Has anyone fallen from grace?

[shnarkle]

If we can "fall from grace", isn't Christ's intercession ineffective?

The word "elect" means chosen of God. If God makes this choice, can Satan negate it, by working through a rebellious heart? How? How can one of the elect rebel after being saved by God's grace? Isn't the idea of regeneration based upon the converted heart by God?

Once God has chosen one of his elect, can Satan's accusation persuade God to hand them over to Satan? If so, then what power is there in Christ's death and resurrection? Have Christ's intercessory prayers on behalf of the elect become ineffective now that he has taken his place at the right hand of the Father? What is the likihood that God will not listen to his son? Does the father not trust the judgment of his son?

If the regenerate man has the power to condemn themselves, then they can overcome the election of God, and the intercession of Christ. Satan can appeal to one's autonomy the same way he appealed to Adam and Eve in order that one may condemn themselves. Therefore Christ's intercession fails to accomplish anything.

Therefore Christians can have no confidence in their own prayers. If autonomous man can overcome Christ's prayers, then hasn't Satan defeated Christ? Hasn't Satan has defeated the power of prayer?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 65 by onewithhim]

Christianity claims the Jews are damned not for discarding the Law but for refusing to do so.

Did salvation suddenly come through blasphemy?


Numbers 15:29-31 New International Version (NIV)

29 One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether a native-born Israelite or a foreigner residing among you.

30 “‘But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or foreigner, blasphemes the Lord and must be cut off from the people of Israel. 31 Because they have despised the Lord’s word and broken his commands, they must surely be cut off; their guilt remains on them.’�

The Jews didn't follow the Law, that is true. They didn't care that the Messiah was revealed in that Law. Jesus and his apostles pointed out that he, Jesus, came to FULFILL the Law, and that's what he did. From his death on, the Law was obsolete. The Jews chose to cling to the Law, even though they didn't follow it, and ignore the fact that the Law had pointed to Jesus the Messiah and he was there in their midst.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 67 by onewithhim]

Did Barnabas and Paul receive the Holy Spirit?

Acts 13:2
While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.�

Which one betrayed the faith?

Yes, they both received Holy Spirit. Neither one betrayed the faith.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 72 by onewithhim]

Just because you say so? The texts describes a situation that simply shouldn't be possible in the new covenant.

I imagine that more than a simple disagreement over a fellow believers loyalty would cause a "divorce" between two people the Spirit personally had set apart?

No record is given of them ever being reconciled. Only a ever more strained relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem church.

[amortalman]

I use a number of versions of the Bible....NAB, NASB, KJV, NIV.

Didn't you leave out the New World Translation?

Again I say, the focus here is choosing before they are even born. Yes, God chooses those who will reign with Christ, but not before they are born. He chooses after He sees what kind of people they are.....what their heart conditions are.

Paul, in writing to the Christians in Ephesus said in Eph.1:4 :
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

So the Bible clearly teaches something different than what you're believing.

I think I already covered the "omniscient" thing. God can know what he wants to know, and he can not know what he chooses to not know. He has the ABILITY to be omniscient.

You didn't "cover" it at all! You made a statement that is unsupported by scripture, or at least you haven't as yet provided scripture. In my response, I provided several scriptures that showed God knows everything. I also furnished scripture to show that God chooses the redeemed even before the world was formed.

I must here clarify my position on this. I am not supporting one side or the other on the teaching of Election. When I was a Baptist Christian I came down on the side of Arminius instead of Calvin. But there are versions of beliefs in between the two. One commentator even went so far as to say that the Bible teaches both views (smart man). I am no longer a Christian because of issues like this and others. If a god was really behind the Bible he would have left clear teachings. Instead, according to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version), global Christianity had 33,820 denominations! This means that 33,820 groups of people can't see eye to eye on what this book teaches. There were at one time believed to be near 100,000 different denominations of Christianity. How can anyone state that Biblical teachings are clear?
The whole purpose of my entering this debate was to show that the Bible contradicts itself on many key issues.

If he knew everything before it happened, how could he honestly offer a choice to mankind?

Didn't we cover that ground before?

He would be playing a cruel game by saying to people, "Please choose to honor me and you can keep on living," when he had already condemned some to die.

This "God" is good at playing cruel games. As Richard Dawkins has said, "(he) is the most unpleasant character in all fiction."

(If you're serious about having a meaningful discussion, maybe you can go back and read my post #55, if you haven't already.)

I've already read and responded to #55. This is not a discussion forum. It is a debate forum and I think I'm as serious enough about that.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 57 by amortalman]

You did mention Romans 8:30, and so I made those comments to you as well as anyone else who was following the discussion. (Post #25.)

