Panzer of the lake Anime

Hi ScarTheLionKing

The answer is that all sins are not equal as they vary in type and severity.

With that said however, all sins of every kind is enough to damn one in eternity in Hell, There is no Purgatory in scripture.

And in Hell, one's punishment is according to the severity of each sin and how many are committed.

You really seem to know your stuff, It's good to have someone like you on imgflip

There are some things I know, and others I do not; but thank you.

Are you a Christian?

Yes I am

And are you a Catholic or a Protestant?

Protestant, specifically Wesleyan. You?

That is one of the first times I've heard someone specifically name their soteriologicial postion as a church affiliation unless you meant to say that that is the name of your denomination. :) I'm a Reformed Baptist.

Ha, had to look that word up. Denomination, but I also agree with the theology behind it.

The History of the Church have been blessed with those from the Arminian perspective which happened to be yours as the Wesleyian brothers through them spread the Gospel farther than my own Reformed lot.

If you don't know, John Arminius before his death sparked an argument between two camps: those who agree with him which has in it's center: Free Will, and... the other camp being God's Sovreignty as it's center.

There was a split, and each group, sometimes clash or persecute each other. Thank God that didn't last long, as we are really Brothers and Sisters in the faith as we both agree that salvation is not to be earned or merited.

The difference being only this mainly: can a believer lose his/her salvation

Ah yes, there it is. Calvinism and Arminianism. That's always an interesting discussion. I know several Baptists (including a freewill) and I've had some discussions with them on that. It's actually very thought provoking and a few years back when I first heard about the whole debate I had to go and decide exactly what I believe (which is that we do have freewill...buuuuuut I lean into a little bit of Calvinistic thinking at times).

That was my experience as well, but I hated Calvinism with a bit of passion. I saw their beliefs as an antithesis to God's love. An abbaration to Christianity, I also saw them as elitests, thinking that they saw themselves as special which makes me think they're on hte very fringes of Christianity,

But I began to adopt more and more of Calvinist thought the more I hung out with them.

Both sides have really good arguments; despite my recently aquired soteriology (study of salvaton), I find myself gravitating towards my former beliefs.

Thanks, I'll have to check it out

Welcome to the stream, ScarTheLionKing! :)

Let me know what you think of it; if it is adequete, deficient, or something you'd like to correct.

Well yeah, that was kind of the main thing that made me decide I was more Arminian because God's love is available to all. Now there's no denying that the Bible says a lot of things that support the idea of predestination (in the sense that God specifically chose who would be saved, not just foresaw it). The way I've come to understand this recently is through Matthew 18:18 "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." And John 20:23 "If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." Which would mean that God DOES ultimately soften their hearts to open them to the Gospel, but that it's also up to US to pray that it does happen. That's what I've come up with at least.

You know, you're also one of the first I've seen who can prove his/her beliefs with scripture and explain what it means

With the given verses I've never thought of it that way before. It does seem to show that things are determined by our actions rather than the preordination of God. Now, I don't qute see it that way, that the verses support the notion that God ultimately soften hearts (of whoevver hears the Gospel message), but as for prayer... maybe. It is the act that we can do, most assuredly, but that doesn't really say that in the two verses you've given.

BTW I have to go and talk to another person, but may I invite you to a stream I've created?

imgflip.com/m/Evangelicalism

With what I saw from you, you would be an invaluable member of the group because you'r one of the only ones i've met who knows doctrine and theology. The only other person besides me is Kate, a good friend of mine, but she is a Roman Catholic... not Evangelical like you and I.

You will see there that I've posted a number of memes already that is in relations to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. I would absolutely love it if you can contribute.

And of course.... whether one is predestined or not.

Yeah, I believe that you can lose it, but you're not going to lose it because you sin. Now if you're just doing whatever you want and ignoring God's commands completely then you wouldn't be saved but I believe that if you're trying to follow God then He's not going to turn away from you

Just to be sure, those who live, doing whatever they like, because they never believed in th first place?

Or they did believe, thus they're saved, but ended up living in unreptentance as if they never did believe. They therefore lost their salvation?

