May 13, 2019 3:27 pm
We tend to define backsliding as a believer reverting to a life dominated by sin, but I think a better definition of backsliding is simply when we lose spiritual ground that we had achieved previously.
Posted by Jason Dulle
Categories: Hamartiology, Theology
Tags:
Mobile Site | Full Site
Get a free blog at WordPress.com Theme: WordPress Mobile Edition by Alex King.
Jason, you are right……backsliding is a process ….I think of it as growing cold to the Lord and warming up to the ways of the world, and if kept unchecked , leads to the state of becoming backslidden. Nothing is worth it…..not a thing…Jesus Christ is the best and most loyal Friend we could ever hope for…..and He’s a great God and awesome Creator too! He is everything and more……why do people leave Him? So tragic 😦 Love you guys!!!Elaine
From: Theo-sophical Ruminations To: elaine926@yahoo.com Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 3:28 PM Subject: [New post] Backsliding #yiv2818929709 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv2818929709 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv2818929709 a.yiv2818929709primaryactionlink:link, #yiv2818929709 a.yiv2818929709primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv2818929709 a.yiv2818929709primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv2818929709 a.yiv2818929709primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E !important;color:#fff !important;}#yiv2818929709 WordPress.com | Theosophical Ruminator posted: “We tend to define backsliding as a believer reverting to a life dominated by sin, but I think a better definition of backsliding is simply when we lose spiritual ground that we had achieved previously.” | |
LikeLiked by 1 person
By elaine hodges on May 13, 2019 at 10:28 pm
I prefer to think of it as the rejection of a mindset which relies on personal revelations derived from the subjective interpretation of ancient texts and replacing that with a knowledge system of verifiable, justified true beliefs that more accurately reflect the physical world. It’s the old religion vs. science argument. The price one pays for adopting the science viewpoint is an unsatisfying lack of certainty about the Big Questions – the origin of life, the origin of the universe and the nature of human consciousness. Science can’t adequately answer those questions because the models proposed to explain them are, for the most part, not testable, a direct violation of the basic principles of the scientific method. The science models thus take on an almost religious character as articles of faith rather than verifiable knowledge. In contrast, the religious person “knows” that God is the source of all things, living or otherwise. That’s the old god in the gaps argument, which I find to be equally unsatisfying.
LikeLike
By Bob Mason on May 18, 2019 at 3:43 am
Sorry, Bob, but your post has nothing to do with the topic. Since you wouldn’t describe a person being “enlightened” by science to be a “backslider,” it’s hard to decipher the point you’re trying to make—unless you’re attempting to shoehorn a debate about the superiority of science over religion.
I think Jason’s definition of backsliding is biblically accurate. Any loss of spiritual ground would fit that definition, including a life that is now dominated by sin, but I think it should be added that a loss of spiritual ground necessarily involves some sort of sin (e.g. the rebuke of the messenger of Ephesus in Rev. 2:1-5).
Proverbs 14 (KJV)
14 The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways: and a good man shall be satisfied from himself.
Here, the term backslider means “impure” in the sense of drawing away from God. Thus, his impurity is the result of an inward defection from his walk with God. He thus becomes impure in heart, and since his heart is impure, he can only be satisfied with impure things.
LikeLike
By Scalia on May 20, 2019 at 10:04 am
Scalia, you’re right, I over extrapolated my argument. But, while I do indeed believe that a methodological naturalism world view is superior to personal revelation, I’m still left with a “so what” question. If I’m not going to burn in hell, as John Knox says I am, for abandoning my religious upbringing, what are the ultimate consequences? I don’t see that there are any, although I suspect other visitors to this site would differ.
LikeLike
By Bob Mason on May 21, 2019 at 3:53 am
Scalia: I broke my rule of not thinking through my argument by letting my thoughts gel for a day or two before posting. Is it your position I cannot live a moral existence without God?