I think you need to be more specific about what you are referring to in your posts and we can both avoid confusion. When you say "those comments" which comments are you referring to? Which Post are you referring to? Would it be Post 45 and not Post 25? If you did mean Post 45 then you should provide scripture verses that refute Romans 8:30 otherwise you're just giving your opinion instead of scripture evidence. In a Biblical debate, you need to give references from the Bible to substantiate your position. So far you have given nothing even though I have requested it several times.

Respectively, until you start doing that you are wasting my time and we have nothing to debate.

[amortalman]

Quotes are from Post 50 by onewithhim

I disagree...with the Southern Baptists, and with you. When you taste something, you have partaken of it. How silly to mince words and beat about the bush, like the Baptists are doing. When something is clear, and it disagrees with their teaching, they find unbelievably lame excuses for such!

It is not Almighty God's fault for the disagreement among so-called sincere students of the Bible. If one really wants to find the truth, what one has to do is pray to the true God, JEHOVAH (see Psalm 83:18, KJV, and John 17:3), for wisdom, and examine the Scriptures thoroughly---not taking the word of anyone as to what is true. Compare versions, look at Interlinear Bibles, check out the Tanakh by the Jewish Publication Society, read books by people with no irons in any particular fire such as BeDuhn's Truth in Translation, and find out first-hand what other religions might teach rather than taking someone's word for it.

Tell that to a poor peasant in Myanmar who has just gotten a Bible in his language. Common sense tells us that the word of a loving, compassionate, omniscient, omnipotent, God should be written in a way that ALL people who are able to read it in their own language should be able to understand it. But the Bible we have has left many holes through which those seeking truth have fallen.

The Bible is not confusing if you examine it and discover verses that have been corrupted by scribes and copyists, and understand just which manuscripts are valid and which are suspect. The EARLIEST ones would be the most reliable. People who are lazy won't even try to learn the truth.

Dear lady, it is not a matter of laziness. The things you mentioned are the work of scholars, not your everyday housewife or a homeless man in a rescue mission. The fact remains that scholars have investigated such issues and more and come to different conclusions. You have found your version of the truth and I'm sure you believe it with all your heart. You might be right. But it adds nothing to your good stature to put down those who believe they have found the truth also and believe with all their heart.

I apologize if I have "put down" anybody.

"If, if?" You don't need to apologize to me but to the Baptists. According to you they mince words and beat about the bush and they make "lame excuses." Apparently, it seems that anyone who does not understand the Bible the way you do is lazy.

The Bible IS understandable to "the everyday housewife or a homeless man." God has seen to it that anyone can understand it.

If the Bible is understandable why do you advise people to " Compare versions, look at Interlinear Bibles, check out the Tanakh by the Jewish Publication Society, read books by people with no irons in any particular fire such as BeDuhn's Truth in Translation, and find out first-hand what other religions might teach rather than taking someone's word for it."? The extra-Biblical publications you mentioned are decidedly "taking someone's word for it" don't you think?

The King's English of 1611 is hard for us in the 21st century, so many modern-English versions have been produced....but it is plain to see that they leave out certain things.

So the KJV is hard to understand and the modern translations leave things out. Case closed.

Why do many modern versions leave out the personal name of God? It is in the original Hebrew 7,000 times. If we look we can see it (in the form of the four Hebrew letters, Yod Heh Waw Heh---YHWH---pronounced by the King James translators as "Jehovah"), in any Jewish Tanakh. Because of this glaring inconsistency with the truth, some translators have put a lot of work into a version that includes God's name everywhere it appears in the ancient manuscripts, as well as using translations that consider the earliest manuscripts available.

The New World Translation is available to almost every language out there, in the commonly understood vernacular. God has made sure that people all around the world are getting His Word in language they can understand.

But the New World Translation is also a modern translation having come along in the second half of the 20th century. And modern translations leave some things out, as you said. "The NWT attempted to eliminate almost all references to the divinity of Jesus in the New Testament. Another obvious difference (between the NWT and other translations) is the introduction of the name ‘Jehovah’ into the New Testament. This is also an attempt to deny that Jesus is God." https://christianity.stackexchange.com/ ... itnesses-b

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 72 by onewithhim]

Just because you say so? The texts describes a situation that simply shouldn't be possible in the new covenant.

I imagine that more than a simple disagreement over a fellow believers loyalty would cause a "divorce" between two people the Spirit personally had set apart?

No record is given of them ever being reconciled. Only a ever more strained relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem church.

I don't see how you have arrived at your conclusions concerning Paul's "strained relationship" with the governing body in Jerusalem or anybody else. He and Barnabas had a heated argument at one point over Mark going with them on one of their journeys, but they did not remain estranged, as is evident by Paul's consistent positive mentions of Barnabas in his letters (I Corinthians 9:6; Galatians 2:1,9,13; Colossians 4:10). Paul and Peter did not fall out over Paul's reprimanding of Peter in front of everybody, either. They both consistently had good things to say about each other. (2Peter 3:15; Galatians 1:18; 2:9) It can be seen that both Paul and Peter understood both of their relationships with God and Jesus and respected each other for the hard-working Christian men that they were.

