Very well, you claim to 'observe' that John and others have been deny the existence of Hell on this thread. Anyone who scrolls through the two pages can see whether that's true. The OP was about whether one must stop sinning to be saved and then you introduced this angle on the topic: "Saints do succumb to sin repeatedly after salvation but they will never, ever turn to different gods or beliefs after salvation." So obviously the thread has been about sin, and still is. With condescension like that it's pretty obvious who's being silly!
I don't think it's as silly as all that. Firstly, there are places where the Bible speaks of fleshly desires as akin to idol worship (Col 3:5, Eph 5:5, Matt 6:24), which begs the question why we are treating idolatry of false Gods as the sin it's impossible for a Christian to commit while, say, love of money, is something that, according to Wretched "...one can put all their time and effort into ... and still be saved." Secondly, your statement above taken to its logical conclusion implies the doctrine of sinless perfectionism, since we could ask it about all sin: "God changes those who become saved. Those who say a saved person can [still sin] is saying God is not powerful to keep a person [from sinning], and are shortchanging God." So again, why say that about the sin of idolatry and not all sin? Thirdly, John's made some good observations about how idolatry might work in practice in today's world that no-one has directly responded to with a 'yes, a Christian is capable of that' or 'no they're not'. Wretched keeps changing the subject so that he can accuse John of not sticking to it--his latest switcheroo is to accuse us all of reading "neo" books, of promoting easy-believism and of denying the existence of hell (seen anyone here do that?)--but actually it's John who's been sticking to the pertinent points, i.e. whether there are certain sins it's impossible for a Christian to commit. Oh yeah, and the easy-believism that's supposedly being 'refuted' here--who exactly has been a proponent of it on here, and where?
I don't believe we have to repent of "all sin". I think when the average person gets saved there are a multitude of sinful acts they get remission for that they don't even recognise as sinful acts--some perhaps which they may not recognise as sin before they die. In fact, it's implicit in the idea of having faith in a redeemer that we can rely on that redeemer to wash us of our sins even if we fail to recognise all that is sin. So in that bit you quoted, I certainly wasn't saying that desiring to stop sinning meant a capacity to identify every specific sinful act that one has ever committed and consciously reject each and every one. What I meant by "desiring to follow God instead of a life of sin" was that a person recognises that there is such a thing a sin--as doing things that violate God's will--and they know they want to do God's will rather than violate it, i.e. they wish to follow God. When they put their faith in God's grace and Jesus' work on the cross to pay for their sins, they do so because they want to follow Christ, not just because they want to get away with it (although I'm not sure we can deny an element of self-interest). Let's say I become convinced that Jesus is God, that he died on the cross and rose again, paying for our sins in so doing, and that we can be saved by believing on this work. Let's say I respond by saying: "What an idiot! I really hate God and I want to do whatever I can to grieve him. But I also want to get away with it and I've become convinced that Jesus is Lord, which means I might not get away with it. But I'm also convinced that Jesus has paid for my sins on the cross and that he offers forgiveness if I'll only accept it. Well, though I think he's an idiot for doing that, I'll take it thank you very much! That way I can carry on doing my favourite hobby--hating God--and there'll be no comeback. Bonus!" In that scenario, I've "changed my mind" and come to believe that Jesus is God--is Lord--and that his work on the cross saves me from my sins. I'm also still totally against God and pro sin. Yet you say that bit doesn't matter, i.e. that the hypothetical "me" above would be saved.
Ok, well the first point I want to make is about what you are claiming the OB statement is saying. I think you believe "repent" means to stop doing something and therefore you think when the OB statement says a person must "repent of their sins" to be saved, logically it is saying that a person must have stopped sinning before they can be saved. You appear to say this in the other thread too. The thing is, in that other thread, Heartstrings explained that this is not at all what people here mean when they something like 'repent of sin' or 'turn from sin'. And when he explained it, you were cool with it. Yet now we have you trying to make exactly the same point all over again as if that conservation never happened. Moreover, in the text I've highlighted in red you say that you are not claiming that the OB statement declares we have to stop sinning to be saved. Yet not only does your original post seem to make that accusation but you appear to repeat the accusation just a few lines earlier in the paragraph above (highlighted in blue). Here again: You: "Wording it, the way OB did, and many churches do, leaves people with a false belief that they must get the sin out of their life to qualify for salvation." You again: "I never said the author is saying we must stop sinning..." Ok, so what does the phrase "get the sin out of their life to qualify for salvation" mean if it doesn't mean stop sinning? Or are you trying to make the distinction that OB is saying it unwittingly? If so, then saying something unwittingly is still saying it, so we're still back to the question: are you saying OB claims we must stop sinning to be saved or not? You say: "I never said the author is saying we must stop sinning, but it is also untrue that it means that we must be willing, or we have to be sorry." So are you claiming that OB's statement--"a person must repent of their sins"--also can't possibly mean rejecting sin in principle, desiring to stop sinning, desiring to follow God instead of a life of sin etc etc, however you want to phrase it? Very well, if the phrase means neither stopping sinning nor desiring to no longer sin and no longer be against God, then what do you say it does mean? According to you, what is OB's statement really saying? Second point I want to make is to do with your own claim about what we need to repent of: "I will admit, we must repent of certain sins to enter the kingdom of heaven... Which sin must we repent of? ... idolatry, unbelief, false religion." Now, if we accept your definition of repentance as 'stopping doing stuff', consistent with your interpretation of 'repent of sin' as 'stopping doing sin', then it follows that what you are saying here is that we must have successfully stopped 'doing' any idolatry, unbelief or false religion before we can be saved. In other words, a person must not have an ounce of unbelief or uncertainty, they must be nothing less than 100% faithful to God and not ever be tempted or swayed by other things, and they must be 100% correct on all doctrine. Once they have achieved all those things, they can be saved. And should a 'saved' person ever experience doubt or uncertainty, or take their eyes off God even for a moment, or turn out to be doctrinally wrong, presumably they must actually have been unsaved all along. Is that your view? It sounds like it if we accept your definition of repentance. I'm unsaved according to that definition.