LikeLike
By Bob Mason on May 21, 2019 at 4:53 am
@Bob
No. It is my position that an atheist can live as moral a life as any Christian (in many cases a much better life). Some so-called posters on this site profess Christianity, but as the record shows, they will not hesitate to lie when it comes to saving face over theological issues. I have a couple of atheist friends who have never come close to arguing dishonestly, and it never ceases to amaze me how easily lying comes to some Christians. The only thing that makes sense to me is such behavior is the result of the sloppy grace doctrine which asserts that Christians can live any way they please without jeopardizing their salvation. That gives the green light to their dishonesty, lust, etc.
What I as a Christian ague is that the atheist cannot rationally ground h/er morality and is thus bereft of the ability to logically defend h/er moral beliefs.
We’re getting off course from Jason’s topic. Since you asked me the question, I’m happy to answer, but we’d better not pursue that topic here. This issue has been raised on other threads, so if you’d like to continue the discussion under another thread, just let me know where you’re at, and we can take it from there.
LikeLike
By Scalia on May 21, 2019 at 10:12 am
Backsliding infers that we are climbing … climbing to what exactly ?
I don’t believe backsliding is a term for Christians. We are not trying to climb a ladder of spiritual perfection, rather we are already the righteousness of God as believers, not by our own merits.
Surely, we can grow or shrink in our knowledge/understanding and moral behavior, but that does not take away our impeccable status before the Lord which is not a works based achievement scale like the religions of the world. Remember how Paul addressed those caught in sin at Corinth as brothers and Saints. That should speak to you ….
I think the term backsliding is applicable to those that are not yet in Christ. Those that have tasted but have not digested the full meal if you will. An example of this would be the Hebrews who heard about Jesus as Messiah but resorted “back” to the temple and worthless sacrifices. Those are people that the term backsliders is appropriate for.
As for Christians we need to make a distinction between our imputed, once for all righteousness and our moral behavior. If we equate the two, you will confuse yourself and misappropriate the grace of God.
The church in general is obsessed with the behavior of their members, sermon after sermon is preached about right and wrong, frankly it’s exhausting. I think we need to stop telling Christians that they are sinners and need to die to self and start telling them who they really are in Christ and that they are not made for sin any longer. If that is not the case, then God is asking every Christian to go against their true nature. In other words, just “fake it” and act like you are righteous but you’re really just a dirty worm.
How do you think a person will behave if he is told he is rotten at the core and a sinner ?
Scalia, I know I’m in for a big tongue lashing at your hands …. fire away my friend 🙂
Cheers and salutations to all …. so glad Leo is off this site ! Thank God ! WooHoo !
Naz
LikeLike
By Naz on July 19, 2019 at 9:49 am
Test.
LikeLike
By Scalia on July 20, 2019 at 11:06 pm
First things first, Naz writes:
Jason had the patience of Job with Leo (far too much of that in my opinion). Leo turned the discussion boards here into a farce. He did his upmost to turn every discussion toward his atheism and steadfastly refused (if he were capable) to discuss anything logically. I don’t know if you noticed, but he tried to come back under another moniker in the Euthyphro’s Dilemma thread (the most recent one). He wasn’t able to mask himself for very long, and Jason was of course able to see through his facade.
Okay.
LikeLike
By Scalia on July 20, 2019 at 11:12 pm
Galatians 6
1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.
First, this isn’t referring to an unconverted person. Paul doesn’t instruct the Galatians to preach the gospel to this person. He instructs the “spiritual” to “restore” the offender.
Second, since the offender is no longer acting spiritually, it is the duty of those who are spiritual to bring the offender back to a spiritual life. Thus, the offender left a position of spirituality and needs to come back to it. This is the essence of backsliding, so you’re most incorrect when you insist that it doesn’t apply to Christians.
James 5
19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
As noted previously, the book of James is written to Christians. He calls them brethren and says that if any of them errs from the truth, the one who converts him saves “the sinner from the error of his way” and saves “a soul from death.” The offender strays from the truth (this is backsliding) and is now identified as a sinner. In order to avoid death, the offender must be converted “from the error of his way.” Again, the term backslider is entirely appropriate.
The only out for the OSAS crowd is that James was addressing unconverted sinners and telling them that if somebody converts them, they would be saved. This is of course patently untrue because he just told them in verse 7 to be patient unto the coming of the Lord. That’s not what you tell sinners (as well as a host of other things he said in that book which clearly demonstrates that he was speaking to the converted, not to sinners).
