both so interpretations fall into either extreme. Neither recognise that in the book of Hebrews God portrays Himself as a God who rewards and that comes with seeing the loss of rewards that scripture depicts.
Instead the verses that describe rewards are overlooked as to losses and instead interpreted to mean perdition.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Hebrews 10:35
So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded.​

1 Corinthians 3:8
The one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose, and each will receive wages according to the labor of each.
1 Corinthians 3:14-15
If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire.

 

[TurtleHare]

Yes I agree, we're saved by grace through faith just like the Bible says, nothing from ourselves

I agree with this

 

[user1234]

Seriously look at how you mock your fellow christians you ought to be ashamed of your behavior and this ain't the only post where your doing it because you got something against other people who believe differently than you but are better at proving it from scripture and that makes you mad so you try to put them down.

Jesus didn't even ordain baptism or Holy communion until after Lazarus was raised so your point is pure nonsense ya know?

Yah right, how is this not so-called 'flaming' and a personal attack, but my posts get deleted and this one doesn't?! Glaring.

Sorry, Turtle, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Lazarus, or what my point was either! :eyecrazy:

 

[Lamb]

STAFF NOTICE:

Stick to the topic and please stop the flaming and personal attacks. Addressing theological viewpoints is not the same as flaming the person's character. If you have an issue on this site with anyone please begin a thread in the Member Admin Center.

 

[user1234]

How typical.
So anyway, are any of the denominationalists or relgious authoritarians going to answer the questions about Lazarus. When was he saved/born-again? When did he become a believer? Was he water-baptized? Before or after Jesus ? Did he take communion? Did he believe the bread and wine were symbolic, or did he think he was literally eating and drinking Jesus?

 

[Rens]

How typical.
So anyway, are any of the denominationalists or relgious authoritarians going to answer the questions about Lazarus. When was he saved/born-again? When did he become a believer? Was he water-baptized? Before or after Jesus ? Did he take communion? Did he believe the bread and wine were symbolic, or did he think he was literally eating and drinking Jesus?

They couldn't get born again: die and rise with Christ before He did, He was the firstborn under many brethren.

https://youtu.be/gDCiqWcV7NY

 

[Cassia]

The main difference between Arminian teaching and Lutheran teaching is that the first teaches that you can lose your salvation and the other teaches OSAS. So the conflict is around the book of Hebrews that the first point to chapter 10 and the second point to chapter 6. But when properly read chapter 6 is to those who have accepted Christ while chapter 10 is about those who reject and undermine the Holy Spirit. What neither take into consideration is rewards. Instead both look to perdition rather than loss of rewards.

Oh sorry, I guess I got that mixed up with Calvinism. (so actually Lutherans side with Arminians on loss of salvation being possible after salvation?) There's the objectiveness of Calvinists and the subjectiveness of Arminians. The teachings of rewards and loss of rewards are missing from both so interpretations fall into either extreme. Neither recognise that in the book of Hebrews God portrays Himself as a God who rewards and that comes with seeing the loss of rewards that scripture depicts.
Instead the verses that describe rewards are overlooked as to losses and instead interpreted to mean perdition.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Hebrews 10:35
So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded.​

1 Corinthians 3:8
The one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose, and each will receive wages according to the labor of each.
1 Corinthians 3:14-15
If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire.

STAFF NOTICE:

Stick to the topic and please stop the flaming and personal attacks. Addressing theological viewpoints is not the same as flaming the person's character. If you have an issue on this site with anyone please begin a thread in the Member Admin Center.

Is this considered off topic? Because it is very much foundational.

 

[Josiah]

The main difference between Arminian teaching and Lutheran teaching is that the first teaches that you can lose your salvation and the other teaches OSAS.

This thread about neither.

Lutherans do NOT teach OSAS. That's a teaching of a FEW Calvinists.



- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

You have proven God CAN and DOES do something in the physical realm (Law) and claimed that as proof that God MUST also do so in the spiritual realm (Grace).

1. I don't believe that Jesus rising Lazarus from the death is a matter of Law. I consider more likely that His giving life to this dead man was because of grace; I look at this as a loving, GRACIOUS miracle.

2. The issue of this thread is singular: Does God require permission from us before He can bless us, give to us? One of a handful of arguments used in another thread is that He does. This thread is to examine that.

Does God force people to love him against their will?
That is the heart of what Arminians are asking you.

IF so, it's unrelated to this thread or anything posted anywhere, to my knowledge. The point made is that we MUST choose to become alive, choose to have faith - BECAUSE God will not be gracious, giving to us apart from such prior permission. The point made was that because one can find a very, very few verses where God seemed to be "calling" the dead/unregenerate to FAITH, therefore, ergo, it is mandated that the one called MUST have the ability and power to respond to such - choice being the determinate factor, not grace.

your commentary on Lazarus does not address that).

I think it does. Dead Lazarus was clearly, unmistakenly CALLED by Jesus. But it's JESUS who GIVES to Lazarus life. Lazarus rising was not a matter of Lazarus choosing life or giving Jesus permission to give him life or the dead man somehow "hearing" Jesus' call and in obedience following orders. IMO, it was a case of Jesus' miracle, a case of Jesus' pure grace and free gift, all Jesus' doing. SURE the moment he HAD life, was GIVEN life - he responds but obviously that's a different issue.


No. I think insisting that the dead raise themselves by their obedience and permission and choice is a confusion of Law and Gospel.



- Josiah

 

[Lamb]

Is this considered off topic? Because it is very much foundational.

By Off Topic I meant that there have been posts that discussed members and their character instead of theological discussion. Staff is trying to curb bashing of members here. We realize that sometimes topics will begin to evolve into new ones. Sometimes new threads are best and sometimes new threads stifles the conversation. We cannot predict.

 

[Josiah]

Yes I agree, we're saved by grace through faith just like the Bible says, nothing from ourselves and that happened when I heard I had to pray the sinner's prayer and did it.

So, friend, I'm left wondering which is it? You were saved by a divine miracle of grace (God alone did it) with Jesus as the Savior or when you, still dead, "heard" the command to say the 'sinner's prayer' and you, still dead, did that and thus saved yourself?



.

 

[psalms 91]

So, friend, I'm left wondering which is it? You were saved by a divine miracle of grace (God alone did it) with Jesus as the Savior or when you, still dead, "heard" the command to say the 'sinner's prayer' and you, still dead, did that and thus saved yourself?



.

Josiah I know that you are versed well enough to iknow exactly what we believe which is why I dont get into this so much, that plus the fact that nothing will change, we believe as we do and you and the others believe as they do, so why bother?