The second one

So, it is the matter of the will, and not because of sin, correct?

Yes

I'm going to think it over... thank you for answering my questions.

For me, there is an existing problem in my mind, and... i'm not faulting you, I think you've given an answer that put me at ease.. for the moment. What would truly give me peace is if you believe in Eternal Security, for in it, no works would ever factor in one's salvation

I think Arminians who do not believe in Eternal Security, walks a fine and worrisome line between a soteriology that teaches Sola Fide, and Works-Righteousness.

Those who do believei n Sola Fide would most likely answer the way you did.

However, those who do not believe in Sola Fide would most certianly be ones who teaches that salvation must be earned.

It is those Arminians who do believe that are not saved.

The reason why I'm not totally at ease with yourr belief is that the person's will can be a work for it is a person's effort. Effort is a work. One could say that salvation is gained by faith alone but .. is it maintained by Christ or one;s will? So can you really say that you believe in Sola Fide?

Might as well translate that as a work.

That's fine.
We are saved through our faith. It's the works that faith produces that aren't enough because works don't save us.

So faith and works go hand in hand but has no bearing in our salvation. However, why then use James 2:14-26 with regard to salvation?

You're welcome.
I do believe that we are not saved by works, but I also believe that works will naturally stem from faith (James 2:14-26). That's not to say that we're not going to keep making mistakes, because we are, but we're going to try and be better.

I'mn afraid that you've just used my ultimate test. And the test is, how do you interpret James 2:14-26?

Why that is because all those who believes in works-righteousness gospel used that verse to justify their false gospel. It's their flagship verse be it Catholics, Church of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, LDS, etc. They always deny that they're earning their salvation, but there's always a BUT to their disclaimer.

"Yes, we don't earn our salvation, but, the Bible did say that Faith without works is dead. You not only have to have faith, but worlks as well in order to be saved".

So, how do you interpret thart verse? Is it in relations to salvation?

Well you have to make the conscious choice to put your faith in Jesus. It's not that you choosing that saves you, but that it's what allows Jesus to save you.

"Well you have to make the conscious choice to put your faith in Jesus. It's not that you choosing that saves you, but that it's what allows Jesus to save you."

Yes, that most certainly true when you give your life to Christ. We call that "Saving Faith", but is that needed throughout a believer's life?

Works are a kind of proof of your faith, but it's the faith that saves you

That's exactly how I interrpet James 2. Vs 14 or 17 is what the unbelieving would use, but the context is vs' 15-16, & 18.

Am i correct in saying that you brought up James 2 simply to say that we're not saved by works, but at the same time, works proves to people around us that we're saved?

I interpret it to mean that our faith will produce works. We still aren't justified by these works though, because it still isn't enough.

Works isn't enough so one needs faith to complete it?

Ok good, we're on the same page then

I'm glad I'm understanding you. Would it be safe to say then that you believe in Sola Fide, only that you do not believe in Eternal Security?

Yes, and not just to complete it cause that's really the whole thing

The whole thing being that faith is the key to one's life, not just salvation?

Yes, exactly

Yes, that is correct

I can't think of anything in the stream that needs correcting at the moment

OK. As said before, feel free to add to it.

BTW, I do want to ask you this question because I've just remembered a continuing issue that Arminians struggle with.

Some Arminians believe in Sola Fide, and others do not. I think those who do believe it retained their belief in that believers can lose thier salvation, but it's not because of an act of sin/disobedience, but simply a decision to walk away.

Other Arminians however believes not in Sola Fide because they believe that there's a certain point when God's patience runs out. I'm guessing at this point because I havem't spoken to those types of Arminians as most I do fellowship are believers in Eternal Security (and as an Arminian at the time, I do also believe it; wholeheartedly in fact).

As an Arminian, where do you fall into this? do you believe in Sola Fide? Why or why not, and do you believe in Eternal Security?

Umm, well without Christ's salvation there would be nothing we could put our faith in at all. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're asking

No, I was not sure what you've meant when you've said, "We still aren't justified by these works though, because it still isn't enough."