So, if a believer joins the Mafia as a hit man, he merely “shrinks” in his moral behavior, but he remains impeccable before the Lord, right? No matter how many people he murders, he’s forever saved because he’s been born again, right?
What about a 15-year-old Muslim girl who is devout in every way and was raised from birth to believe in Allah, in Mohammad as Allah’s prophet, and in the Koran? If all she ever heard were caricatures of the Christian faith and she tragically dies in a car accident at 15, is she going to burn in the Lake of Fire forever? What about it, Naz? Are you finally going to answer my questions?
You mean like these people?
Galatians 5
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Paul didn’t say that Christ made some of them free. He included himself when he said, “Christ hath made us free.” These were NOT people who didn’t eat the full meal. They were made free by Christ. He then addressed them with a warning: If they went back to circumcision, Christ shall profit them nothing. Now, Naz, what sense can be made of that from an OSAS position? If they were fully saved, then it doesn’t matter if they went back to circumcision because Christ forever profits them by virtue of their faith in Him. If they weren’t saved at all, why warn them about circumcision?? If they weren’t saved, then their problem isn’t circumcision, it’s inadequate faith in Christ. Your whole approach reads into the text what it doesn’t say.
Next, Paul doesn’t say that the Galatians who affirm the law were never saved. He says in verse 4 that they “are fallen from grace.” That again makes no sense if Paul was an OSAS preacher. You can’t fall from grace if you’re saved, right? And if they were never saved, their “fall” from grace merely makes it harder for them to get the real grace by accepting Christ as their personal savior. So, the point isn’t the law or sin, it’s faith in Christ. That makes Paul’s warning nonsensical, especially since he pronounces a “curse” on anybody, who preaches another gospel. In this context the “other gospel” is the ceremonial law which was fulfilled in Christ.
If, however, you acknowledge what the text plainly says (that he is speaking to true believers), then their “fall” is merely an obstacle for their spiritual growth. They’re incapable of being fully used of God if their theology is disjointed. That again ignores the plain text and reads into it what it doesn’t say. It’s the typical twisting and turning of words to fit an unscriptural template that so characterizes OSAS advocates. But let’s concede that arguendo. Let’s say that Paul was saying they weren’t really fallen from grace, they were just fallen from believing the grace doctrine they were originally taught. NONETHELESS, they were still fallen! So, if their behavior was so severe as to make Christ profitless to them and to be considered fallen from the doctrine of grace, then “backslidden” is again an appropriate term because they’ve fallen away from a doctrine they once held. In no manner have you made a biblical case for your denial that said term adequately applies to some who were genuine Christians.
You need to re-read the New Testament. Time and again Christians are exhorted to live holy, to love one another, to avoid idolatry, fornication, lying, etc. You must get tired every time you read the New Testament.
Naz, real Christians love holiness, and they love exhortations to holiness. If they fall short, they can say with Paul that they’re nonetheless pressing toward the mark of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. They’re not weary with “striving for the mastery.” Your perspective of Christianity is quite different from what’s described in the Bible.
If you’re rotten to the core and a sinner, you need to repent. Then you won’t be rotten any more. See? It’s quite easy once you discard the false doctrine of once-saved-always-saved.
LikeLike
By Scalia on July 20, 2019 at 11:12 pm
Scalia, I always appreciate the conversation with you, thanks for your response. Sorry of the late reply, I don’t come to this site as often as before.
I will try to answer a couple of your points for now.
“First, this isn’t referring to an unconverted person. Paul doesn’t instruct the Galatians to preach the gospel to this person. He instructs the “spiritual” to “restore” the offender.
Second, since the offender is no longer acting spiritually, it is the duty of those who are spiritual to bring the offender back to a spiritual life. Thus, the offender left a position of spirituality and needs to come back to it. This is the essence of backsliding, so you’re most incorrect when you insist that it doesn’t apply to Christians.”