Where exactly do you see "an ever more strained relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem church"? Chapter and verse, please, if you will. Thank you.

[onewithhim]

I use a number of versions of the Bible....NAB, NASB, KJV, NIV.

Didn't you leave out the New World Translation?

I don't use it much on these forums because most people here don't accept it as a good version.

[onewithhim]

I use a number of versions of the Bible....NAB, NASB, KJV, NIV.

Didn't you leave out the New World Translation?

Again I say, the focus here is choosing before they are even born. Yes, God chooses those who will reign with Christ, but not before they are born. He chooses after He sees what kind of people they are.....what their heart conditions are.

Paul, in writing to the Christians in Ephesus said in Eph.1:4 :
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

So the Bible clearly teaches something different than what you're believing.

No, it does not. You have not paused to try and understand my point. Do you realize that "the world" that Paul is referring to in Ephesians 1:4 is not the planet, but it is the world of mankind that became alienated from God? The same "world" that is spoken of by the Apostle John at, for example, I John 2:15-17. If you understand that, then you can see, hopefully, that God formed his plan to save this fallen world after Adam sinned and before his offspring was born. Thus it can be said that God chose to have, in the future, a ruling class of people chosen from the earth to be with Christ in heaven, before the founding of "the world," which is the children of Adam that inherited sin and death.

The Bible does not "clearly" teach what you are talking about, which goes against all of Jehovah's high standards and merciful attributes.

[onewithhim]

I think I already covered the "omniscient" thing. God can know what he wants to know, and he can not know what he chooses to not know. He has the ABILITY to be omniscient.

You didn't "cover" it at all! You made a statement that is unsupported by scripture, or at least you haven't as yet provided scripture. In my response, I provided several scriptures that showed God knows everything. I also furnished scripture to show that God chooses the redeemed even before the world was formed.

I must here clarify my position on this. I am not supporting one side or the other on the teaching of Election. When I was a Baptist Christian I came down on the side of Arminius instead of Calvin. But there are versions of beliefs in between the two. One commentator even went so far as to say that the Bible teaches both views (smart man). I am no longer a Christian because of issues like this and others. If a god was really behind the Bible he would have left clear teachings. Instead, according to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version), global Christianity had 33,820 denominations! This means that 33,820 groups of people can't see eye to eye on what this book teaches. There were at one time believed to be near 100,000 different denominations of Christianity. How can anyone state that Biblical teachings are clear?
The whole purpose of my entering this debate was to show that the Bible contradicts itself on many key issues.

If he knew everything before it happened, how could he honestly offer a choice to mankind?

Didn't we cover that ground before?

He would be playing a cruel game by saying to people, "Please choose to honor me and you can keep on living," when he had already condemned some to die.

This "God" is good at playing cruel games. As Richard Dawkins has said, "(he) is the most unpleasant character in all fiction."

(If you're serious about having a meaningful discussion, maybe you can go back and read my post #55, if you haven't already.)

I've already read and responded to #55. This is not a discussion forum. It is a debate forum and I think I'm as serious enough about that.

I did cover the point about omniscience. I was using reasoning (Isaiah 1:18, KJV), taking into consideration God's attributes and how they all must harmonize. If he had chosen who is to live and who is to die before they were even born, he would be the most heinous individual in the universe, and the Bible does not portray him that way. Shall I make note of all of the passages that show how loving, merciful and FAIR God is? I thought that was well-known.

God extends to us free moral agency, the ability to make our own decisions and take responsibility for our choices. This is a privilege that he gives us, rather than creating a bunch of automatons. (Deut.30:19,20; Joshua 24:15; Genesis 2:16,17; Gen.3:11-19; Romans 14:10-12; Hebrews 4:13)

He has taken a sad situation (his first human creations turning against him) and turned it around so that Adam's descendants can be saved from their genetically passed-down dilemma of inheriting sin and death. Jehovah has arranged for all of mankind (if they so choose) to be saved and get back the situation that was Adam's in the beginning---taking care of the earth and everything in it and living in paradise conditions forever. (God's original purpose: Genesis 1:28; 2:15....It will be realized once again: Romans 5:11-15....Clearly those who CHOOSE to be friends with God will live on earth forever: Psalm 37:9,11,29; Isaiah 11:6-9.)

He wants us to live and he wants us to be happy. He has given us so many wonderful things on this planet.

You haven't shown that the Bible contradicts itself. I made a point about that in my post #50, which you seem to have skipped over because you didn't make any comment to show that you even recognized what I said.