It is the latter part of your sentence I wasn't sure of.

Oh, sorry, I can see how that could be confusing. I meant that the works still aren't enough, even if they are stemming from faith because it's not the works that save us

Hi ScarTheLionKing, sorry for the abrupt end of our conversation.

So faith and works, even if they're together, still are not enough to save?

Well I mean "Christians" are going off on gays when they completely ignore the sin where it says to not wear clothes with two kinds of fabric or something like that. So I guess that kind of speaks for itself

Well first I'd like to say thank you, cause I've always wondered why that rule was made and you've gotten me to try and find out. I've been looking into it but it's late at night so I'm gonna let it be for now and see if anything comes to me. Now about the other part of your statement about "Christians" being unfair to gays, I can probably agree with. God commands us to love everyone and that applies to...well everyone. I don't have to agree with someone's lifestyle to be able to share Christ's love with them. We can have a whole other discussion on that if you want but I didn't want to make this too long.

I agree with every word in that paragraph :)

I actually am kinda curious about "mingling linen and wool" too, now.

And for the last part: "Love one another as I have loved you," and I don't think that meant just old, straight, white, cis gender men. I am not very religious (and by that I mean I haven't gone to a Catholic Church in like a million years,) but I know that one line that doesn't even say the word "homosexual", probably doesn't trump everything Jesus and God stand for.

Ok, here's what I've got. So there are 3 kinds of laws found in the Old Testament: Civil, Ceremonial, and Moral. I'll address the Ceremonial laws first since I'm most familiar with that idea. The Ceremonial laws are the ones that dictated how the Israelites were to go about with worship and sacrifices. When Jesus died on the cross He fulfilled all those laws regarding sacrifices and priests, meaning that we no longer have to observe those, as Jesus was the perfect sacrifice and because He is also our high priest who mediates between us and God. The Civil Laws were those dealing with Israel as a nation, those that set them apart. These would be the ones dealing with what they could and couldn't eat and the like. The law about not wearing garments of mixed materials falls into this category. In Mark 7:18-19 Jesus declares that all foods are now clean, meaning that the laws regarding unclean foods no longer apply since there no longer IS unclean food. From what I understand this also applies to the garments since in Mark 7:18 He said "whatever goes into a person from the outside cannot defile him." And as we are not the nation of Israel, nor do we replace them as a nation, these civil laws don't apply to us since "there is neither Jew nor Gentile." In both these cases of the Ceremonial and Civil law, Jesus doesn't abolish the Law. He made it clear that that's not what He came to do. Since He fulfilled the Ceremonial law we do not need to adhere to it, but rather to Him. He made the civil law obsolete by 1) His statement that what comes from the outside does not defile a man, and 2) because Christianity is not set up as a nation with its own civil law. As for the Moral law, that's what's still around. It serves as a guideline for how we are to follow Jesus. That was really long and my brain's tuckered out. I hope that made sense!

Interesting. Thanks for the info!

*thumbs up*
You're welcome, God bless!

God bless

No such thing as 'cis gendered'.

I'm talking about men who are born with a male body and go throughout life as a man. (Not transgender)

All you had to say is straight. And what was the point of including white in that statement?

In that statement, I'm talking about all the problems such as ageism, homophobia, and racism. Adding all those up, really the most powerful people in at least the US has been old white straight men throughout history. It's changing a lot but there is still much more work to be done. I sense some frustration, so I would like to apologise if I have offended you in anyway. I was only having a conversation with someone about my thoughts on a question that was asked.

No, I was just curious about your views, you didn't offend me.

If non white non straight men or women want to become powerful, there's nothing stopping them. In fact, they benefit off of the only racist policy on the books, affirmative action.

I agree, there absolutely is nothing stopping them. There are plenty of powerful women and African American people and lgbt+ leaders in the world. Just throughout history it has mostly just been white men in the USA. Just take one look at a list of US presidents. We're absolutely getting somewhere but equality doesn't happen overnight.

That sin was a reminder from God not to mix with other tribes during those times. Once again, an atheist bashes something they have zero understanding of.