James said “we all stumble in many ways”. Christians have problems and commit transgressions and need to be “restored” sometimes. You can call this backsliding if you want but the person’s salvation is never at stake. We are all human and battle with our human weaknesses and faults. I agree with you that we should restore those people back to a spiritual health but that does not at all mean or imply they lost their salvation, especially in this verse. The man caught in adultery in Corinthians was called a brother in Christ and Paul implored them to accept him back into the church after he repented of his deed. I’m not condoning or preaching anarchy or loose living. Paul was also accused of this by those who did not understand the gospel of grace.
Rom 5:20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
Rom 5:21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?
Paul would not have spoken these words unless a believer’s salvation was eternally secure. If grace increases every time sin increases then can’t we just keep sinning more and more and do “whatever we want” ? This is the standard argument against those like myself who believe the OSAS message. Paul was addressing the same thing back then.
My answer is YES, we can do “whatever we want”. The question is, what do we really want ? Salvation is more than the forgiveness of sins. God is not naive. First of all, we are no longer sinners, we are saints who sometimes sin. So we need to get our identity right as children of God. Secondly, as believers we are “born again” and have Christ living in us, that’s a game changer. My desires and heart has been transformed by the power of God and at the core I really don’t want to sin even though I stumble in many ways as James said. As for my behavior and conduct, this is a work in progress as God renews my mind daily so that I can express Christ through a holy way of life. But this is not a burden, I don’t need to be scared or fear when I mess up.
I thank God for the relief He has given me as I more fully understand the gospel of grace as I have learned to rest in Him and not fear any longer. This is much different than what I was taught in the Pentecostal church.
If my salvation was based on my performance I would surely botch it up badly. I’ll stop there and continue another time.
Naz
LikeLike
By Naz on August 27, 2019 at 7:00 am
” TEST
LikeLike
By Naz on August 27, 2019 at 7:01 am
Scalia, how do you get those big quotes with the indent on your posts ?
Thanks.
Naz
LikeLike
By Naz on August 27, 2019 at 7:03 am
@Naz
First thing, you ask:
It’s called an HTML tag. I don’t know how to format it here without triggering it, but if you Google “HTML tags blockquotes” you’ll get information on how to format them. It’s really very easy to use them, and they are of course quite handy when you’d like to set off somebody else’s text from yours.
LikeLike
By Scalia on August 27, 2019 at 10:14 am
“TEST”
LikeLike
By Naz on August 27, 2019 at 12:52 pm
LikeLike
By Naz on August 27, 2019 at 12:53 pm
Naz
LikeLike
By Naz on August 27, 2019 at 12:54 pm
LikeLike
By Naz on August 27, 2019 at 12:56 pm
Naz, looks like you’ve got it. I’m too busy at the moment to reply to your main post. I’ll try later tonight.
Best.
LikeLike
By Scalia on August 27, 2019 at 2:43 pm
@Naz, you write:
I think you can guess what I’m going to say, but I’ll say it anyway. OSAS is not the subject of the main post. Jason’s post is quite short and to the point:
We tend to define backsliding as a believer reverting to a life dominated by sin, but I think a better definition of backsliding is simply when we lose spiritual ground that we had achieved previously.
To us (Jason and me), the term backslider may apply to a believer who has lost spiritual ground. You initially disagreed with that, and my reply in Post 10 is my rebuttal. You appear to grudgingly acknowledge that I “can call this backsliding” so there’s really nothing else to talk about in that regard.
Your argument that a believer can never lose h/er salvation is not only irrelevant to the topic, but it is meaningless because you still haven’t engaged the arguments I’ve made elsewhere. Of course, this is not the place to debate that because it’s off-topic, but if you ever decide to address them, let me know the thread you’ve chosen to do so, and we can take it from there.
LikeLike
By Scalia on August 27, 2019 at 10:58 pm
Scalia, if we can agree that “backsliding” does not effect one’s eternal sealed salvation then there is nothing to talk about. On the other hand, if you believe backsliding results in a loss of salvation then OSAS is at the very heart of the matter and not off topic.