You know, Matt, given your comments in that other thread about salvation and these comments here now, it really does look like you're doing your uttermost to interpret folks' understanding of salvation on here as some kind of works salvation. I worry I'm overly jumpy when it comes to people trying to outline their beliefs about salvation--you seem to take it to another level. Firstly, here's what the board's statement really says: In blue is a section you hacked out of your quote. I don't see anything in this quote that could be interpreted as man having to stop committing sins in order to be saved. Do you mean something else when you say "quitting bad"? Secondly, if you think a statement is unclear or you question its meaning, why not begin by politely asking for an explanation, instead of telling the author what they are saying in bold font? And lastly, why do you want to be on an web forum where you find yourself challenging the mods to throw you off? Doesn't that suggest you consider yourself to be strongly at odds with everyone here, or at least the admin? If I thought I was enemy no.1 on a forum, I'd decide whether to change my behaviour in order to stay or else leave by myself.
I've not watched the video and don't know anywhere near enough about eschatology to speak to it, but I do have a question, prompted by Alan's request for a definition of the word 'Zionist'. On this forum I hear the word 'antisemitic' and 'antisemite' used a lot. Where I live, the word is most often used when talking about someone like a holocaust denier or a Nazi sympathiser. Alan, since you're the person who's used the word on this thread, would you be up for giving a definition of the word 'antisemite'? And by that I mean a definition in your own words--obviously I can look up dictionary definitions for myself. John81 was talking about Anderson's approach and presentation, not yours, Alan! lol
I didn't say there had been any misconduct at all, I just referred to the letter's allegations of misconduct since that's what the letter was about--and I was careful to call them that both times I mentioned them. I didn't say you did or didn't do a thing (how would I know?) so you making it clear in a previous post that the allegations are untrue isn't relevant to my comments. Exactly my point. The letter and the meeting weren't about whose stance on tithing was correct--that you and they thought the other was wrong was already a given. The meeting and letter were about whether you had been openly putting down the church's position, the broad question being whether you could be part of the church despite disagreeing with them on tithing. Yet had you been allowed to attend the meeting, you say you would have used it to reopen the debate between you and them about tithing itself, i.e. defending your position and rejecting theirs. Ok, so what if you had defended your view on tithing and the other people in the room had said "we still disagree"? You've just said that agreeing to disagree is out of the question for you, so what option would you have had left? Well, the phrase "agree to disagree", in my part of the world at least, means that the parties mutually understand that they can live together with that point of contention; it isn't a 'deal breaker' to their associating in other regards. It doesn't mean one accepts the view of the other--quite the opposite. So the reason your focus "wouldn't be" on who's correct about tithing (in our hypothetical scenario where you are attending the meeting) would be if you wanted to settle the question of whether you could be part of the church despite disagreement in that area. But it sounds like you weren't at all interested in that question. Ok, so you told them you were coming back--that doesn't mean anything by itself.
Sorry to hear this has happened Linda and SFIC. What I find interesting about their letter and your accompanying comments on the blog post is that you reject various allegations about your conduct and complain that you weren't given a hearing at the meeting. Yet you also say that if you had been allowed to attend the meeting, you would have gone not to address the allegations of misconduct but instead to debate the church over their position on tithing: And when you did reply to their letter, you chose to focus on the issue of tithing itself, rather than whether you and the church could agree to disagree on it: So after all it does sound like you weren't prepared to remain at the church unless they changed their understanding of tithing to match yours.
This response from Leonard is just a bald assertion, a piece of rhetoric even, that doesn't explain anything at all, let alone address the criticisms (John's above, and mine from two weeks ago) of this particular argument of his.