We can use many words to describe a person’s current behavior but a true believer at the core is blameless and righteous. Our status before God does not change because of our behavior otherwise you fall into a works salvation mentality which is not the gospel. If our behavior can nullify our salvation then Paul was lying or wrong when he said we are sealed until the day of redemption. You would need to reconcile your theology with that crystal clear verse of our eternal security.
We are not gaining or losing “spiritual ground” by our good works or failures. What is happening is that our minds are being renewed as we grow in the knowledge of the Lord as we learn to express Christ by bearing good fruit. Our spiritual status is fixed and there are no levels to our spirituality. That is a pagan or new age concept that has crept into the church.
Obviously a life dominated by sin is not how we should live and that person should be “restored” in order to have peace in his own life and not bring shame to himself and the gospel. I don’t believe for a second that a true believer would be OK with living a life dominated by sin.
My original rebuttal of the term “backsliding” still stands in that we are not climbing a spiritual ladder in order to reach God because as we know God Himself came down to reach us. It’s more than just semantics as I believe it highlights what we believe about the work of salvation that the Lord has accomplished in our lives.
Naz
LikeLike
By Naz on August 28, 2019 at 6:56 am
Scalia wrote :
LikeLike
By Naz on August 28, 2019 at 8:18 am
TESTING 123
Naz
LikeLike
By Naz on August 28, 2019 at 8:21 am
TESTING 1 2 3
Testing 1 2 3
Naz
LikeLike
By Naz on August 28, 2019 at 8:24 am
Naz writes:
Agreement here is unnecessary under the parameters of the lead post. Jason merely stated that he believes said term should not be restricted to those who have left the church or to those who may attend church but have given themselves completely to sin. I agree with Jason’s assessment and you disagree because you believe that said term only applies to unbelievers (which makes positively no sense at all). But whether a Christian can actually lose h/er salvation is irrelevant to Jason’s point because he is only stating his belief that the term in question can apply to a Christian who has lost “spiritual ground” in some measure.
And thus it is clear that OSAS is NOT the topic since it isn’t critical to the point either way you look at it. For if you agree that said term does not affect one’s standing with God, then you nonetheless agree with Jason that it can apply to Christians. And Jason and my agreement that a Christian can lose h/er salvation is also irrelevant to the point because we’re not directly discussing that. We’re only saying that said term can apply to a current believer.
With respect to James 5, you write:
First, your assertion begs the question in favor of OSAS. Since that’s what’s at issue in an off-topic manner, you cannot use it in rebuttal. Second, you have to show a clear passage in the book of James that anything he writes is written exclusively to non-believers in the manner cited. James continually uses the collective pronoun “you” from the first chapter forward and employs it in direct reference to their faith in Christ. The only passage which appears to address sinners exclusively is Jas. 5:1-6 when he warns the rich against the judgment of God. He then returns to address believers from verse 7 forward, and the context does not change through the verses in question.
So no, Naz, you are most incorrect to conclude that James was addressing unbelievers here. This kind of contextual mistake is repeatedly made by OSAS advocates.
Again, OSAS, pe se, is not on the table. We can continue to examine James 5 to demonstrate whether or not James was addressing Christians in order to determine whether “backsliding” can apply to Christians, but OSAS itself is off-topic. I again invite you to address my arguments made in other threads if you really want to continue the debate. It’s really not that hard, Naz. Just pick a relevant thread and let me know where you’re at.
You allege you’re happy that Leo has been banned, but you keep acting like him in trying to shoehorn your candy sticks into threads. Please stay on-topic. And if we stay on-topic it looks like we can at least agree with the lead post irrespective our diverse views on OSAS.
LikeLike
By Scalia on August 28, 2019 at 1:48 pm
Scalia, I am challenging the whole notion of the term “backsliding” based on my belief in a believer’s eternal security. Based on this I don’t believe I’m off topic. You can’t talk about backsliding in a vacuum. It’s high time that these religious terms and phrases are challenged. I am only interested in knowing and understanding the truth and nothing more.
Furthermore, your assertion on the context of James is still incorrect. The audience is mixed as seen by the use of the repeated phrase “Is anyone among you”. This is a “If the shoe fits wear it” type of passage. Otherwise you are reading someone else’s mail. Christians are not sinners who need to be converted, have their sins forgiven and be saved from eternal death – that is ridiculous.
Eph 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Eph 4:31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.
Eph 4:32 Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.(past tense)
But as you wish, I will stop posting on this thread so that the legal requirements of posting are satisfied.
Naz
LikeLike
By Naz on August 29, 2019 at 7:01 am
I just read this … “sloppy grace doctrine” ??? Are you kidding me Scalia ! What kind of garbage are you preaching here. I resent your statement as one spoken by an ignorant person. It is clear you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to grace. We preach the gospel of grace and you are grossly misrepresenting it due to your legalistic and Pentecostal upbringing which you would be wise to jettison. The GRACE OF GOD TEACHES US NOT TO SIN.
Tit 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,
Tit 2:12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,
Furthermore, it seems like you have no problem deriding and insulting posters like myself, behind my back no less. Now there is a good example of morality.
You are the wolf in sheep’s clothing here just like your fathers the Pharisees whom you take after, devouring people of God with your harsh condescending words. I’m calling you out on this ….. you bring shame to the gospel and set a bad example for those like Bob Mason who have legitimate questions and opinions.
Naz
LikeLike
By Naz on August 29, 2019 at 7:35 am
@Naz regarding Post 26. You write:
And as I already told you, what you believe about eternal security has no bearing on what Jason wrote because he is speaking in the context of a believer. You believe that a genuine Christian can never lose h/er salvation but can nonetheless “backslide” in a sense so long as that sense does not entail the belief that s/he has lost h/er salvation. And Jason (and I) believe that a believer can lose focus without losing h/er salvation. That’s the ONLY point Jason makes! In other words, being a backslider does not necessitate leaving the church.
If he intended to invite a full-fledged debate on eternal security, he would have said so. He could have said something like, “Is it possible for a genuine Christian to lose h/er salvation? Is the term backslider an appropriate term relating to those who’ve lost their standing with God?” In that case, it’s open season on the subject. Nothing in what Jason writes relates to that.
Do you mind telling the readers of this blog where you got that quote? In the context of James 5, we read:
Jas 5:13 Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise.
Jas 5:14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.
Jas 5:15 And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
Thus, the “anyone among you” refers to genuine believers and not unbelievers. He follows that up with:
Jas 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.
Jas 5:17 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth.
In no sense can you legitimately twist that to refer to unbelievers. And after referencing Elijah, he says:
Jas 5:19 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back,
Jas 5:20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
If you’re an unbeliever, you can’t wander from the truth because you’re not even saved. And if you appear to be saved but are really unsaved, being “restored” to that position can never help you because you weren’t saved to begin with. The entire context shows unmistakably that James is referring to genuine believers. You don’t tell sinners to be “patient…until the coming of the Lord” because they’re not ready to meet the Lord.
As I stated, OSAS advocates are deliberately twisting the text to make it say what it doesn’t say because their commitment to their pet doctrine is greater than their commitment to the Scriptures. When I was attending an OSAS church many moons ago, I saw right away the dishonest way they interpreted the Bible. I said goodbye with no regrets.
LikeLike
By Scalia on August 29, 2019 at 5:08 pm
@Naz regarding Post 27. You write,
I have asked you now three times whether a believer can join the Mafia as a hit man and still be saved. The first two times you completely ignored the question. Only now you appear to answer it in an indirect manner (which does not really address the point). Moreover, I most definitely believe that you were being dishonest when you claimed that you didn’t have time to debate OSAS with me (when it was legitimate to do so) when you burned a whole lot of time (hundreds of posts) after that on other topics.
When a person refuses to answer legitimate questions and refuses to engage the specifics of an argument, and all he does is repeat his talking points, he is clearly not arguing in good faith. And when he’s called on it and he begs off by claiming that he doesn’t have the time to debate the topic while having all the time in the world, apparently, to debate everything else, I most definitely question said person’s honesty. That’s precisely what we call “sloppy grace,” and it’s no wonder folks who advocate that feel no remorse engaging in that type of behavior.
This is a public blog, Naz. You’ve been a regular here for years. I assume you read the posts. What was I supposed to do, give you a phone call? I have neither your phone number nor your email address. That’s my assessment of your behavior, but even then I didn’t call your name. Calling a public post an act “behind your back” is a Twilight Zone assessment.
Finally, I think you need to read Post 28. You-know-who now appears to be impersonating you.
LikeLike
By Scalia on August 29, 2019 at 5:20 pm
Scalia, first off I apologize for flying off the handle like that, I reacted on emotion without thinking and I’m sorry for that.
I realize I have not engaged you on the OSAS topic in previous threads when I had the chance. Sincerely this was not an attempt to avoid you or be dishonest in any way. I even forgot what that thread was to be honest.
Lastly, I understand your view on James 5:19-20. When reading it at face value it certainly does seem that a believer needs be “re-converted” in order to “keep” his salvation. However that notion contradicts many other scriptures that clearly state a believers eternal security.
If we follow your interpretation, then I assume you would assume the person wandering would need to repent or “stop sinning” in order to be saved again. I would agree that we need to repent and turn from sin all the time. The problem I have is that when you tease this out how can we measure how much repenting we need to do in order to “stay” saved ? How do we ever know if we are saved ? How much repentance is enough ? We don’t even know our own hearts the scripture says. Most of all, where is our assurance being placed ? Is it on Jesus or our repentance from daily sins and failures ?
Honestly, I don’t like sin. Frankly I’m disgusted with myself and some of the comments I have made to you, since after all you are a brother in Christ regardless of our differing views on these topics. I fully agree that sin should not be part of a believers life yet we fail and stumble all of the time.
Regarding who James is speaking to, we always assume there are 2 groups of people in the audience, believers and non-believers. What about if there is a 3rd group ? What about those that are sitting on the fence or those that are on their way to placing faith in Christ ? This group would still technically be non-believers but consider the Hebrews in the book of Hebrews who Paul exhorted to not return to the OT temple sacrifices. The writer was imploring them to see the superiority of Christ and turn from the OT law. I could see how a person on his way to faith could “wander” and “backslide” back to the temple and OT law. We tend to see everything black and white but maybe there is some grey area that could explain some of these difficult and contradicting passages like James 5:19-20.
I don’t like pet doctrines, I am only interested in the truth. I sincerely apologize for my behavior and tone in speaking with you. I hope we can go forward.
Naz
LikeLike
By Naz on August 30, 2019 at 8:11 am
Naz, apology accepted. I’m a thick-skinned sort and am not easily offended by insults. I’ve been called far worse on our blog, so I just consider that the cost of free speech.
I don’t at all agree with your take on James 5 or that there are “many other scriptures that clearly state a believers eternal security.” That notwithstanding, I think we can at least agree that the hypothetical person addressed must be a believer of some type because you cannot wander from the truth unless some sort of allegiance to it was professed. And for purposes of Jason’s post, that’s the main point.
I don’t, however, think that you wrote Post 28. The verbiage is Leo through and through, and I think he tried to impersonate you to attack me. I’ve reported it to Jason, but if you wrote it, I’ll let Jason know.
LikeLike
By Scalia on August 30, 2019 at 11:02 am
Scalia, thank you for your graciousness. No I did not write post 28 it was obviously Leo. Also see Post 33 for another.
As for the last word on backsliding, I guess I may have not stated it in this way but what I am saying is that a backslider is one who wanders from the truth who is not yet himself a true believer. Perhaps he is one who professes faith as you stated or one who has heard the gospel but not has repented from the dead works of the temple.
The scriptures are full with many passages of our eternal security and our assurance of the inheritance stored up for us to be revealed on the last day. Without that I would be a miserable wreck (as I once was) as I cannot trust my own performance to get me to heaven. Maybe you can live this way, if so, I don’t know how you do it.
Good evening to you.
Naz
LikeLike
By Naz on August 30, 2019 at 5:16 pm
Leo, we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Don’t harp on Scalia, we are all guilty of the same thing. Our emotions get the most of us and it’s easier to rant on a keyboard than face to face.
Let it go and move on. Also please don’t impersonate me.
Naz
LikeLike
By Naz on August 30, 2019 at 5:19 pm